Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Adults Who Microdose Psychedelics Report Health-related Motivations and Lower Levels of Anxiety and Depression, Paper Finds (nature.com) 108

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Abstract of a paper published on Nature: The use of psychedelic substances at sub-sensorium 'microdoses,' has gained popular academic interest for reported positive effects on wellness and cognition. The present study describes microdosing practices, motivations and mental health among a sample of self-selected microdosers (n = 4050) and non-microdosers (n = 4653) via a mobile application. Psilocybin was the most commonly used microdose substances in our sample (85%) and we identified diverse microdose practices with regard to dosage, frequency, and the practice of stacking which involves combining psilocybin with non-psychedelic substances such as Lion's Mane mushrooms, chocolate, and niacin. Microdosers were generally similar to non-microdosing controls with regard to demographics, but were more likely to report a history of mental health concerns. Among individuals reporting mental health concerns, microdosers exhibited lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress across gender. Health and wellness-related motives were the most prominent motives across microdosers in general, and were more prominent among females and among individuals who reported mental health concerns. Our results indicate health and wellness motives and perceived mental health benefits among microdosers, and highlight the need for further research into the mental health consequences of microdosing including studies with rigorous longitudinal designs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adults Who Microdose Psychedelics Report Health-related Motivations and Lower Levels of Anxiety and Depression, Paper Finds More

Adults Who Microdose Psychedelics Report Health-related Motivations and Lower Levels of Anxiety and Depression, Paper Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Go look up the Thought Slime's video (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @01:14PM (#62002361)
    on this subject on YouTube. It does a good job of covering the pros and cons from the perspective of someone who very much never, ever takes psychedelics because they are illegal in Canada and breaking the law is wrong.

    Also, let's not forget the reason drugs are illegal. [cnn.com]

    • Also, let's not forget the reason drugs are illegal. [cnn.com]

      another chapter in the never ending saga of "republicans can't win without cheating".

      • Just Say No to drugs umkay (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Druggies are gonna drug. Losers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

        Also, let's not forget the reason drugs are illegal. [cnn.com]

        another chapter in the never ending saga of "republicans can't win without cheating".

        People should look up why Devil's lettuce was made illegal. Fit's right in with the Republican core competency of white supremacy.

        And before anyone mods this as troll, they really need to look it up. Short version is that it was based on the idea that people of dark pigment from African countries became violent, as well as the "black men and white women" thing.

        I've seen people become very violent on ethanol. Only violent thing I've seen from wacky tabaky users is utterly destroying a bag of Cheetos.

        • You really should get your news from somewhere besides the tabloids. It became illegal because with the end of prohibition they were about to fire hundreds of G-men. They needed a new target.

          • Reefer Madness certainly didn't help. The decision was probably based on financial reasons. Rumors about Hurst and the paper mills is another good theory.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by e3m4n ( 947977 )
              there was even a rumor that Henry Ford did not want America dependent on foreign oil and was going to make his cars run on hemp oil instead, so big oil lobbied to have it banned. I had heard quite a few. The need to have a new target after the fall of prohibition, so they went after drugs and automatic weapons. First came the National Firearms Act, followed by the Marijuana Tax Act. Technically it wasnt until the CSA that it became entirely illegal in all forms.
              • I read somewhere that it was the paper producers who lobbied to get Marijuana made illegal. It would have turned thier industry and investments upside down since hemp would be a cheaper and easier to produce form of paper.
                • It didnt hurt. But when it comes to high level federal positions, someone has to die to get promoted. So there is always a desire among feds to push for more oversight and regulation. That means new agencies, nee directors, new high level executives, without waiting on someone to die. Back then Hoover was blackmailing everyone to ensure another 30yrs in the top chair. The only way to get a director position was to create a nee agency or division.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by GlennC ( 96879 )

            ... the idea that people of dark pigment from African countries became violent, as well as the "black men and white women" thing

            That made them an ideal "new target" for those G-men.

          • You really should get your news from somewhere besides the tabloids. It became illegal because with the end of prohibition they were about to fire hundreds of G-men. They needed a new target.

