
A Dose of a Hallucinogen from a ‘Magic Mushroom,’ and Then Lasting Peace - daegloe
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/health/hallucinogenic-mushrooms-psilocybin-cancer-anxiety-depression.html
======
88e282102ae2e5b
> Dr. Griffiths noted that patients received extensive support, which may have
> deepened and secured their life-affirming transformations.

> “People will take psilocybin at a rave or at Burning Man” — the art and
> performance desert festival — “but the effect,” he said, “evaporates like
> water running through their hands.”

It certainly doesn't hurt to have a trip sitter or to discuss the experience
with someone understanding, but this is a completely unwarranted conclusion.
It seems like Dr. Griffiths _needs_ it to not have an effect outside of a
clinical setting, which is just so unfortunate. I would rate doing mushrooms
as one of the single most important decisions of my life.

~~~
misja111
I'm from Amsterdam and every year or so a tourist dies or gets injured from
jumping out of a hotel window while under the influence of mushrooms. Probably
less than a promille of all users but I would say that the conclusion that
support is needed is definitely warranted.

~~~
Thimothy
In Spain, several tourists die every year trying to jump from their hotel
window in the 5th floor to the swimming pool (balconing, look it up) under the
influence of their own stupidity. Some people are just looking forward to
dying, they just need an excuse.

------
pmoriarty
_" Some medical professionals held the studies at arm’s length. Dr. William
Breitbart, chairman of the psychiatry department at Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center, questioned this use of cancer patients. "Medical marijuana got
its foot in the door by making the appeal that ‘cancer patients are suffering,
they’re near death, so for compassionate purposes, let’s make it available,’ "
he said. "And then you’re able to extend this drug to other purposes.""_

This is supposed to be a criticism? Sounds like an endorsement to me.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
Later in the same article, the same doctor said that it's impossible to show
whether the psilocybin was responsible because they might have come through
the depression anyway. I get the impression that this doctor is strongly anti-
drugs, and is allowing his personal bias to cloud his professional judgment.
The fact that he makes a living from the psychiatric treatment of cancer
patients might go some way to explaining his bias, but also makes it all the
less excusable.

~~~
josscrowcroft
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!" \- Upton Sinclair

------
dmalvarado
"Patients were randomly given a placebo or synthetic psilocybin, and not told
which. "

Hah. I bet they figured out which pill they got, pretty quickly.

~~~
tonyarkles
Not just the patient... I bet everyone in the room knew who was given the
control and who wasn't.

------
md224
> Some medical professionals held the studies at arm’s length. Dr. William
> Breitbart, chairman of the psychiatry department at Memorial Sloan-Kettering
> Cancer Center, questioned this use of cancer patients. “Medical marijuana
> got its foot in the door by making the appeal that ‘cancer patients are
> suffering, they’re near death, so for compassionate purposes, let’s make it
> available,’ ” he said. “And then you’re able to extend this drug to other
> purposes.”

I don't like this guy. And he's the chairman of the Psychiatry department at a
major hospital.

~~~
trprog
>I don't like this guy.

Why?

~~~
coldtea
For one, he gives no scientific reason why those "other purposes" are bad.

~~~
hackermailman
The article blatantly edited out those reasons and rearranged his quotes to
give this doctor an anti-psilocybin crusading slant. It worked, you
immediately dislike him not knowing what his real concerns are, and were just
given an out of context snippet.

His concerns are already on record in medical journals (sadly mostly
paywalled) about using Psilocybin on cancer patients
[http://www.ascopost.com/issues/may-10-2015/a-cautionary-
note...](http://www.ascopost.com/issues/may-10-2015/a-cautionary-note-on-
psilocybin-therapy/) and it has to do with peer review. The comparison with
medical marijuana is that they did not do reproduction or review on those
studies and then the research was used to shove through legalized marijuana
and he wants more research and review this time around before dosing patients
with hallucinogens.

~~~
dfraser992
There really needs to be a proper social debate about the place drugs
(including alcohol) have or ought to have within society. No, the current
hysteria and scattershot approach is not sufficient. I'm thinking a one time
town hall type event where this damn problem is solved once and for all.

I'm all for medical research, but using medical reasons (aka "medicalization")
to legitimize psychoactive substances in general doesn't have quite the
integrity I think is needed.

And to try and constrain psychoactive substances entirely to the medical
sphere, as so many would like to do I think, is problematic as well.

~~~
int_19h
Any substances should be "legitimized" by default, unless they have known
harmful effects. The onus should be on those that demand a ban or regulation
to demonstrate the need for it.

It's how we handle all things in general. Drugs are that one weird exception
(and then there are exceptions from that exception, like alcohol).

