3 ms·

1. The article doesn't say the sample are diagnosed with depression, that rings an alarm, that should be an important parameter. 2. The article says SEVERAL ti

by jokoon 2y ago

1. The article doesn't say the sample are diagnosed with depression, that rings an alarm, that should be an important parameter. 2. The article says SEVERAL times that the results should be taken with caution and a grain of salt, for several reasons explained. 3. psilo, AS IS, doesn't have good pharmacodynamics, meaning it doesn't stay very long in the bloodstream, which doesn't make it suitable as a REAL TREATMENT like prescribed AD, that mean you would have a spike of an effect and a fast come-down. That's bad. Of course it works in a controlled environment, but it's not an everyday treatment, that leads to point 5. 4. So as always, this shows a road for synthetic "copies" of that substance that would imitate the active effect, but psilo cannot compete with classic AD. This is still good, but to me, it's not worthy news about AD, I would still hold my breath. 5. I am bothered because those headlines can be read by people with depression who might seek psilo as a medicine if AD aren't enough. People with depression are already quite vulnerable, and there are many stories of people having permanent side effects.

Gormo 2y ago
The fact that you think people are vulnerable does not give you the right to usurp their decision-making agency from them, nor to argue that valid information should be hidden from them. If it bothers you that they might misinterpret information or make questionable decisions, feel free to take the initiative on your own to provide them with reliable information and offer guidance in helping them make good decisions, within a context of mutual trust and accountability. If you're not willing to do that, then the best option is to keep out of it entirely. But arguing for third parties with their own agenda to forcefully usurp their right to make their own decisions and censor information from them, just to satisfy your own feelings of concern -- derived from speculation about the situation of strangers you have no relationship with or accountability to -- is profoundly immoral.

by jokoon 2y ago

Gormo 2y ago

The fact that you think people are vulnerable does not give you the right to usurp their decision-making agency from them, nor to argue that valid information should be hidden from them. If it bothers you that they might misinterpret information or make questionable decisions, feel free to take the initiative on your own to provide them with reliable information and offer guidance in helping them make good decisions, within a context of mutual trust and accountability. If you're not willing to do that, then the best option is to keep out of it entirely. But arguing for third parties with their own agenda to forcefully usurp their right to make their own decisions and censor information from them, just to satisfy your own feelings of concern -- derived from speculation about the situation of strangers you have no relationship with or accountability to -- is profoundly immoral.