            As Harry J. Anslinger drug authority of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics said in 1930, Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others.” He also wrote “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” https://ssdp.org/blog/why-was-... [ssdp.org] and https://www.britannica.com/sto... [britannica.com]

            A white su

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by e3m4n ( 947977 )
              Anslinger was a huge supporter of Prohibition. By 1929, Anslinger returned from his international tour to work as an assistant commissioner in the United States' Treasury Department's Bureau of Prohibition. But, the handwriting was on the wall. There was a strong movement for the repeal of the 18th amendment. There were bills to fix the Volstead act as well as the introduction of the Blaine Act, which eventually became the 21st Amendment. So Anslinger lobbied to create the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He wa

              • You know that Democrats were the conservatives back then, right?

                • You know that Democrats were the conservatives back then, right?

                  Be gentle on our summer child, for he merely does as he is told. Mindlessly, but obediently. He is useful to his owners. And regurgitates their mantras as is their will.

                  We do see this sort of thing in places like the Dixiecrats, who were old school racists. A product of the "Never vote Republican" era, because of the Newly minted Republican party beat their racist asses in the Great War of Northern Aggression. But time woulds all heels, and after a few generations, it was easier to get them to switch pa

                  • Now some even whispering about taking away female suffrage.

                    Why would they bother with that, when their clear and obvious strategy is to make the actual vote counts irrelevant?

              • but hey, werent you the guy a minute ago trying to blame republicans for the ban when in fact FDR was in the whitehouse? Or was that some other guy? The MTA did not get passed until 1937. FDR took office in 1933. In fact the house of representatives broke down as follows:

                Oh summer child - oh dear summer child - Are you the same type that claim that Democrats are racist because of the Dixiecrats, who en mass migrated to the Republican party when the Southern Strategy took on their racist values for the Republican party?

                The idea that today's Democrats are the same group that they were back then, is the same sort of brain dead assertion that the modern day Republicans are the same party that they were back in the 1860's. How many modern Democrats wave the flag of one of the

                • So let me get this straight, all those 1930s democrats were pieces of shit, yet whenever we talk about all the government works plans, social security, etc, that came from those democrats, you heap praises on them? I dont think you can wear two faces and not get caught. Im not buying the inversion story because frankly, your position changes too much. Either the FDR democrats fled and became republicans or they didnt. If they did, then you look fairly foolish accusing republicans for still being obsessed wi

                  • Re: Go look up the Thought Slime's video (Score:4, Interesting)

                    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Saturday November 20, 2021 @09:33AM (#62004787)

                    So let me get this straight, all those 1930s democrats were pieces of shit, yet whenever we talk about all the government works plans, social security, etc, that came from those democrats, you heap praises on them?

                    Fist off summer child, where did you get that which you claim I said? You're busy in Fox News soundbite world, where all things are black and white Republicans are good, and Democrats are evil. Absolutely no room for nuance.

                    Well, summer child if you step out of your comfortable world where your enemy is defined for you, you'll see that there is what we call a shit load of nuance. But I have the feeling that you need to have your narrative intact.

                    Im not buying the inversion story because frankly, your position changes too much.

                    It's like science. History really doesn't care what you believe or do not believe.

                    The unvarnished truth is that there were a lot of racist people at the time. Democrats as well as Republicans. South of the Mason Dixon line, there were many racist people who were still upset about the civil war and the end of slavery. Deny that.

                    And eventually, the Republican party claimed them as their own. Deny the Southern Strategy.

                    Either the FDR democrats fled and became republicans or they didnt. If they did, then you look fairly foolish accusing republicans for still being obsessed with ruining FDRs legacy. That dog just dont hunt.

                    You are showing an exquisite example of monolithic thinking. As well as trying to stuff words into my mouth.

                    No - FDR Dems did not become Republicans. The Dixiecrats did though A political party is not running in lockstep, although Newt Gingrich did do fairly well in purging moderate Republicans, and in doing so, handed the party to the racist bent it has today. The same genre of people who were once Democrats now rule the Republican party.

                    And I think even a monolithic thinker such as yourself would claim that people like Matt Gaetz embody the exact ideology of 100 percent of Republicans, or like Louie Gomert, that all Republicans are itching to kill those who don't agree with them The irony is that I used to be a Republican. But they abandoned fiscal responsibility, and Democratic ideals. I'm a adherent of Barry Goldwater. Today's Republican party has veered so far from their best ideal, they aren't even conservative any more.

