Better evidence is always good, but we much more drastically need better policy. Psychadelics' potential benefits are still being explored, but their risks are pretty well-documented and quite minimal compared to a broad swath of substances legal for adults to acquire. There is no reason consenting adults should be criminalized for seeking them out
I agree with the sentiment of the article. We need better science in general.
It came to my mind if we have equally solid research for the effectivity of drugs like antidepressants. They have fame of sometimes working and sometimes don't depending on the patient, and I guess the same could be said of many psychedelics.
Antidepressants also have the fame of having a ton of side effects, whether work or not. Reduced libido, sexual dysfunction, weight gain, brain zaps are the most common. Not to mention that they take weeks or months to both start and stop.
I'm not at all against antidepressants, and I know several people who have been helped a lot by them. But if there are potential alternatives like ketamine and psychedelics that have lower risk of side effects (ketamine in particular is extremely safe taken in a therapeutic setting) and only need to be taken once to potentially see an immediate effect, even if the science is weak, shouldn't these at least be available for adults to try before putting them on antidepressants?
We have way less experience with antidepressants though. And none of the psychedelics I'm familiar with has anywhere near the same amount/degree of unwanted side effects.
Empirical research is also research.
That said, I agree. We need more research, which would have happened a long time ago if it wasn't for criminalization.
>as evangelists whose enthusiasm for the drugs compromised the integrity of their findings.
The integrity of most drug research is compromised by commercial incentive. Molecules like psilocybin, MDMA, and DMT can’t be patented. I am more skeptical of commercial evangelism than whatever is currently going on with psychedelic research.
Psychedelics boost your mood in the days, weeks, and even months after taking them. Source: I've used them. It's really dramatic.
However, eating a piece of chocolate also makes you feel good. Doesn't mean chocolate is an effective treatment for depression. Whether psychedelics are effective treatments for various psychological conditions, I don't know. Whether the risks outweigh the benefits, I don't know.
I've grown more conservative about drug use over the past few years. I hope we keep up the research but it is very clear that -- as the article argues -- these drugs have been overhyped.
This idea that we have to respect other people's decisions is so stupid. There is nothing in the world wrong with believing that someone else is making a mistake. We have brains so we can make these sorts of judgements.
Bullshit. The reason that psychedelics are under-researched is that the corrupt medico-governmental chimera has a vested interest in blocking the substances and preventing the research that should have taken place decades ago.
I know, from repeated personal experience, that psychedelics (or mushrooms at least) can be highly effective against even severe depression.
They have been the single most effective anti-depressant that I have ever taken.
Now, I haven't had the depression curing wonder of an experience that some people claim;
It never pulled me out right out of it - but it pulled me back from suicide (on multiple occasions) and a single (rather large) dose is effective for 3 or 4 months before I find myself spiraling back down.
And if we're gonna have a conversation about anti-depressants that are being used despite scant evidence in their favour, perhaps we should start with SSRIs - which not only made my depression worse, but also left me almost asexual for ~20 years.
I don't know. It's good that we have know conclusive non-effectiveness, right? Is Olga Khazan volunteering $150m to run the first two phases of a drug trial? Should that money be spent on worse bets? Does she have an opinion on which bets were better (no)? IMO, better to live in a world where drug development happens due to good storytelling and we get an answer, good or bad, regardless of macro, rather than drug development only occurring during ZIRP.
The articles point that fanaticism and 'belief' are no standalone basis for medical attention is entirely fair. However, the article also contains many opinion statements by the journalist, some of which are written for effect.
For example, it opens by claiming No psychiatric treatment has attracted quite as much cash and hype as psychedelics have in the past decade - really?? Nobody would seriously believe that, of the entire pharmaceutical world, the largest $ slice goes to psychedelic research. Not even close.
