4 ms·
The "surprising way" is by using a derivate of LSD. I'd argue that the surprise is rather on this: "In clinical trials, a single dose significantly outperforme
by Rygian 7mo ago
The "surprising way" is by using a derivate of LSD.
I'd argue that the surprise is rather on this: "In clinical trials, a single dose significantly outperformed standard treatments, offering hope to those who have found little relief elsewhere."
- jijijijij 7mo agoCalling it the "pharmaceutical form" is borderline misinformation, considering it's just a common salt of LSD. You can get that outside the pharmacy. It's not like actual LSD is ever made in some dirty improv meth lab. Likewise, nobody expects researchers to buy their drugs on the streets. It's just LSD. This "say no to drugs" drug did the trick.
- goodmythical 7mo agoCall me a luddite, but I'd personally honestly preferring knowing my chemist so that I can be relatively certain there's no 2-ci or whatever bs the kids are cutting with or straight up substituting these days. My understanding is that, today in the US (and other markets so far as I know), it is far easier to know a pharmacist than a genuine LSD chemist, though I am several years out of that particular market. Would be nice to know there's been a resurgence of access to ergot via improvement in Claviceps growth or some nifty novel synthesis we didn't have a few years ago.
- throwforfeds 7mo agoWhile I agree that I'd love to have a guarantee on purity, the way to do that is just to make LSD legal, rather than have some private equity backed pharma company tie up the supply. LSD should be a case like insulin or the polio vaccine, as it offers an immense amount of potential for the planet. Sure, if they want to make money by offering retreats in clinical settings for people too afraid to spend an afternoon with a loved one on 100ug of LSD, by all means. But jumping through hoops to lock up the supply of a truly revolutionary molecule that could improve the lives of millions just feels bad to me. Edit: Also, no one is putting 2c-i on a tab of LSD. The doses are way different (~100ug vs 15mg) and chemists that make LSD tend to be pretty sold on it's potential to help humanity and try to keep the supply as pure as possible. You may be thinking of "tusi" or pink cocaine, which is a drug mixture that tends to have ketamine and mdma mixed, and often has had fentanyl creep into the supply. Someone just decided to name it similar to Shulgin's 2C class of drugs for some reason, which is annoying and dangerous.
- dessimus 7mo agoExcept just legalization is no guarantee of safety or purity. Look at the Vitamin Industry as an example. The general public thinks that manufacturers of those bottles in the vitamin aisle are required to follow the same standards set by the FDA as those in OTC pain relief in the next aisle over.
- throwforfeds 7mo agowell yes, of course. I'd assume any mind altering substance should have purity standards if legal and not treated like buying herbal supplements. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
- jijijijij 7mo agoYeah, of course that's all legit concerns and demands. However, I dislike the notion this "dangerous street drug" was graciously made to somethings "useful" and safe by the pharma industry. It's the same its always been. Especially around the time of its prohibition. I am calling out a pattern. It's a bit similar to pharma going into the jungle, taking some natural compound (possibly known to an indigenous tribe), modifying the chemistry just enough to patent it and call it a miracle. The dealer gets life in prison, the Sackler family literally killed thousands, but merely had to pay a fine and do some rebranding. If LSD wasn't arbitrarily outlawed, your concerns wouldn't exist. ID and purity considerations are purely consequences of being made illegal. It was always synthesized by highly educated and responsible chemists, because the chemistry demands it. It was never an honest public health concern, it's not addictive, practically lacking any toxicity. MDMA also got this treatment. Immersion with the collectivist teachings of Christ was decided a sinful desire, but now treating the PR problem of broken cogs in the war machine may be ruled acceptable in the eyes of God.
- cluckindan 7mo agoSandoz was the first to manufacture LSD under the product name Delysid.
- jijijijij 7mo agoFair enough. But I think you know what I mean.
- lelanthran 7mo ago> The "surprising way" is by using a derivate of LSD. What's the difference between a derivate and a derivative? (I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know)
- IAmBroom 7mo agoNear as I can tell, they are essentially synonyms, but in practice "derivate" is "a product obtained chemically from a raw material", while "derivative" tends to be used in the mathematical or financial senses.
- gausswho 7mo agoKinda like orient and orientate. Maybe there's a word for this class of variations. Or variants?
- danaris 7mo agoOr variates?
- SAI_Peregrinus 7mo agoIf there isn't already, "variantate" seems appropriate to mean "inappropriately adding the suffix -ate".
- tokai 7mo agoMM120 is just a patented LSD. So its just a brandname LSD.
- ksaj 7mo agoExactly. The medical cannabis industry has been doing this right from the start. Thankfully they do tell you what strains they got their cultivar from, though.
- throwforfeds 7mo agoThey can control the supply and make more money off of it. And you can pay lobbiests to make sure the original LSD stays illegal.
- titzer 7mo agoWhy can't they just put it in the title of the article instead of classic clickbait tactics? Ugh.
- daft_pink 7mo agoI agree. I have anxiety sometimes, but I’m not about to start taking LSD. I’m not going to risk a permanent psychological crisis to reduce my anxiety. It’s not really a cure if it has a even a small percentage chance of causing something much worse.
- butlike 7mo agoFair point. You know your body the best and should be the final arbiter of what's ingested. Side point and question: Can't SSRIs cause Serotonin Syndrome? Doesn't the reduction of anxiety come with a small percentage chance of causing something much worse?
- tmaly 7mo agoThere will always be a need to drive more clicks and more comments.
- aswegs8 7mo agoIt is no derivate. It's just the tartrate salt of LSD. There is no pharmacological difference. It's like saying I got this new Magnesium Tartrate which is now different to the Magnesium Oxide / Citrate / Glycinate / whatever you are taking. It might affect stability or absorption rate or similar, but Tartrate itself doesn't have an effect.
- IAmBroom 7mo ago> It is no derivate. It's just the tartrate salt of LSD. I think you're unclear on the meaning of "derivate".
- aswegs8 6mo agoMy bad, in my language its derivate. It's equivalent to the English derivative: "In chemistry, a derivative is a compound that is derived from a similar compound by a chemical reaction, or that can be imagined to arise from another compound, if one atom or group of atoms is replaced with another atom or group of atoms."
- simulator5g 7mo agoThat statement is not surprising to anyone who has taken LSD. However I would be surprised if the pharma version works as good as the original.