Psychedelic Mushrooms Boost Mental Health

[Braggi]

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...searchers-say/

Psychedelic Mushrooms Can Boost Mental Health, Researchers Say



Medical research is getting a little groovier. In a new report, scientists declared that the active ingredient in hallucinogenic “magic mushrooms” had beneficial effects on test subjects who took the substance under a doctor’s supervision. What’s more, the effects lingered; 14 months after the experiment, more than half the subjects reported still feeling an increase in well-being or life satisfaction, in terms of things like feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible and optimistic [AP].
The experiment was one of the few conducted in the four decades since the government cracked down on hallucinogens, banning most research and listing them as a dangerous drugs. Researchers say the study marks another shift in policy, which could yield research with dramatic insights. “These drugs are no longer being confined to rats in test tubes,” said David Nichols, a Purdue University pharmacologist who was not involved in the study. “What we’re looking at is a largely unexplored technology for brain science — it was discovered in the 1940s, set the psychiatry world ablaze in the 1950s, and was aborted by widespread recreational abuse, the reaction of the media and its confluence with the Vietnam war” [Wired News].
In the study, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology [subscription required], researchers gave test subjects doses of psilocybin, the active ingredient in some wild mushrooms, and directed the volunteers to lie down, listen to classical music, and “look inward.” When the trip was over, many described life-changing mystical experiences of the sort typically reported by monks, saints and other devoutly religious. Even those who experienced fear or sadness rated the experience as spiritually important, and no one reported long-lasting negative effects [Baltimore Sun].
The report was accompanied by another article [subscription required] which laid out the guideline for safe and ethical research on psilocybin: The drug is only given to people with no history of psychosis or serious mental disorders, and psychological support is provided during and after the experience [Los Angeles Times]. The psilocybin researchers also stressed that they’re not encouraging people to take hallucinogens outside the controlled setting of a lab, and added that the powerful substances can provoke fear and panic.
While some researchers hope to use psilocybin for scientific inquiry into the nature of human spirituality, others have more objective medical goals. Researchers say they’ll conducting further studies to examine whether the mushrooms can help people with such wide-ranging ailments as obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and alcoholism, as well as people who are coping with a cancer diagnosis.

For an in-depth look at how hallucinogens have snuck back into the lab, check out DISCOVER’s recent story, “Could an Acid Trip Cure Your OCD?”
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Tags: drugs & addiction, hallucinogens, mental health
July 2nd, 2008 by Eliza Strickland in Mind & Brain

[MsTerry]

Jeff, these kind of non-scientific studies are considered anecdotal. But you knew that already.
Are you trying to get Don all riled up again?

[Braggi]

Jeff, these kind of non-scientific studies are considered anecdotal. But you knew that already.
Are you trying to get Don all riled up again?

Actually, this is a report on a study that is quite scientific.

Something much more than anecdotal. This is about things that can be measured, are being measured and recorded.

Not a double blind placebo controlled study, but those don't really work with psychedelics, do they?

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Actually, this is a report on a study that is quite scientific.

Something much more than anecdotal. This is about things that can be measured, are being measured and recorded.

Not a double blind placebo controlled study, but those don't really work with psychedelics, do they?

-Jeff

and directed the volunteers to lie down, listen to classical music, and “look inward.” When the trip was over, many described life-changing mystical experiences of the sort typically reported by monks, saints and other devoutly religious. Even those who experienced fear or sadness rated the experience as spiritually important, and no one reported long-lasting negative effects .

LOL Jeff,
How were these mystical experiences measured and recorded?

[decterlove]

ah, puppycock! i tried those sycodelicmushroooms when i was a younger man and they did not h i n g for my m i n d................

they d i d n u thi n g 444 mi my nd.....i reap peet...................... ............

..... i .......... .............. ........................ . . ...........


l.. ................. . . . . .......






.......... .................. i ...................... whaaaaaaaaa...........


.........nuth......................................ing...........................wow...

[quote=Braggi;
[SIZE=3]Psyche.............delic Mush.............rooms Can Boo...st Ment......al H....eal.th, R.................e...........se.........ar.chers ......Say[/size]

[Braggi]

LOL Jeff,
How were these mystical experiences measured and recorded?

It's not the mystical experiences, it's the sequelae. Did these experiences change their lives for the better? There are differences that can be measured. I don't think anyone expected major shifts, but some significant improvements do appear in the records.

The bottom line is that this substance brought some improvements to these subjects lives and that's a good argument to allow further legal testing.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

OK, what are these differences that can be measured?

There are differences that can be measured.

What significant improvements appear in the records?

but some significant improvements do appear in the records.