          • There were plenty of other drugs that could be illegal and keep those cops busy. We're honestly just go after organized crime in general. Ending prohibition didn't make organized crime go away it just made the movies about it less interesting.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by e3m4n ( 947977 )
              yes but Anslinger wanted a new post. He jumped ship from prohibition to founding the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Hell our feds arent all that much different now. The field agents are generally normal people but the higher ups are all playing their own politics for power positions. Hoover prettymuch blackmailed his way to stay in power over at the bureau of investigations. Everything else was just pandering for support. They made the same BS claims to get prohibition passed. Blaming Native Americans, Me

          • It's a mixed bag.

            Its definitely true that there was a political motivation to keeping Volstead agents employed. Some of this was part of the bargaining process around repealing prohibition.

            Criminalizing cannabis made for a good new project for these people, especially since it was predominantly a non-white drug. It's also worth remembering that prohibition's biggest supporters were xenophobic anti-immigrant Protestants, so enforcing laws against cannabis and kicking ass on minorities who used it was kind

        • It was also a convenient way to kick migrant Mexican farm workers out of the country when you were done with them for the season. But the real push came from Richard Nixon because he wanted to use the drug war to attack the opponents of his party. This comes from Nixon's own people and highly reliable sources at that.

          • Nixon giving Elvis an honorary narcotics officer badge is the icing on the cake. Nobody took more pills than Elvis.

            • Nixon giving Elvis an honorary narcotics officer badge is the icing on the cake. Nobody took more pills than Elvis.

              Good point.

            • Nixon giving Elvis an honorary narcotics officer badge is the icing on the cake. Nobody took more pills than Elvis.

              Yes, but Elvis was white and wealthy, so the pills didn't matter.

          • It was also a convenient way to kick migrant Mexican farm workers out of the country when you were done with them for the season. But the real push came from Richard Nixon because he wanted to use the drug war to attack the opponents of his party. This comes from Nixon's own people and highly reliable sources at that.

            And just imagine how much money has been thrown down the black hole of the war on Drugs. From the endless financing of interdiction, and the ungodly long sentences of things like possession of stupid small amounts of Devil's lettuce and expenses of people's incarceration.

            All brought to us by the party of fiscal responsibility.

            Let's not forget he instituted wage and price controls. Kinda a commie that lad.

        • People should look up why Devil's lettuce was made illegal. Fit's right in with the Republican core competency of white supremacy.

          If you want to go back in time and look at what party was responsible for what injustice it's not going to go well for you. D's discovery they can win on the racial equity narrative is a fairly recently discovery.

          If you're wondering why folks are calling you a troll, it's because you just called ~50% of America white supremacists. If you believe that you're either a troll or mentally ill.

          • AI tell you that you need to learn some history, but you already know that you're being misleading. It's intentional.

            It's not a good look for you. Try honesty next time.

            • AI tell you that you need to learn some history, but you already know that you're being misleading. It's intentional.

              It's not a good look for you. Try honesty next time.

              Ain't that the truth! But alas. One does not get honesty from people who simply regurgitate pablum they've been fed.

              Doesn't matter what party did what way back in the recesses of time. What matters is what fits the policies of the party as it exists now. Of course you know that. Our challenged friend is apparently enjoying his pablum.

          • People should look up why Devil's lettuce was made illegal. Fit's right in with the Republican core competency of white supremacy.

            If you want to go back in time and look at what party was responsible for what injustice it's not going to go well for you. D's discovery they can win on the racial equity narrative is a fairly recently discovery.

            If you're wondering why folks are calling you a troll, it's because you just called ~50% of America white supremacists. If you believe that you're either a troll or mentally ill.

            You write something that shows you do not understand history or political parties, and you dare call me mentally ill? Even if I was a nutcase, I am not stupid, and I understand history and political parties. What matters is the time, not past time.

            Sit down and take some telling from Uncle Ol.

            For you see, time changes things. Political parties change. Some times they end up taking opposite policies, and switch just to oppose their "enemy" Democrats of that time are not what Democrats are now.

            Republica

  • Double-blind random clinical trials (Score:3, Informative)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @01:19PM (#62002373)
    or it's not real

    It's very possible that hallucinogen microdosing has positive effects. But it means nothing that a few wildly pro-druggers claim they feel better after taking a homeopathic-level dose of LSD. Gotta prove it. Otherwise, you're not a doctor, you're just playing one on TV.

