Generally, are psychedelics helpful or harmful?

[jaketodd]

Is the use of psychedelics...

Helpful:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.00940
(cited by 32)
"Studies combining psychotherapy with psychedelic drugs (PsiDs) have demonstrated positive outcomes that are often associated with PsiDs' ability to induce 'mystical-type' experiences (MTEs) - i.e., subjective experiences whose characteristics include a sense of connectedness, transcendence, and ineffability."

Or linked to personality disorders/imbalances:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06297
(cited by 105)
"The problem of evaluating an individual’s risk of drug consumption and misuse is highly important."
and
"The data set contained information on the consumption of 18 central nervous system psychoactive drugs."

Thanks,

Jake

 

[hutchphd]

I think the answer is "yes" to both
Of course as soon as it becomes a moral issue, with rigid proscriptions, the harm is predominantly from the moral suasions IMHO..

 

[jaketodd]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6430661/
5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT) used in a naturalistic group setting is associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety
(cited by 103)

 

[jaketodd]

Nowhere near being statistically significant.

I'm sorry!

I thought that being published in PubMed, with 103 citations pretty much guarantees authenticity.

Please quote the part of that paper that makes you skeptical of it.

Thanks

 

[PeterDonis]

I thought that being published in PubMed, with 103 citations pretty much guarantees authenticity.

It means no such thing. Publication does not mean a paper is correct. Many, many published papers turn out to be wrong. All publication means is that the journal thought the result was worth publishing in order for others to review it and critique it. Often that review and critique process turns up a problem. That's a normal part of the scientific process.

 

[jaketodd]

It means no such thing. Publication does not mean a paper is correct. Many, many published papers turn out to be wrong. All publication means is that the journal thought the result was worth publishing in order for others to review it and critique it. Often that review and critique process turns up a problem. That's a normal part of the scientific process.

Ok.

So how do I weed out the papers that are false? Is there any sort of database that is an authority of providing reviews of published, and heavily cited papers?

Thanks,

Jake

 

[PeterDonis]

how do I weed out the papers that are false?

Looking for other published papers that critique them, and exercising critical thinking on your own.

Is there any sort of database that is an authority of providing reviews of published, and heavily cited papers?

Science doesn't work by authority. There is no authority that can tell you what is true and what is false. You have to make your own judgments.

 

[jaketodd]

Looking for other published papers that critique them, and exercising critical thinking on your own.

I think I did that in my original post by referencing two papers. One seems to encourage psychedelic use, and the other one opposing it, and saying that it's dangerous. So, I presented two opposing perspectives to see what the Physics Forums experts have to say about it. And I thank you all for presenting your perspectives! But let's keep this going: Open to anyone on here that has something solid to say about this.

 

[jaketodd]

In general papers are written for experts, not the general public. You need to either become an expert or trust health care professionals.

What am I supposed to do if I'm neither an expert, nor trust health care professionals in general? Just not express myself?

 

[jaketodd]

You will probably get a better discussion on a psychiatry website. This topic is a long way away from the general expertise of PF.

Please recommend such a website. Thanks

 

[PeterDonis]

You need to either become an expert or trust health care professionals.

Those aren't your only options. You can test the predictive power of scientists without having to become an expert yourself. In the field of health care, nobody has very good predictive power. That means you should careful about attaching a lot of weight to anything health care professionals say.

 

[jaketodd]

I didn‘t say not to express yourself.

I do not know how to judge something with learning about it or talking to someone who does. @Bystander disagrees with me, so he might be able to help.

The first team I was on at microsoft. They told me I have "new eyes." To suggest features, find bugs, etc. that they hadn't already thought of. So, even though I am not an expert in physics, I do have "new eyes." And I think there's something to be said for that.

 

[jaketodd]

I know this is not a peer-reviewed paper, but I think this thread has evolved to make it relevant:

 

[berkeman]

Thread is paused for a brief moment to fix something...

 

[berkeman]

Thread is reopened. Please let's keep the discussion on-topic and appropriate for the Medical forum. Thanks.

 

[berkeman]

Recommending not taking medical advise on PF sounds like some kind of violation of PF rules to me.

Just to be fair, I was having a discussion with my GP doc one time about a surgery that was recommended to me by a specialist referral doc. I asked my GP if he thought I should go throught with it and he said yes. I then asked him if he would go through with the surgery if it were him and he had the same medical issue as me...

"Hell no!" was his response. I guess docs are hesisitant to go under the knife themselves sometimes...