Sequelae???? Jeff

Singular sequela Plural sequelae sequela (plural sequelae) a disease or condition which is caused by an earlier disease or problem

It's not the mystical experiences, it's the sequelae. Did these experiences change their lives for the better? There are differences that can be measured. I don't think anyone expected major shifts, but some significant improvements do appear in the records.

The bottom line is that this substance brought some improvements to these subjects lives and that's a good argument to allow further legal testing.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

OK, what are these differences that can be measured?

What significant improvements appear in the records?

Did a wife beater continue to beat his wife after the experience? That can be measured and recorded.

Behavioral changes, MsTerry. Both subjective and objective changes. The objective obtained by questioning friends and family members.

... Sequelae???? Jeff

Wow. [See posts below]

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Did a wife beater continue to beat his wife after the experience? That can be measured and recorded.
-Jeff

WOW , Jeff WOW, a wife beater???
why did you come up with this example ? Hmmmmmmm.......

As you admitted, this was not a blind or double-blind test, besides that, the participants more than likely were informed about the substance they were taking (they probable had to sign a release form) and it's effects (long-term and short-term).
In legal language it is called coerced testimony.
It is not objective, since they are anticipating some results.
The people that were recruited could not have been average or even an objective group of participants as a result.

The drug is only given to people with no history of psychosis or serious mental disorders, and psychological support is provided during and after the experience

Do wife beaters qualify with these guide lines?

Behavioral changes, MsTerry. Both subjective and objective changes. The objective obtained by questioning friends and family members.

There was no mention of family being interviewed, only subjective interpretation

14 months after the experiment, more than half the subjects reported still feeling an increase in well-being or life satisfaction, in terms of things like feeling more creative, self-confident, flexible and optimistic [AP]

.

[Sylph]

First meaning in dictionary, Sequela: A thing that follows, consequence. A perfectly good word for those long-term positive consequences of taking the mushrooms....But, I think I'll pass on them for now!

[Braggi]

[B] First meaning in dictionary, Sequela: A thing that follows, consequence ...

Well, I thought I knew what that word meant. Both definitions. MsTerry threw me there. Thanks for the save Sylph.

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

It _was_ a double-blind test, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
https://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/...881108094300v1

To summarize, the volunteers, who were 'hallucinogen-naïve' (Isn't that a great way to say they don't use drugs :-) were given psilocybin (not actually mushrooms).

14 months later:
58% rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives

67% rated it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives ;

64% indicated that the experience increased well-being or life satisfaction;

58% met criteria for having had a ‘complete’ mystical experience.

No one reported long-lasting negative effects

It _was_ a double blind study.

The 'coerced testimony' argument is countered by the double blind study.

Participants did _not_ rate the placebo sessions as their peak experiences.

No one reported a long lasting negative effect. 64% of them said it "increased well-being or life satisfaction; "

Very very few things in life have that strong a positive impact, and that low a negative.

As you admitted, this was not a blind or double-blind test, besides that, the participants more than likely were informed about the substance they were taking (they probable had to sign a release form) and it's effects (long-term and short-term).
In legal language it is called coerced testimony.
It is not objective, since they are anticipating some results.
The people that were recruited could not have been average or even an objective group of participants as a result.

[MsTerry]

Sorry P3, but this does NOT qualify as a double blind test.
There was no control group as far as I can tell that never received the mushrooms and only the methylphenidate.

It _was_ a double-blind test, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
https://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/...881108094300v1

To summarize, the volunteers, who were 'hallucinogen-naïve' (Isn't that a great way to say they don't use drugs :-) were given psilocybin (not actually mushrooms).

14 months later:
58% rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives

67% rated it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives ;

64% indicated that the experience increased well-being or life satisfaction;

58% met criteria for having had a ‘complete’ mystical experience.

No one reported long-lasting negative effects

It _was_ a double blind study.

The 'coerced testimony' argument is countered by the double blind study.

Participants did _not_ rate the placebo sessions as their peak experiences.

No one reported a long lasting negative effect. 64% of them said it "increased well-being or life satisfaction; "

Very very few things in life have that strong a positive impact, and that low a negative.

[Braggi]

Sorry P3, but this does NOT qualify as a double blind test.
There was no control group as far as I can tell that never received the mushrooms and only the methylphenidate.

Well, so what? What's your problem? Do you propose there is a way to do a double blind study with mushrooms?

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Well, so what? What's your problem? Do you propose there is a way to do a double blind study with mushrooms?

-Jeff

Well, well, now, now Jeff
Does that mean you will accept "science" when it suits your beliefs??