    I no longer feel any sympathy for vaccine deniers, covid deniers, ivermectin-takers, and homeopathy users. They deserve their Darwin awards. Yes, I'm old and grumpy. Get off my lawn.

    • You can save a lot of money by micro dosing sugar pills. It's a smaller bang than the real thing but so much cheaper that the overall value is high.

      I no longer feel any sympathy for vaccine deniers, covid deniers, ivermectin-takers, and homeopathy users.

      I feel pity for people involved in cults. They've given up their own autonym over to some vague ideology. I prefer to wear a t-shirt or hat to advertise that I belong to a group, rather join them on a ventilator.
      The other problem is there are so many people asking stupid questions (or making stupid assertions) about vaccines. That rational discussion of risks is

      • Another moron who thinks "placebo effect" is a hoax.

        You're like the flat-Earthers of medical research.

        I feel pity for people involved in cults.

        I don't, you're pathetic.

        • Another moron who thinks "placebo effect" is a hoax.

          try again

          • Nope. You think the patient can choose a sugar pill and get the same results.

            You don't comprehend what a placebo is.

            You also think they'll pay less money for it.

            Underscoring that you don't "get it." At all.

            • Your wild imagination must make these forums very exciting for you. Set aside your assumptions and think again carefully about what I actually said.
              I'm willing to draw this up as an honest mistake, although your delivery really sucks.

              • There were no assumptions. It is right in your words.

                You can save a lot of money by micro dosing sugar pills.

                Sure but you won't get any placebo effect.

                You're saying a person can choose sugar pills, and receive a placebo effect. You're an idiot.
                And if their doctor gave them a placebo instead, they'd have to pay the normal amount or they'd know. "Oh, it's just 25 cents." "Wait, what? Why?"

                There is nothing there I don't get. That's magical thinking. Instead of imagining that I don't get it, consider your own words, that you imagine I don't understand.

                You've read my

                • I never said if you knew they were sugar pills or not, just that they are cheaper. The rest of the conversation you brought with you.

                  • LOL! So you just can't comprehend the meaning of your own words? Maybe your hyperbole was just horse shit, and if you'd speak literally, you'd know what you said! If you just spew, you don't know what you said. But if you don't know what you're saying, maybe you would also know it's probably wrong?

                    When you describe a person, who has agency, doing something, you're talking about their agency. If you're talking about the doctor should trick them, you'd say the doctor, not the patient. Who you claim is doing a

      • Ii think its gone beyond politics now. People really really hate being told they have to do something. Some people have a very oppositional nature. People that know better are pissed off over mandates. People i know that got vaccinated in march refusing to show proof.

        • My family has several of the type. A person who gets upset when asked to show ID to buy alcohol. Won't wear a seatbelt, but still wants the safe driver discount from their insurance.

          I get it, I also don't like being forced to comply with something especially if I don't understand it. I'd rather have someone explain a rational reason that I voluntarily accept an inconvenience. We tried to explain to people why they should wear a mask over their mouth and nose. They chose to either do less than the bare minim

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            have you seen whats going on in europe now? headlines are blowing up all over the place. Look at the netherlands with the riots. Or austria. These people arent listening to tucker carlson or rachael maddow. Thats why I am sure its not political. Some of it is just downright fatigue. The rest is flat out stubbornness. This new pfizer drug cant get through fast enough. Its the tamiflu of coronavirus infections. With the proliferation of this drug, it really will be just like the flu. I think people dont give
      • LSD and psilocybin are incredibly cheap. If they could be legally manufactured in the USA, they would cost pennies for the micrograms used in this study. Meanwhile, 4 out of 5 dentists would recommend Dr. Leary's microgum over sugar pills.

        • I think the cost for packaging, quality control and testing during manufacture might actually exceed the cost of the psilocybin itself. Because the dosages are so tiny, while at the same time it is relatively straight forward to produce.

    • These are definitely not homeopathic-levels. From what I would tell, the micro dose is 10-20% of a recreational dose. For homeopathy, you might not have a single molecule of the original poison.

    • Re:Double-blind random clinical trials (Score:4, Informative)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @02:16PM (#62002509) Homepage Journal

      There have been studies showing that low doses of hallucinogens greatly reduce occurrence of migraine and cluster headaches (AKA suicide headaches).