 

[PeterDonis]

You seem to not understand how medial science works.

Medicine, what your doctor actually does, is not a science. It can't be, because individual people aren't statistics and many aspects of their situations are unique and non-repeatable. Medicine, when done properly, is certainly informed by scientific findings, but when your doctor gives you advice, he is not making use of a scientific model of you that has proven predictive power. He is combining his scientific background knowledge, his information about your individual case, and his gut feelings and intuition in order to give you professional advice.

None of that makes your doctor a scientist, and it doesn't make his advice always more reliable than your own judgment based on your own background knowledge (of which you probably have less in general than your doctor, but you might well have more about your individual case, particularly if you have a rare disorder and your doctor is not one of the few specialists in the world on it), information about your individual case (of which you have vastly more than your doctor can possibly have), and your own gut feelings and intuition (which can take into account things you feel about your own body and mind that you can't possibly communicate in detail to your doctor).

Recommending not taking medical advise

I have said no such thing. You asked me a question and I answered it. I did not say anything about anyone else except myself and my wife.

As for PF rules, recommending "always take your doctor's advice" here on PF, which, if I were not being charitable, I would say was implicit in the question you asked me, is just as irresponsible as recommending not to take your doctor's advice. The only correct thing one can say here is that you should exercise your own judgment, informed by whatever experts you choose. Nobody else here has enough information about your individual case to say anything else.

 

[DaveC426913]

I asked my GP if he thought I should go throught with it and he said yes.

The only reason I have a fully-intact stomach today is because I (actually, my wife) said "No, you're not performing a freakin' gastrectomy on him without examining some less extreme options, fercryinoutloud!"

 

[Rive]

Is the use of psychedelics...
Helpful
Or linked to personality disorders/imbalances

If a whack on the side of the head can be either help- or harmful depending the exact circumstances, then a whack in the head
...
well, I guess it would take an expert to see for the right circumstances and criteria to be helpful, right?

I see no actual controversy between the linked papers. One is about expert (controlled) usage, while the other is not.

 

[sbrothy]

The only reason I have a fully-intact stomach today is because I (actually, my wife) said "No, you're not performing a freakin' gastrectomy on him without examining some less extreme options, fercryinoutloud!"

I read (I forget where) that a medical professional said that his male patient's wifes saved more lifes than he did by forcing their husbands to go to their GP with suspected tumors. As men I suspect we have a tendency to not be "cry-babies" which is counterproductive to a long lifespan.

I don't need a wife or girlfriend to realize that I have a suspicious thingy right now. Unfortunately my GP is on holiday, and what's a week in the "long" run, right? :(

 

[jaketodd]

If a whack on the side of the head can be either help- or harmful depending the exact circumstances, then a whack in the head
...
well, I guess it would take an expert to see for the right circumstances and criteria to be helpful, right?

I see no actual controversy between the linked papers. One is about expert (controlled) usage, while the other is not.

Seems to me that the two papers are mutually exclusive. One says that psychedelics help with one's life, while the other one says that they are incredibly dangerous, and only used by sick individuals, and cause further sickness.

 

[jaketodd]

Seems to me that the two papers are mutually exclusive. One says that psychedelics help with one's life, while the other one says that they are incredibly dangerous, and only used by sick individuals, and cause further sickness.

Maybe people's brain chemistry is so diverse that it really depends on the individual, whether they help or hurt. And then, maybe they could help in some ways, and hurt in others, even in just one individual.

 

[jaketodd]

...and maybe neutral, too; neither helping nor hurting.

 

[jaketodd]

I know for a fact that people respond to drugs in very different ways. Some people can smoke DMT and love it. Others, have horrible paranoia just from marijuana.

So I guess we're just talking in generalities here. But that doesn't defeat this thread, because I believe there are statistically significant common reactions, even if there are a somewhat diversity of reactions.

 

[PeterDonis]

Maybe people's brain chemistry is so diverse that it really depends on the individual, whether they help or hurt. And then, maybe they could help in some ways, and hurt in others, even in just one individual.

...and maybe neutral, too; neither helping nor hurting.

I guess we're just talking in generalities here.

Which is really veering off into speculation, which is off limits here.

I know for a fact that people respond to drugs in very different ways.

So does anyone who went to college at any time since the 1960s.

But anecdotal observations are really off topic here.

I believe there are statistically significant common reactions

Do you have any actual papers to back this up?

