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.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoAll fair points. You didn’t answer the only question I posed you though.
- jokoon 2y agoIf they are approved by the FDA and prescribed by a doctor, yes. Because it's normal for me that I trust institutions who have their reputation and exist for the good of the public, not because I can just find a few vocal experts who disagree. Again, like I said: pharmacodynamics. It's unlikely there is going to be a pill of psilo, it would rather be an alternate, similar, synthetic molecule that last longer in the bloodstream. Microdosing would not work, or would require to be taken every 6 hours. I would gladly have one of those "session" where you take psilo while being supervised, if a doctor (or 3, since one doctor can be biased) can recommend it to me as being relevant. I am not even legitimate to diagnose what sort of depression I would have, so right away, I trust doctors, because that's how medicine works.
- manuelmoreale 2y agoOk then how do you get to the point where they can be approved by FDA if not by doing this sort of trials? I don’t see what your issue is with this process. You seem a rational person so it’s confusing to me. These compounds may or may not work better than traditional AD. The only way to figure out is by doing these trials. If they don’t work then it was worth trying, that’s how you progress. If they do work that’s awesome, we now have a better tool to fight against mental health issues.
- jokoon 2y agoI have nothing against trials, but to me the title is a bit editorialized. Summarizing a study that is not a very interesting breakthrough smells like it attempt to promote something, but at least the article talks a lot about caution. It's okay to talk about studies, it's just that it is a controversial subject, in my view, and the internet is not the most skeptical place, especially when it comes with medicine, which involves the health of people, which matters, unlike the earth being flat or round. That sort of article will usually be shown by some people as a scientific proof that justifies their consumption of psilo instead of listening to a doctor, which is the real thing that bothers me. Believe me, I want psilo to be an antidepressant as much as everybody, but I want doctors and institutions like the FDA to validate it. It's the same for everything. If 1/3 of the scientists in that field would sign a letter that says psilo is a viable antidepressant and a treatment, that might change my mind too.