      Meanwhile, the article in Nature is about an actual scientific study and the paper published about it. You don't just jump into a double blind clinical study without some preliminary research that suggests it might actually yield a useful result. TFA is about one such preliminary study.

      Unfortunately, a more rigorous trial is currently extremely difficult to impossible due to jackbooted DEA agents.

      As for the last part, I don't really care if people want to take ivermectin as an adjunct to getting vaccinated, but I don't have much sympathy if they OD themselves, particularly when they mis-calculate or mis-measure the human dose of a horse drug. Of course, most of the people eating horse paste are doing so instead of getting a safe and very useful vaccine, which is stupid. I also doubt that the ivermectin does much good unless you have intestinal parasites.

      • There have been studies showing that low doses of hallucinogens greatly reduce occurrence of migraine and cluster headaches (AKA suicide headaches).

        Which is not at all surprising, at least in the case of LSD; because many Migraine meds. contain Ergot (Rye Mold) compounds, which are precursors to LSD.

      • I also doubt that the ivermectin does much good unless you have intestinal parasites.

        First, I am in no way an anti-vaxxer. I completed a course of the Pfizer Vax back in late March, and plan to get my booster as soon as I get off my ass to do it.

        Having said that, and at the risk of turning this thread into a Vax War, I think that this is a pretty interesting NIH paper regarding Ivermectin and Covid prevention and even treatment, especially for Countries where the regular Covid Vaccines are not readily available:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Although some of the results are weak, it may be better than nothing where the vaccine isn't available or for people who are medically unable to get the vaccine (or to have a proper response to it).

          My only objection is people who have the vaccine available and no contraindications who refuse it in favor of ivermectin.

    • I've personally experienced a ten-fold increase in productivity when I strap a Keurig coffee pod to my kneecap. I try to limit how often I do this, I don't want to be like Roy and burn "so very very brightly".
      • Well, it says "caffeine" on the pod, and it's more a hypodermic needle than a pod per se, but you get the drift.

    • What actually is the difference between "proper" homeopathy and microdosing LSD?
      Correct: there is none.

      Do you actually know how minuscule small an LSD micro dose is? LSD is probably the stuff with the lowest dose that has a physical effect in a human.

      • Microsdoses of LSD, down to 10 ugrams, have measurable clinical effect. Many homeopathic treatments have far smaller concentrations. Many homeopathic dosages are in ranges of roughly 20 picograms, roughly one fiftieth the dosage. Some homeopathic dosages are so low that they contain not a single molecule of the original medication.

        • Many homeopathic dosages are in ranges of roughly 20 picograms, roughly one fiftieth the dosage.
          In the end of the therapy. Not in the beginning.

          Some homeopathic dosages are so low that they contain not a single molecule of the original medication.
          Yes, that is what the /. crowd says: and it is simply wrong.

          • According to the Wikipedia typical "concentration" list of homeopathic remedies:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            From that listing, the tyical dilution of "Oscillococcinoum" as a 1 in 10^400. so yes, indeed, dilutions below even one molecule in the resulting elixir is commonplace. An approximate dilution that has a reasonable chance of containing one molecule is 1 in 10^24, a far less diluted concentration. Also from that article, Hahnemann typically recommended a concentration

            • 1)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

              2)
              From that listing, the typical dilution of "Oscillococcinoum" as a 1 in 10^400.

              Nope. No one is diluting something 10^400 - during the lifetime of the universe as we have it right now, you would not even reach 10^40. Regardless what machine you are suing to do the dilution. Considering the universe has less than 2^64 atoms, your idea of 10^400 is completely ridiculous.

              No idea why you - again - try to discuss about a topic you have no clue about.

              I give you a small hint, as

              • Homeopaths refer to a "C" in their formula. Every 'C' refers to a dilution of 1 in 100.

                A so-called "C200" dilution or 1 part in 10^400, is achieved by homeopaths doing a 10-1 dilution 400 times. 90% of the diluting fluid is discarded at each step, which is how it's possible to repeat 400 times. Such repeated dilutions are commonplace in chemistry, to obtain precise or much safer to handle concentrations of reagents, though not normally performed anywhere near so many times.

                A C400 homeopathic remedy is comme

                • Homeopaths refer to a "C" in their formula. Every 'C' refers to a dilution of 1 in 100.
                  that is what I explained.

