3 ms·

> Please read the original Phase III and earlier studies where they thoroughly address these questions under the treatment modalities being tested. The problem

> Please read the original Phase III and earlier studies where they thoroughly address these questions under the treatment modalities being tested. The problem is these drugs aren't being presented as dangerous pharmaceuticals that still have worthwhile cost-benefit ratios for certain serious conditions. Instead the "drugs are good" crowd actually argues, laughably, that they're completely safe, and safer than alcohol (I don't drink, btw), despite extremely good observational data suggesting moderate drinking doesn't increase all-cause mortality, while no similar data at present exists for these drugs. Here's an example of something they never discuss: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/06/hppd-and-the-specter-of-permanent-side-effects/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/06/hppd-and-the-specter-o... The "microdosing" fad is one of the best examples of how uninformed people are about the dangers of psychedelics, thanks to the propaganda. If I polled 100 of these microdosers at random and asked them about 5HT2B, do you honestly think more than half would know what I was talking about, and what my concerns are? Yeah, some are highly informed and know what risks they're taking, but they're the exception.

tbalsam 3y ago
This is a rather opinionated take, to be honest. For sure, there are dangers, but I find this to be a rather extreme view. Some drugs have a narrow dosing window. Some have a wider dosing window. Some have serious dangers associated with them. This is a core part of psychopharmacology, as you likely well know. Strawmanning and extremifying arguments can perpetuate an echo chamber but not much else. Most people I talk to who support psychedelics seem to have a very reasonable and mature approach to the topic. Some people of course will have extreme views on either side but that is bound to happen. Also, safer than alcohol is a... horrendously poor comparison to use. Alcohol actually is quite a dangerous drug, and MDMA I'd put up there but one step below if misused. I'm not sure where you anchored alcohol's safety here, it's very much implicated in a number of very bad things healthwise, not to mention addiction. The withdrawal syndrome alone is fatal in the wrong circumstances, something even drugs like heroin can't claim. Once again on the microdosing side, I'm not sure what "propaganda" you're referring to. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on the topic. MDMA of course is not microdosed, though LSD and psilocybin still could be candidates on the table for that. However, as far as I understand from the literature, the concerns you presented strongly are still based on theoretical evidence. It's not guaranteed, and as in all things, it for now is in the realm of "we don't know". Caution is good. All in all, every drug class has problems and potential issues. We find those out with time and studies. Using caution as we figure that out is good. Strongly bashing things or putting down entire cultures of people with opinions that they generally don't hold is less so. I can't speak to much more than that, and these are just my own personal opinions after all. Extremely selective-to-5ht2a ligands will likely be something that gains momentum over the coming decades unfortunately, but thankfully at least so far with the history of use that we see, so far there's not necessarily a clear smoking "negative gun" as far as I personally see. But tools are tools, and different tools have different risks, and I personally believe/feel that we should treat them as such.

tbalsam 3y ago

This is a rather opinionated take, to be honest. For sure, there are dangers, but I find this to be a rather extreme view. Some drugs have a narrow dosing window. Some have a wider dosing window. Some have serious dangers associated with them. This is a core part of psychopharmacology, as you likely well know. Strawmanning and extremifying arguments can perpetuate an echo chamber but not much else. Most people I talk to who support psychedelics seem to have a very reasonable and mature approach to the topic. Some people of course will have extreme views on either side but that is bound to happen. Also, safer than alcohol is a... horrendously poor comparison to use. Alcohol actually is quite a dangerous drug, and MDMA I'd put up there but one step below if misused. I'm not sure where you anchored alcohol's safety here, it's very much implicated in a number of very bad things healthwise, not to mention addiction. The withdrawal syndrome alone is fatal in the wrong circumstances, something even drugs like heroin can't claim. Once again on the microdosing side, I'm not sure what "propaganda" you're referring to. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on the topic. MDMA of course is not microdosed, though LSD and psilocybin still could be candidates on the table for that. However, as far as I understand from the literature, the concerns you presented strongly are still based on theoretical evidence. It's not guaranteed, and as in all things, it for now is in the realm of "we don't know". Caution is good. All in all, every drug class has problems and potential issues. We find those out with time and studies. Using caution as we figure that out is good. Strongly bashing things or putting down entire cultures of people with opinions that they generally don't hold is less so. I can't speak to much more than that, and these are just my own personal opinions after all. Extremely selective-to-5ht2a ligands will likely be something that gains momentum over the coming decades unfortunately, but thankfully at least so far with the history of use that we see, so far there's not necessarily a clear smoking "negative gun" as far as I personally see. But tools are tools, and different tools have different risks, and I personally believe/feel that we should treat them as such.