 

[Fra]

Just about everything in the body and the brain are about a delicate balance, too much or too little of anything is bad. This is the case also for neurotransmitters. Some medications modulate these, but they may be good if you have a disease or imbalance, otherwise they will likely not improve anything. Engineering the human brain chemistry is obviously extremely hard and not fully understood and it probably isn't something one should experiment on by oneself.

What you ask about seems to involve many receptors, but in particular one serotonin receptor and is entangled with pathophysiology of depression...

Hallucinogens and Serotonin 5-HT2A Receptor-Mediated Signaling Pathways​

"The major physiological effects induced by hallucinogens, in particular when evaluated in human subjects, are related to altered states of consciousness, including changes in cognition, mood, and perception. It is widely accepted at the present time that these effects are generated mostly by the interaction of hallucinogens with 5-HT2A receptors as agonists"
-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756147/

But in depression alot of other 5-HTxx serotonin receptors are included, and paradoxally activation of 5-HT2A suppresses the ones important in most SSRI medications. So it seems there are many interacting mechanisms at play at once, so it's not as easy as to say that just more of sometihng is always good. Many of these disorders are extremely heterogenic, there isnt't one simple cure for all patients with "similar" symptoms.

Overcoming Depression with 5-HT2A Receptor Ligands​

"It is worth highlighting that numerous preclinical and clinical studies confirmed the usefulness of 5-HT2A receptor antagonists in the treatment of depression"
-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8744644/

How psychedelic drugs may help with depression​

"Psychedelic drugs being tested as therapies for treatment-resistant depression activate receptors within brain cells that promote new brain cell connections."
-- https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-psychedelic-drugs-may-help-depression

​

Can psychedelics help with severe depression?​

-- https://ki.se/en/research/can-psychedelics-help-with-severe-depression

The therapeutic role of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors in depression​

"The blockade of 5-HT2A receptors also seems to improve the clinical effects of SSRIs. These receptors are located postsynaptically to 5-HT axons, mainly in the neocortex.
"-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC446220/

/Fredrik

 

[pbuk]

The first team I was on at microsoft. They told me I have "new eyes." To suggest features, find bugs, etc. that they hadn't already thought of.

Yes, in closed teams with limited collaboration outside the team, "new eyes" can be very useful.

So, even though I am not an expert in physics, I do have "new eyes."

Most of what we call physics has been looked on by hundreds of thousands of pairs of "new eyes"; another pair is not useful. Even at the cutting edge of physics there are dozens of teams working and publishing papers for other eyes to review.

 

[jaketodd]

Which is really veering off into speculation, which is off limits here.

Sorry, was brain storming.

Do you have any actual papers to back this up?

Driver Behavior Post Cannabis Consumption: A Driving Simulator Study in Collaboration with Montgomery County Maryland
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12026
"The results showed that the participant speed reduction times are lower i.e., they brake harder post cannabis consumption, when they encounter a change in traffic light..."

 

[jaketodd]

Driver Behavior Post Cannabis Consumption: A Driving Simulator Study in Collaboration with Montgomery County Maryland
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12026
"The results showed that the participant speed reduction times are lower i.e., they brake harder post cannabis consumption, when they encounter a change in traffic light..."

But isn't it kind of obvious? I mean you no offense. But isn't it kind of like asking: "Do hallucinogens produce hallucinations?" But I see the need for studies to really rigorously differentiate between what drugs will do to different people. Credit to @Fra

 

[jaketodd]

Do you have any actual papers to back this up?

Here's another. I'm sure there are many more. ...Although cocaine is not a psychedelic, strictly speaking. But papers like these do show commonalities of the effects of various drugs.

Proteome-informed machine learning studies of cocaine addiction
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08718

 

[PeterDonis]

isn't it kind of obvious?

It's obvious that drugs have effects on people. But that's not what you were talking about in the post I responded to by asking for references. You claimed there were "statistically significant common reactions". That is not obvious and needs research to back it up.

 

[jaketodd]

It's obvious that drugs have effects on people. But that's not what you were talking about in the post I responded to by asking for references. You claimed there were "statistically significant common reactions". That is not obvious and needs research to back it up.

Point taken. There are the usual commonly-expected reactions to certain substances. But then to get the whole picture, it depends on a lot of other factors, many of which we don't understand yet - therefore the need for more research. Once again, thanks to @Fra

 

[jedishrfu]

Having read through this entire thread, I have to say the question is too broad. All drugs have good and bad side effects that must be studied and evaluated in order to use them effectively. We all know this, so it's not really new to say it.

It seems we have exhausted this topic and so I am closing the thread.

Thank you all for participating here.

Jedi