                  A so-called "C200" dilution or 1 part in 10^400,
                  No it is not. It is a 200 times diluted solution by a factor of 100. Simple.

                  A C400 homeopathic remedy is commercially available at:
                  That might be the case.

                  But has nothing to do with the discussion.

                  A typical treatment starts with D1/C1.

                  Simple. And then you go "down to" D10/C10.

                  You did not know that, but think you know anything/everything about homeopat

                  • I'm staring at the Wikipedia article, which is quite clear. And Homeopathy is fraud, according to the citations in the wikipedia article and accordingt to NIH published studies such as those at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] .

                    >> and the rest of the solution discarded at each step. A 'C400' dilution of a mole of sugar would require only 400 liters, not 10^400 or 100^300.
                    >Why would anyone discard the original solution?

                    I suppose you could keep the original samples around, and keep the 99% of he con

                    • But since many homeopathic remedies never contained any of the original ingredient in the first place
                      Which part of - homeophatic remedies come in:
                      D1 - C1
                      D2 - C2
                      D3 - C3 ... ... ...
                      D10 - C10
                      Do you not grasp?

                      D10 as well as C10 still has plenty of original material in it.

                      So: no idea about what you want to argue about.

                      I explained to you that a typical treatment starts with D1/C1 and then goes down till D10/C10.

                      So: a patient gets "the stuff" what ever it is.

                      Does it work? No damn idea.

                      But what I 100% know: you ar

                    • I drew the distinction between 'X' and 'C', since both of those labels are commonly used. As best I can tell, no one uses the 'D' labeling you refer to.

                      Hahnemahn showed intellectual integrity, but his "law of infinitesimals" has been been repeatedly disproven by experiment. I strongly suspect that he was measuring placebo effects, which weren't yet as well appreciated as they are today, and the dangers of failing to make proper double blind experiements wasn't as obvious.

                      "Typical treatments" are 30C, not 1C

                    • X and D is the same.
                      X is roman number for ten.
                      D is latin for decimus, aka 10.

                      typical treatments" are 30C, not 1C, based on even a casual review of homeopathic treatments
                      Nope, you always start with X1/D1 or C1 (equivalent of X2/D2).

                      What is sold on Amazon is: "stuff that does no harm" - and does not work either. It is for laymen who think they are smarter than a doctor and simply home order "medicals".

                      At that dilution, not even a single molecule of the original remedy remains, and most vendors never bothered

                    • > Nope, you always start with X1/D1 or C1 (equivalent of X2/D2).

                      Not according to any homeopathic guideline I can find. See https://www.1-800homeopathy.co... [1-800homeopathy.com] or https://www.nelsons.net/en-us/... [nelsons.net] for a typical "30C" recommended initial dose guideline. as being more powerful for initial treatments, based on the mystical homeopathic principle that diluting medicines makes them more potent.

                      Can you point to *any* homeopathic guideline or document that recommends starting treatment with even a C1 concentration

                    • Yes, it is, and unfortunately indistinguishable from the rest of homeopathy, which consistently shows no clinical benefit over placebos according to the most rigorous NIH studies.
                      Then check other studies :P

                      Anyway, your links make no sense.

                      No one starts with C30. For most "medicals" such a version does not even exist.

                      The web site you linked has nothing to do with "official therapy standards" - no idea why you think it has.

                      And regarding fraud: perhaps you do not grasp the legal implications.

                      Selling a material

                    • Can you point to *any* homeopathic guideline or document that recommends starting treatment with even a C1 concentration of the designated active ingredient?
                      Nope.
                      I'm not interested enough in the topic to do your legwork.

                      Perhaps you should simply start with Hahnemann, and how he proposed doing it?

                      I know hundreds of homeopathic doctors. As many of my colleagues switched from "traditional medicine" to homeopathy. So: I know what I'm talking about, as they tell me what they are doing. But I do not know if anyon

                    • Please, if you're claiming that "C1" is a common beginning concentration for homeopathic, point to any training or documentation which describes it. References I can find online indicate that "C30" is given for first aid use because by homeopathic standards the more dilute a substance, the more potent. C30 is well below the threshold of even a single molecule of the original treatment material being in the solution, by a factor of roughly 10^12.

