New studies on psychedelics approved and carried out by Johns Hopkins University.

In the recent last few years the FDA has approved several studies on the effects of psychedelics. All that I know of seem to have had very interesting results. Before this, research was banned for the prior 30 years approx. This is a link to a research paper by Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins University. It was published in May 2006 and is called:

"Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance".

https://neuroscience.jhu.edu/griffit...ocybin2006.pdf

This certainly wouldn't surprise me at all about John Hopkins as it's well known for its part in experiments on hallucinagetics, being part of the MKUltra Program, that came to light in front of the 1977 Senate Committee which included Ted Kennedy who said on the senate floor:

The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations." At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.^[7]

How this came about is that some CIA financial records and receipts, thought destroyed, turned up by John Marks (author of the resulting "Search for The Manchurian Candidate" https://www.raven1.net/manchcan.htm). This can be seen on the History channel program https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9JL...eature=related, Marks' findings proved at least 86 universities and research institutions were majorly involved in these projects. Press, accounts, and documentation from military mind control programs, including 'MK/ULTRA' (mind control), 'ARTICHOKE' (extreme interrogation), 'PAPERCLIP' (the imported Nazi-scientist/war criminals roles in both), 'MK/SHADE', 'OFTEN', 'MK/MARKER', 'MK/DELTA', 'BLUEBIRD', 'MK/NAOMI', 'PHOENIX', and 'MK/SEARCH'. Hallucinagens were often used on unwitting people/subjects as well as on children. John Hopkins was subproject 84 (https://www.ra-info.org/library/programming/mkultra.shtml box #7) which included way more than hypnosis.


Now, I realize that you were probably more interested in the article you posted because people had these mystical experiences that were studied by a big name university. What I'm sensing is that these experiments show one side of the coin that had already been experimented years ago with different kinds of hallucinagens and their effects. I'm not saying that people can't have expansive experiences that are spiritually altering; I'm looking at the facility and whose doing the experiments. Fronts for covert things are still going on at these facilities.


The Napa Sentenial wrote a whole series of articles on these projects back in the early '90's https://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon8.html


Many cases are listed at:
https://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/mc-documents-links/mk-ultra-links-torture-based-government-sponsored-mind-control-experimentation-on-children/


Just food for thought.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ian-snazz:

In the recent last few years the FDA has approved several studies on the effects of psychedelics. All that I know of seem to have had very interesting results. Before this, research was banned for the prior 30 years approx. This is a link to a research paper by Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins University. It was published in May 2006 and is called:

"Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance".

https://neuroscience.jhu.edu/griffit...ocybin2006.pdf

---

Sharingwisdom, Yes, I am well aware of the experiments carried out by out government, with the help of may institutions between the 50's and 60's. I'm not sure I really understand what your beef is with this experiment. It sounds like you are suspect of the institution of Johns Hopkins because someone there might have done some messed up stuff about 50 years ago. Trust me, I've never taken the role of standing up for the government and I probably never will- especially in regards to mass research of mind altering drugs on unwilling/unknowing populations, but..... But what is your argument here? Do we really want to base our judgments on someone/ something based on something that they did once in the past or an association they had in the past? This is a logical fallacy called guilt by association- it is a completely invalid way to judge the virtue of anyone or anything. "Let ye who has not sinned throw the first stone" Have you looked into Dr. Roland Griffiths? He's an incredible man in my opinion and for you to somehow associate him and his work with this horrible stuff that happened 50 years ago is simply mean and ignorant. Did you even read the link that I posted? If you have a comment about THIS study I would be happy to hear about it. Do you think that all research done on psychedilics is wrong? Why- please explain. Are you aware that, at the same time the government was carrying out its horrible experiments, many universities were also carrying out experiments on willing participants by responsible doctors? One example of some incredible work done around that time is called the "Good Friday Experiment" Hmmm, maybe you just have a general bias towards psychedelics. In that case I'm probably not going to have any effect on your attitude here, but I would suggest doing some research into the historical cultural ritual use of these substances which seems to have been common place in practically all societies until about 1500-2000 years ago and the basis of many foundational structures in the human mind and society. Peace.

I just want to add that I understand your anger/frustration with these horrible things that you go over in your post. However, it is frustrating that every time I post something on here the conversation ends up being skewed by completely unrelated topics or gets focused on one minute piece of the main issue. I was hoping to spark a discussion on this study or the state of contemporary psychedelic research or the general potential of the substances themselves. I suggest that people start their own posts if they want to go so far off topic.

