4 ms·

Of course you're right, which is exactly why I didn't write that. Again: the paper might be correct, but past experience has taught me to be skeptical.

throwawayaway 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156257 I was bothered by this study, and particularly this bit: "After adjusting for sociodemographics, other drug use and childhood depression, we found no significant associations between lifetime use of psychedelics and increased likelihood of past year serious psychological distress, mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety." It seems they test life time usage, yet only "past year" serious psychological distress, mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety. Can I get your opinion on whether that "past year" applies to just "serious psychological distress" or all the terms, including: "mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety". It would seem to me that "past year" applies to all of the terms. In my opinion the study misses the rather obvious problems that cause somebody to quit psychedelics permanently, allowing them to recover. Those that quit long ago would not report issues because they didn't happen in the immediate 12 month period previous. Also acquaintances of mine who have ended up permanently hospitalised, are obviously not going to be part of a survey like this. Do you agree or disagree with any of that?
- michael_h 12y ago
  I took a quick look. From the paper: >Past year mental health indicators new to this study were suicide thoughts, suicide plan...[etc] So, it looks like 'past year' applies to all of the terms. I think the study was looking at the long term effects, so if people who quit long ago didn't report any issues, that would support the thesis that 'taking psychedelics doesn't affect long term mental health'. I'm generally not a fan of studies about illegal activity that use voluntary surveys, but this one doesn't look poorly run. However, once you start putting maths to psychology, things get weird very quickly and it's difficult to tell what's valid and what isn't.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    Thank you for taking the time. I disagree, I don't think they mention "long term" mental health anywhere. They just say mental health without qualifying it. In fact they only mention "long-term" benefits. I find it really objectionable that it's titled: "Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: A population study" while looking at whole lifetime usage and comparing with past year effects. If there was suicidal behaviour("successful" or otherwise) and mental health problems in the immediate aftermath of taking psychedelics over a lifetime, they don't really have any way of capturing that information unless it's happened in the last 12 months. We agree that the "past year" applies to all of the terms. Just seems really irresponsible to me, but I'm clearly biased.

throwawayaway 12y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156257 I was bothered by this study, and particularly this bit: "After adjusting for sociodemographics, other drug use and childhood depression, we found no significant associations between lifetime use of psychedelics and increased likelihood of past year serious psychological distress, mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety." It seems they test life time usage, yet only "past year" serious psychological distress, mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety. Can I get your opinion on whether that "past year" applies to just "serious psychological distress" or all the terms, including: "mental health treatment, suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans and suicide attempt, depression and anxiety". It would seem to me that "past year" applies to all of the terms. In my opinion the study misses the rather obvious problems that cause somebody to quit psychedelics permanently, allowing them to recover. Those that quit long ago would not report issues because they didn't happen in the immediate 12 month period previous. Also acquaintances of mine who have ended up permanently hospitalised, are obviously not going to be part of a survey like this. Do you agree or disagree with any of that?

michael_h 12y ago
I took a quick look. From the paper: >Past year mental health indicators new to this study were suicide thoughts, suicide plan...[etc] So, it looks like 'past year' applies to all of the terms. I think the study was looking at the long term effects, so if people who quit long ago didn't report any issues, that would support the thesis that 'taking psychedelics doesn't affect long term mental health'. I'm generally not a fan of studies about illegal activity that use voluntary surveys, but this one doesn't look poorly run. However, once you start putting maths to psychology, things get weird very quickly and it's difficult to tell what's valid and what isn't.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  Thank you for taking the time. I disagree, I don't think they mention "long term" mental health anywhere. They just say mental health without qualifying it. In fact they only mention "long-term" benefits. I find it really objectionable that it's titled: "Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: A population study" while looking at whole lifetime usage and comparing with past year effects. If there was suicidal behaviour("successful" or otherwise) and mental health problems in the immediate aftermath of taking psychedelics over a lifetime, they don't really have any way of capturing that information unless it's happened in the last 12 months. We agree that the "past year" applies to all of the terms. Just seems really irresponsible to me, but I'm clearly biased.