3 ms·

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.