Or, Suggesting that people should get off proven medications in order to try MDMA or psilocybin is dangerous unless those drugs are backed by airtight evidence - this is an arguable claim, in the wording semantics, because it implies that it's standard for regulated medications to be risk-free, "airtight" idealisms with only good possible outcomes, when the reality is quite far from that! - a % of SSRI patients routinely experience seriously unpleasant or debilitating side effects and withdrawal ordeals. To exclude effective treatments by way of special, higher ethical barriers to entry is not necessarily scientifically sound practice.
> Nobody would seriously believe that, of the entire pharmaceutical world, the largest $ slice goes to psychedelic research
That’s not what it said though. It said “no psychiatric treatment”.
I’m a little behind on the antipsychotic pipeline but I’m not sure the statement as written - past decade, psychiatric - is too far off the mark.
> The science behind this stuff has always been weak and subjective or due to placebo effects. Give someone a sugar pill and tell them it's psychedelic , and some may actually feel something.
(Replying to the comment that you made before completely rewriting it.)
You're completely wrong about the sugar pill (or at least whether or not it matters) - it's one of the issues with psychedelic medicines: there's no viable placebo at higher doses, and it's the higher doses that seem to have the deepest and longest lasting impact on depression.
In other words, you've never tried a serious dose of acid or shrooms (not to mention dmt) and now you look like a fool to anyone who has.
Most people certainly aren't capable of having the same kind of experience without the substance, goes for all of the ones I mentioned and more.
And while we haven't been able to do the amount of science one could wish for, because of criminalization; there's plenty of experience out there and enough science to understand how the drugs deliver their effect.
https://archive.ph/ptIQy
Better evidence is always good, but we much more drastically need better policy. Psychadelics' potential benefits are still being explored, but their risks are pretty well-documented and quite minimal compared to a broad swath of substances legal for adults to acquire. There is no reason consenting adults should be criminalized for seeking them out
I agree with the sentiment of the article. We need better science in general.
It came to my mind if we have equally solid research for the effectivity of drugs like antidepressants. They have fame of sometimes working and sometimes don't depending on the patient, and I guess the same could be said of many psychedelics.
Antidepressants also have the fame of having a ton of side effects, whether work or not. Reduced libido, sexual dysfunction, weight gain, brain zaps are the most common. Not to mention that they take weeks or months to both start and stop.
I'm not at all against antidepressants, and I know several people who have been helped a lot by them. But if there are potential alternatives like ketamine and psychedelics that have lower risk of side effects (ketamine in particular is extremely safe taken in a therapeutic setting) and only need to be taken once to potentially see an immediate effect, even if the science is weak, shouldn't these at least be available for adults to try before putting them on antidepressants?
We have way less experience with antidepressants though. And none of the psychedelics I'm familiar with has anywhere near the same amount/degree of unwanted side effects.
Empirical research is also research.
That said, I agree. We need more research, which would have happened a long time ago if it wasn't for criminalization.
> They have fame of sometimes working and sometimes don't depending on the patient, and I guess the same could be said of many psychedelics.
The same could be said for almost any drug or intervention.
>as evangelists whose enthusiasm for the drugs compromised the integrity of their findings.
The integrity of most drug research is compromised by commercial incentive. Molecules like psilocybin, MDMA, and DMT can’t be patented. I am more skeptical of commercial evangelism than whatever is currently going on with psychedelic research.
Psychedelics boost your mood in the days, weeks, and even months after taking them. Source: I've used them. It's really dramatic.
However, eating a piece of chocolate also makes you feel good. Doesn't mean chocolate is an effective treatment for depression. Whether psychedelics are effective treatments for various psychological conditions, I don't know. Whether the risks outweigh the benefits, I don't know.
I've grown more conservative about drug use over the past few years. I hope we keep up the research but it is very clear that -- as the article argues -- these drugs have been overhyped.
I have a friend who refuses to find the counsel of a licensed therapist because hens so proud of the insights received while tripping.
Sadly, hen and hens family desperately need help.
