18 ms·

You cited the one case in recorded history which I already pointed out existed. It's not the data that's questionable but the circumstances. His two friends ate

by jfyi 1y ago

You cited the one case in recorded history which I already pointed out existed. It's not the data that's questionable but the circumstances. His two friends ate from the same batch and were fine. I'd say that counts squarely as "no evidence". Besides, I asked for 5 citations. Also, you can keep the off topic babbling to a minimum. We are talking about the lack of evidence of renal failure resulting from psilocybe cubensis.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
Not really, the Proof burden falls on people to verify something poorly studied is safe, keeping their petulance in check, and acknowledging their BS when proven harmful. What seems like a detractor is an allusion to some therapeutic psychiatric citations describing native shamanistic traditions as some sort of qualifying safety feature in compounds. I really can't be bothered to pull more papers folks seem to simply ignore. The trivial counter-proof is there, and it is unethical to harm people for more data. Best of luck, and please keep an eye open for early signs of renal failure like persistent excessive foaming in urine etc. =3
- jfyi 1y ago
  So, you have zero examples and I have thousands of years of use with no evidence of what you claim. Burden of proof is definitely on you.
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    Except the physicians peer-reviewed published diagnostic data proving renal failure side-effects. Good luck, most Dealers/Junkies engage in argumentum ad hominem when confronted with their exploitive/maladaptive coping behavior. We will have to agree to disagree, =3
    - jfyi 1y ago
      Which clearly exist only in your head. Disagree all you want, you failed to defend your point.
      - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
        too lazy... no longer care about your problems https://www.medlink.com/articles/neurologic-presentations-of-hallucinogenic-magic-mushroom-intoxication-and-poisoning https://www.medlink.com/articles/neurologic-presentations-of... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1336442/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1336442/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211753918301490 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221175391...
        jfyi 1y ago
        Ahhh, I can reply now! Would you like to give up? It's a bad look my man. See the other post for current status of this thread.
      - jfyi 1y ago
        The very first one states the mushroom was misidentified. I'll assume from there you failed to read any of it. Edit: lol, here's the paper he cited and deleted: https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/11/11/2324/1901452?redirectedFrom=PDF&login=false https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/11/11/2324/190... The 4th one is the one you already admitted had bad data. At least one of the other two clearly states that the mushroom was unidentified. You will have to read or delete both.

by jfyi 1y ago

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

Not really, the Proof burden falls on people to verify something poorly studied is safe, keeping their petulance in check, and acknowledging their BS when proven harmful. What seems like a detractor is an allusion to some therapeutic psychiatric citations describing native shamanistic traditions as some sort of qualifying safety feature in compounds. I really can't be bothered to pull more papers folks seem to simply ignore. The trivial counter-proof is there, and it is unethical to harm people for more data. Best of luck, and please keep an eye open for early signs of renal failure like persistent excessive foaming in urine etc. =3

jfyi 1y ago
So, you have zero examples and I have thousands of years of use with no evidence of what you claim. Burden of proof is definitely on you.
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  Except the physicians peer-reviewed published diagnostic data proving renal failure side-effects. Good luck, most Dealers/Junkies engage in argumentum ad hominem when confronted with their exploitive/maladaptive coping behavior. We will have to agree to disagree, =3
  - jfyi 1y ago
    Which clearly exist only in your head. Disagree all you want, you failed to defend your point.
    - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
      too lazy... no longer care about your problems https://www.medlink.com/articles/neurologic-presentations-of-hallucinogenic-magic-mushroom-intoxication-and-poisoning https://www.medlink.com/articles/neurologic-presentations-of... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1336442/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1336442/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211753918301490 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221175391...
      - jfyi 1y ago
        Ahhh, I can reply now! Would you like to give up? It's a bad look my man. See the other post for current status of this thread.
    - jfyi 1y ago
      The very first one states the mushroom was misidentified. I'll assume from there you failed to read any of it. Edit: lol, here's the paper he cited and deleted: https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/11/11/2324/1901452?redirectedFrom=PDF&login=false https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-abstract/11/11/2324/190... The 4th one is the one you already admitted had bad data. At least one of the other two clearly states that the mushroom was unidentified. You will have to read or delete both.