The forum is open to go in any direction, but I hear that you had an expectation in how you wanted it to go, for some backing to the article you posted, and for me to post my information, which you felt was unrelated, on another post. I did read part of the article. You are correct in saying that I'm not a proponent of the use of psychodelics, and I'm quite aware of its history. I don't think research is wrong in psychodelics, certainly if the volunteers are aware of what is being given to them as far as side effects, which in other cases they were not. Yes, I'm still suspect of John Hopkins and their experimentation having had personal dealings with them. I choose not to elaborate. All I want to say is that two of their top name doctors who were involved in the those 'past' experiments, very famous doctors, just recently died. They had great fronts for their so called great humanitarian works presenting many published studies and experiments (but moreso covertly). I don't believe, just because those papers were brought to Congress and public attention 35 years ago (which many don't know about, but I'm glad you do), that things just stopped...they just became more hidden. And I do not know the researcher involved in the psychodelic experiments. I have a right to have my suspicions about the goings on of John Hopkins without being called mean and ignorant of which neither fit who I am. I hear that you want to defend Griffiths' reputation, but we can have conversations and you can make your points w/o name calling. I responded as food for thought, not at you personally, which is what this forum is about. Peace as well.

Ian-Snazz,

Sharingwisdom is correct in asserting that no one owns a thread on waccobb. Including the thread starter. Conversations go where they will, depending on the contributions of the participants. Barry has less tolerance for tangents, while I often start them. If a discussion continues in an off-topic, different direction, I'm empowered to split the thread. At this point, here, I don't think creating a new thread for, "What's wrong with Psychedelic research studies", is warranted. If it is in the future, I'll make the change.

As you both know, perceptions of respect or disrespect, on internet discussions is a tricky subject, and personal interpretation plays a huge role. I am inclined to agree with Sharingwisdom that you got a little snippy in expressing your ire that your contribution and questions weren't being honored. But Sharingwisdom has ably defended herself, so I'll leave it at that.

May the doors of perception never close, and the doors of deception be locked up tight!

In Moderation Mode,

Sharingwisdom, I meant you personally no disrespect in my last post. I'm sorry that it was taken that way. My use of the words mean and ignorant were being attributed to the way that your post was associating this man's work with something unfounded, unrelated, and seemingly meant to cast a dark light upon it. I do think that is mean. My use of the word ignorant was somewhat presumptuously used as I was assuming that you knew very little about the study and had not read it [which was the intended/labeled subject of this post]. It turns out that you did only read some of it and you "Don't know the researcher involved".

I'm really sorry to be such a hard-ass, but I think that the vast majority of this country's population is lacking the tools necessary for critical thinking - logic and logical fallacies being primary. Our lack of critical thinking leaves us unknowing but willing consumers of propaganda, disinformation, and appeals to our emotions [see "propaganda" post]. Real debates do not exist in mainstream society. Politicians and mainstream media constantly assert fallacious arguments mostly appealing to emotion, but never using reason. In my estimation, this post from sharingwisdom was meant to cast a negative shadow on the study which I posted about and contained no information directly related to it. In my opinion, that should be discouraged if we hope to really nourish each other's development of healthy thoughts and minds and curiousity.

Sharingwisdom, I'll bet that you are a really cool and very intelligent person. You post about lots of really important and interesting things. These are only my opinions about your post here. I'm just trying encourage more productive standards for discussion and debate. I think that discussion, here and everywhere, has the potential to be much more informative and thought provoking. Critical thinking first, then the shrooms. Be well.

I truly appreciate your response. Just for clarity, my response was meant to cast a light on the experiments at John Hopkins in general ...to open up that not all appears as it might seem at research centers. And "encouraging productive standards for discussions and debates" is up for debate since it's subjective to the writer's perceptions of what they want. Like Miles said, "... personal interpretation plays a huge role." Using only intellectual material is dry to me. I'm human, a woman, intuitive and like to use both sides of my brain together. And since your initial response to me was quite emotionally based, you also vary in your discussions out of the intellectual realm. Passion for a subject does that. And I hope that other people will converse with you about your topic since now people know how you want the conversation to go. Best to you.