So, you think you know better how your friend should live his/her life?
How would you feel if the tables were reversed and you were being pushed into tripping instead of therapy?
These are the kinds of choices that we have to learn to respect, for all of us, which means less judging.
There may be other ways to help if that's really what you want to do.
This idea that we have to respect other people's decisions is so stupid. There is nothing in the world wrong with believing that someone else is making a mistake. We have brains so we can make these sorts of judgements.
You are certainly entitled to an opinion.
But it would be wiser to base it on empathy and understanding than ego.
Bullshit. The reason that psychedelics are under-researched is that the corrupt medico-governmental chimera has a vested interest in blocking the substances and preventing the research that should have taken place decades ago.
I know, from repeated personal experience, that psychedelics (or mushrooms at least) can be highly effective against even severe depression.
They have been the single most effective anti-depressant that I have ever taken.
Now, I haven't had the depression curing wonder of an experience that some people claim;
It never pulled me out right out of it - but it pulled me back from suicide (on multiple occasions) and a single (rather large) dose is effective for 3 or 4 months before I find myself spiraling back down.
And if we're gonna have a conversation about anti-depressants that are being used despite scant evidence in their favour, perhaps we should start with SSRIs - which not only made my depression worse, but also left me almost asexual for ~20 years.
I don't know. It's good that we have know conclusive non-effectiveness, right? Is Olga Khazan volunteering $150m to run the first two phases of a drug trial? Should that money be spent on worse bets? Does she have an opinion on which bets were better (no)? IMO, better to live in a world where drug development happens due to good storytelling and we get an answer, good or bad, regardless of macro, rather than drug development only occurring during ZIRP.
The articles point that fanaticism and 'belief' are no standalone basis for medical attention is entirely fair. However, the article also contains many opinion statements by the journalist, some of which are written for effect.
For example, it opens by claiming No psychiatric treatment has attracted quite as much cash and hype as psychedelics have in the past decade - really?? Nobody would seriously believe that, of the entire pharmaceutical world, the largest $ slice goes to psychedelic research. Not even close.
Or, Suggesting that people should get off proven medications in order to try MDMA or psilocybin is dangerous unless those drugs are backed by airtight evidence - this is an arguable claim, in the wording semantics, because it implies that it's standard for regulated medications to be risk-free, "airtight" idealisms with only good possible outcomes, when the reality is quite far from that! - a % of SSRI patients routinely experience seriously unpleasant or debilitating side effects and withdrawal ordeals. To exclude effective treatments by way of special, higher ethical barriers to entry is not necessarily scientifically sound practice.
> Nobody would seriously believe that, of the entire pharmaceutical world, the largest $ slice goes to psychedelic research
That’s not what it said though. It said “no psychiatric treatment”. I’m a little behind on the antipsychotic pipeline but I’m not sure the statement as written - past decade, psychiatric - is too far off the mark.
[flagged]
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
"credibility of opinions" is wild
Yep, the more famous, the more credible; details don't matter.
Internet rule 23
When one disses the site, the one must mention better site.
I was wrong. sorry about this comment which I am unable to remove
> The science behind this stuff has always been weak and subjective or due to placebo effects. Give someone a sugar pill and tell them it's psychedelic , and some may actually feel something.
(Replying to the comment that you made before completely rewriting it.)
You're completely wrong about the sugar pill (or at least whether or not it matters) - it's one of the issues with psychedelic medicines: there's no viable placebo at higher doses, and it's the higher doses that seem to have the deepest and longest lasting impact on depression.
In other words, you've never tried a serious dose of acid or shrooms (not to mention dmt) and now you look like a fool to anyone who has.
Most people certainly aren't capable of having the same kind of experience without the substance, goes for all of the ones I mentioned and more.
And while we haven't been able to do the amount of science one could wish for, because of criminalization; there's plenty of experience out there and enough science to understand how the drugs deliver their effect.