[PeriodThree]

I am almost positive that you have not read the actual study - I know I didn't want to pay $30 to read it (doesn't information want to be free :-)

The claim in the abstract is ...

"We previously reported the effects of a double-blind study evaluating the psychological effects of a high psilocybin dose. This report presents the 14-month follow-up"

So their claim is that this was a double blind study. That claim is supported (but of course, not proved!) by the fact that their paper was
published in a peer reviewed journal in their field.

You don't agree with something involving this paper. I don't understand your objections, but I'd be curious to hear them.

The paper's conclusion supports my anecdotal experiences about the effect of hallucinogenic trips. Something about the study, or the results, or the reports on the study, does not support your world view, or, more probably, you are, like me, at times just an oppositional assxxxx :-) (the smiley is to soften the harshness of implying that you might at times act the axxhole, not to soften the admission that I certainly do at times act the role of the axshxoxe).

You are attacking the methodology of this peer reviewed paper. I _think_ that you are attacking the methodology because you do not agree with the findings.

I am pleasantly surprised by the findings, so of course i have an incentive to not question the methodology, but everything I can see implies that this is a legitimate paper, in which they used legitimate science, and found that (simplifying a little) that people like to hallucinate, and after they have, they remember the experience fondly.

Are there any parts of this whole thing in which you think we agree?

Sorry P3, but this does NOT qualify as a double blind test.
There was no control group as far as I can tell that never received the mushrooms and only the methylphenidate.

[PeriodThree]

1) This _was_ a double blind study

2) 'Science' does not require double blind studies. Science, at least, what I consider to be 'Science' only requires that when you make statements of fact that there is a possible (even if not practical) way in which those statements can be falsified.

Due to his particular knowledge, I would love Zeno to either get my back on this, or for him to simply tell me I am wrong!

MsTerry - are you bothered by the possibility that shrooms may have a positive effect, is there another issue? Or are you simply being obstructionist?

Well, well, now, now Jeff
Does that mean you will accept "science" when it suits your beliefs??

[MsTerry]

If they claim a double blind, it should be a double blind, otherwise it will put the whole study into question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_test

Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s)

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data has been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.

1) This _was_ a double blind study

2) 'Science' does not require double blind studies. Science, at least, what I consider to be 'Science' only requires that when you make statements of fact that there is a possible (even if not practical) way in which those statements can be falsified.

[PeriodThree]

The authors claim it was double blind. It was published in a peer reviewed journal, implying that the editors and review panel members agreed that it was double blind.

Why do you think it was not double blind? Are you focusing on procedural issues in order to move the discussion away from the point that this study found positive effects from using hallucinogens?

If they claim a double blind, it should be a double blind, otherwise it will pull the whole study into question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_test

[MsTerry]

1)

MsTerry - are you bothered by the possibility that shrooms may have a positive effect, is there another issue? Or are you simply being obstructionist?

P3, what bothers me with studies like this, is an applied generalization after studying 36 people. Out of the 36, roughly 20 had some effects that were noticeable, which caused people to jump on to this bandwagon.
Does that mean that the 16 didn't get it? Or does that mean Drugs and the like are a highly personal experience?
Just like alternative medicine works for some people, Allopathy does not work for everybody. There are no guarantees for medicine, and that has been my point all along.
Not many studies will have a 100% succes rate (even poisons don't), because we don't really know how the body works.

[MsTerry]

Why do you think it was not double blind?

Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s)

[PeriodThree]

They were testing the effect of psilocybin, and so methylphenidate (Ritalin) was used for the control group.

Double-blind doesn't mean 'placebo,' double blind means neither the subject nor the experimenter knows which is the subject and which is the control.

Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s)

[PeriodThree]

P3, what bothers me with studies like this, is an applied generalization after studying 36 people. Out of the 36, roughly 20 had some effects that were noticeable, which caused people to jump on to this bandwagon.

That is not an accurate summary of what was reported. Your number, 20, is 5 to 20% low, and the subjects who responded did not have 'some effects that were noticeable' they reported very significant responses.

23 of the 36 (63.8% - I suspect they rounded that up :-) 'indicated that the experience increased well-being or life satisfaction"

67% - 24 out of 36, rated it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives ;

58% 21 out of 36, rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives

Does that mean that the 16 didn't get it?

What other 16? Do you mean the other 12 who did not rate it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives?

I could be wrong, but mathematically there is no way of knowing how much overlap there is between these different groups (21 of 36, 24 of 36, etc). 100% of the subjects could have had a major effect. The categories were not mutually exclusive.