                      I understand the legal definitions and implications of fraud re

                    • Please, look up "memory of water" in connection with homeopathy. the theory is quite fundamental to homeopathy, and if you're not aware of it, you'll try to reason scientifically about what is nonsensical. C30 is _absolutely_ a common initial dosage for homeopathic treatment. Here is an example homeopathic "first aid" kit:

                      https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/d... [nih.gov]

                      Every "treatment" in it is C30. And yes, it's nonsensical, farcical, and deemed fraudulent by any sensible pers

    • > Yes, I'm old and grumpy.

      Nobody cares about that. It's the half dozen other logical fallacies you're strung together that should be embarrassing.

      Go figure out how to use PubMed.

      • Unsure what youre critical about. Im willing to bet a months paycheck that pubmed will support my attitudes about vaccine deniers, covid deniers, ivermectin-takers, and homeopathy users. And, overall I stand by my statement: double blind random clinical trial, or it doesnt count.

    • Agreed. I know it's a 'publish or perish' world in academia, but the constant stream of what are essentially surveys, that make it into both the popular press, and unfortunately in this case a respected journal like Nature.

      I'm not against micro-dosing per se, but people should at least have a reasonable basis for knowing what to expect before they try. Pretty much like any medication...is there a likelihood that this will benefit me or not. Queue the 'what-about-ism' around similar double blind studies

      • Please mod parent up. Consumer surveys are just consumer surveys. Plus, I'm struggling to think of a less valid & reliable way to collect data than a survey app... maybe Mechanical Turk? Doesn't matter if the person who administered them has a PhD &/or works at a university. Clinical trials are the way to find out if there are any beneficial effects of a medicine or therapy. Thankfully, governments are relaxing the restrictions on research on psychedelics so that more clinical trials are becoming po

    • These drugs operate on the same receptors as classical anti-depressants. None of these effects are surprising to anyone with a basic understanding of pharmacology. Note that most of your resistance comes from LSD's legal status and not it's clinical applications.That legal status is what prevents clinical trials from even happening.

      Also, no antidepressant currently in-use today meets the standard you're requesting. In fact,every double blind study indicates they're equally as effective as the placebo. Y

      • Anyone who believes this should be screaming for wait for it double blind clinical trials. I happen to believe that LSD and other similar drugs have probably got real thereuputic effects we could be benefiting from. In thats the case, rigorous trials would show it. I can see why im being downmodded, and I really, really, REALLY want antidepressents to be something real - something we can actually use to help people whose brains are doing out-of-wack somersaults involuntarily. But, if it doesnt pass a meta-
    • Good job, you managed to introduce COVID and vaccines into a story that has nothing to do with that. Even more impressive, you put it in despite the rest of your own comment having nothing to do with that. Sigh... The intellectual quality here is going down, fast.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kmoser ( 1469707 )
      When you think about it, we're *all* microdosing LSD. Some are just taking smaller doses than others.
  • Where can I get some?
  • When I was growing up, my friends did not have a lot of access to medical attention, prescriptions, or anything. The world was the same as today, maybe a bit more stressful, as you would get killed if someone wanted your Jordans. And many did street drugs to manage their pain. Just like today with opioids. In 2010 there was around 70 prescriptions per hundred people. And we had all the opioid deaths. The benefits of the street drugs are well known. But we have also learned that even under doctors orders th

    • These days it's 9 months and $500 just to be seen by a psychiatrist.

      Many people will be dead or homeless before that kind of time rolls around.

      Thank the State Boards of Medicine for the staffing shortages - to practice you have to be majorly overqualified. That keeps the billing rates up. According to them, the ends justify the means and there's no such thing as Type I and Type II error. So what if people die from depression - at least they didn't get too weak of a dose!

      "What this this, the goddamn Middl

  • Trans: please give me more funds for studies with no criteria on which to evaluate the results.

    • And which leave medical grade pharmaceuticals in a laboratory for disposal. I'm old enough to remember Timothy Leary's fascination with and advocation, of quite large doses of LSD for its mental and spiritual enhancing qualities. I'm also old enough to remember what it did to him over time. He was not a convincing advocate for very long, though with his Harvard professor credentials he was quite popular for a time.