[Braggi]

P3, what bothers me with studies like this, is an applied generalization after studying 36 people. Out of the 36, roughly 20 had some effects that were noticeable, which caused people to jump on to this bandwagon.
Does that mean that the 16 didn't get it? Or does that mean Drugs and the like are a highly personal experience? ...

So don't be so bothered. Why are you applying a generalization? I don't think the authors did. I think they were looking for subjective effects from the participants as well as objective observations from family members. It's true the family members weren't interviewed in this follow up study, but they were in the original study and the family members verified the comments of the participants.

The participants were carefully screened which means they were not from the "general population." That makes them different and generalizations are difficult to make. There are no secret agendas here MsTerry, that I could see.

... Just like alternative medicine works for some people, Allopathy does not work for everybody. There are no guarantees for medicine, and that has been my point all along. ...

No no no. Psilocybin works for EVERYBODY except the brain dead. The after effects are what the researchers were investigating. This is one reason that double-blindness is kind of pointless in psychedelic studies. Everyone would know who got the real stuff.

"Allopathy" does work for everybody. If you break your arm and I set the bones and put a cast on it you will heal better than if you take a homeopathic "remedy." This is another case where double blindness is pretty pointless.

If the question is whether a vitamin A pill is a better treatment for the common cold than placebo, double blindness makes sense.

...
Not many studies will have a 100% succes rate (even poisons don't), because we don't really know how the body works.

If I give you enough lead or arsenic or nicotine or water you WILL die, 100%. There is an LD 100 for every substance known except LSD. Even that will kill you, I suppose, if you take enough to thin your blood to the point it no longer functions.

We know a great deal about how the body works. Just because you don't know doesn't mean science doesn't know.

Sure, there are a great many mysteries in medical science. But we've got the basics down pretty well. Perhaps you should try medical school, MsTerry. You might become a little more enlightened.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

They were testing the effect of psilocybin, and so methylphenidate (Ritalin) was used for the control group.

That is not what it says
Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s)

[MsTerry]

. Your number, 20, is 5 to 20% low,

P3, thanks for the "correction", I stated 'roughly 20', but if you think that 23, 24, 21 is the same as 25, I can understand your fondness for the mushrooms

[MsTerry]

The participants were carefully screened which means they were not from the "general population." That makes them different and generalizations are difficult to make. There are no secret agendas here MsTerry, that I could see.

-Jeff

I recall reading reading that they were screened for being spiritual and or religious

No no no. Psilocybin works for EVERYBODY except the brain dead. The after effects are what the researchers were investigating. This is one reason that double-blindness is kind of pointless in psychedelic studies. Everyone would know who got the real stuff.

If it works for everyone the result would be the same, wouldn't it?

"Allopathy" does work for everybody. If you break your arm and I set the bones and put a cast on it you will heal better than if you take a homeopathic "remedy."

Jeff, you are comparing apples and oranges and you know it.
Allopathic remedies DO NOT work for everybody, if that was true, you could just call up any doctor, tell her what's ailing and voila, they give you the right remedy, which cures you instantly.
Do you really think you can claim that setting bones and putting a cast on is allopathy?

If I give you enough lead or arsenic or nicotine or water you WILL die, 100%. There is an LD 100 for every substance known except LSD. Even that will kill you, I suppose, if you take enough to thin your blood to the point it no longer functions.

Yes, Jeff, but my point is that the dose would be different for everybody. And you are talking about overdosing, which is not the same

We know a great deal about how the body works. Just because you don't know doesn't mean science doesn't know.

This is a pathetic statement, Jeff
Tell me then, what is it that makes the heart beat?

Sure, there are a great many mysteries in medical science. But we've got the basics down pretty well. Perhaps you should try medical school, MsTerry. You might become a little more enlightened.

My father was a bone setter, Jeff.
Does that enlighten you?

[Braggi]

...
Tell me then, what is it that makes the heart beat?
...

Phlogiston.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Phlogiston.

-Jeff

Is this a test?

Eliminative materialism ... liminativist about the [[soul]]; modern chemists are eliminativist about [[phlogiston]]; and modern physicists are eliminativist about the existence of [[lumini ... ... pseudoscientific]] theories (such as that of the [[the four humours]], the [[phlogiston theory]] of [[combustion]], and the [[vitalism|vital force]] theory of lif .

[Braggi]

...

No no no. Psilocybin works for EVERYBODY except the brain dead. The after effects are what the researchers were investigating. This is one reason that double-blindness is kind of pointless in psychedelic studies. Everyone would know who got the real stuff.

If it works for everyone the result would be the same, wouldn't it? ...

As St. Terrence taught (if I remember His wording): "Five dried grams in silent darkness will flatten the most resistant ego."

The result is the same.

-Jeff