      • And which leave medical grade pharmaceuticals in a laboratory for disposal. I'm old enough to remember Timothy Leary's fascination with and advocation, of quite large doses of LSD for its mental and spiritual enhancing qualities. I'm also old enough to remember what it did to him over time. He was not a convincing advocate for very long, though with his Harvard professor credentials he was quite popular for a time.

        Other than the "Justice" system effectively getting him blackballed and discredited in "respected" academic circles, just exactly what did LSD "do to him" over time?

        I attended a talk he gave in his 70s, about 5 years before his death, and both the friend I attended with and myself still talk about how over-the-top intelligent, erudite and crystal-clear lucid he obviously was. In fact, it was one of those very few lectures I wish I could have recorded to continue to learn from!

        So, if he was a stereotypical "

        • There is an interview with him in 1992 recorded on YouTube, and a much earlier 1967 recording as well. In 1992, he was confused, his affect was profoundly flattened, and his face didn't move anymore. This seemed beyond the mere damage of age.. Perhaps if I considered dull, repetitive fortune cookie gibberish to be a source of inspiration I'd have been more impressed by his later rambling. He was far sharper and far more insightful when he was younger: I attribute most of his loss to his propensity for takin

  • Well no shit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @01:41PM (#62002425)

    Drugs are cool!

  • Placebo Effect (Score:5, Informative)

    by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @01:42PM (#62002429)
    A study earlier this year found microdosing no better than placebo. https://www.livescience.com/mi... [livescience.com]

    • Re:Placebo Effect (Score:4, Funny)

      by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @01:54PM (#62002463) Homepage

      Well, maybe you need to take more.

    • The study had a unique design in which participants were "self-blinded," meaning they followed instructions at home to mix up their microdose pills with placebo pills, so they didn't know which they were taking.

      The researchers found that participants who microdosed — usually with LSD — for about a month did indeed experience psychological benefits, including boosts in well-being and life satisfaction. However, those in the placebo group experienced similar improvements, and there was no statistically meaningful difference between the two groups, the researchers said.

      In ... "well-being and life satisfaction" ... among current microdosers. Kind of different than trying to treat anxiety and depression, and "mix up their microdose pills" is more like the difference between "taking them sometimes" vs "taking all the time". Could be that while you're taking a sufficiently large (micro)dose, taking more doesn't help. Other, more controlled studies [slashdot.org] are showing real results, though.

  • a sample of self-selected microdosers (n = 4050) and non-microdosers (n = 4653) via a mobile application

    So, you're dealing with multiple forms of selection bias, compounded with confirmation bias as microdosers report that the technique they chose to combat their mental health concerns is working for them. I see that the researchers make a call for more rigorous research, but the breathless reporting makes it sound as if we've already reached a firm conclusion, despite being nowhere close.

  • Relax man, everything's groovy.

  • Tolerance adaptation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jarik C-Bol ( 894741 ) on Friday November 19, 2021 @03:49PM (#62002837)
    Research like this makes me wonder of humans are simply symbiotically adapted to microdose levels of various ‘toxins’ as an adaptation to surviving less than fresh food. Just as we live with thousands of microbes in our gut that aid in digestion, perhaps more of our chemistry is balanced by substances like this that may have made its way into our diet more easily during the ‘hunter gatherer’ phase of human history, and is now missing (possibly with deleterious effects) due to our obsession with ‘clean’ food.

    Of course, I’m not suggesting anyone add LSD as a part of a balanced breakfast. It just makes me wonder.

  • Medical Use? (Score:3)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday November 19, 2021 @04:01PM (#62002891) Homepage Journal

    How can psylocibin have medical use if it's Schedule I? Schedule I is defined as no medical use and a high abuse potential.

    The government wouldn't lie to me or imprison innocents for money or power.

    I'm sure they will always Follow the Science uncorrupted.

    How can Nature even publish this when public health politicians have already proven the inverse with administrative rules?

  • 100% of doctors who have fucked up their brains with psychedelics recommend fucking up your brain with psychedelics!

  • It's just depressing that 90% of studies involve self-reporting on both what the subject is taking and what the results are, and the other 10% of studies demonstrate that subjects cannot reliably describe the basic facts of situations they have experienced.

    I mean, I get it, some things are hard to double-blind test for ethical reasons. But just because it's hard to do a double-blind test something doesn't mean taking a poll about it will generate real results.

Slashdot Top Deals

Fast, cheap, good: pick two.

Close