~~~
coldtea
> _Any substances should be "legitimized" by default, unless they have known
> harmful effects._

We don't ban chlorine. Or paint thinner. And, yes, we don't consume those
either (although, some do sniff glue), but no reason to not having even things
with "known harmful effects" be legit between adults in their own time.

~~~
int_19h
I should have made it more clear.

What I was talking about is the _sale_ of substances that are 1) advertised
specifically for consumption, and 2) have known highly harmful effects when
consumed as advertised. This is similar to regulating poisonous food. You can
still buy poison and food separately, and combine them if you really want to.
So this is not about possession.

For possession, I can think of only two reasons why it should ever be
regulated. One is when the substance requires special handling to store
safely, and can e.g. leak into the environment and affect others if handled
improperly. I'm not sure if there are any drugs that are in this category.
Presumably, at least some of them could be in sufficient quantities. But even
then, this would be regulating safe storage, not possession per se.

The other reason is when a substance, when consumed, is likely to make the
person highly dangerous to others - a hypothetical example would be a drug
that reliably induces violent rage, and that has no other legitimate use (e.g.
not a beneficial drug in smaller doses).

------
tlb
How can one distinguish between these two descriptions of a drug's effect: 1\.
it brings psychological insights resulting in lasting peace 2\. it permanently
disables part of the brain responsible for fear and anxiety reactions

Obviously one sounds good and one sounds bad, but I wonder what study you
could perform to accept hypothesis 1 but reject hypothesis 2.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
Traditional antidepressents are like the friend who gives you a hug when
you're feeling bad. It helps, but it's only designed to address _how_ you're
feeling. Psychedelics are more like the therapist who will help you realise
_why_ you feel that way, and allow you to look at things from a different
perspective. When the immediate effect has worn off, antidepressents just
return you to baseline, while psychedelics leave you with the memory of your
experience and the ability to take that step back from yourself.

~~~
privateprofile
>> When the immediate effect has worn off, antidepressents just return you to
baseline

Not really. When an antidepressant's effect wanes, most people experience
severe withdrawal symptoms and side effects (e.g. hallucinations), and many
patients find it impossible to cope with the withdrawal and live without the
mind numbing effect.

What most antidepressants will do is actually get you to a baseline state
where you're feeling numb and having a mild existence of not experiencing
happiness/calm or sadness/anxiety, but in a strange/empty place between the
normal ups and downs of life.

~~~
adn
Saying things like this is really really dangerous in my opinion, because in
addition to being totally false it can discourage someone struggling with
depression / anxiety / whatever from seeking treatment because they don't want
to feel "numb." I'm sure I can speak for not just myself but many others here
and say that without antidepressants I'd probably be dead, and the only part
of life they've eliminated are the lowest valleys of depression. At one point
I considered not taking them because I believed in this same misconception (I
was afraid to lose my creativity), but I'm very glad now I did not give in to
that fear.

Please do not spread misinformation about potentially life-saving medication.

~~~
privateprofile
Medication can be necessary in extreme cases, to stabilize a patient whose
thought processes are too disorganized to undergo therapy. This is the
professional opinion that I've received from multiple therapists. More
professional opinions at [2] and [3].

It's hard to believe that all the thousands of people that are prescribed
antidepressants are going through severe (i.e. crippling) depression. I'm glad
that you experienced only mild/no side-effects, but that it appears this is
not the case with the majority of patients [1].

Someone struggling with depression/anxiety/whatever should seek treatment for
the causes of their suffering, of course.

However, the common mantra is that a pill will solve your ill, the fact that
antidepressants are prescribed like candy (second only to antibiotics) should
hint on this. The problem is that, at best, the pill will help you with
symptoms and will not solve the underlying causes (often related to trauma
handling or with how one deals with the hardships of life).

[1] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are-
antidep...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are-
antidepressants-just-placebos-with-side-effects/) [2]
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-
antidepressant...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-
antidepressants-work/) [3] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-
antidepressa...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-
antidepressant-studies-found-tainted-by-pharma-company-influence/)

------
vlunkr
Does anyone else feel like HN has a really silly optimism about psychedelic
drugs? Like it's just a foregone conclusion that if you are dying of cancer
the best thing you can do is take drugs?

~~~
pstuart
No. What's silly is your argument.

Drugs are a tool and it is very much a hacker thing to want to learn about
these tools and how they can be best used. Any sort of "promotion" you're
reacting to could also be construed of people who see value in these tools
regardless of official public policy.

~~~
Jgrubb
I'm just saying - if you'd left out that first sentence you wouldn't be
getting downvoted.

~~~
pstuart
Yeah, I know better but was too annoyed at the time.

------
drewblaisdell
I've never taken hallucinogens before. I want to have a positive, meaningful
experience with them. How do I do it?

~~~
notgood
Search for someone who has already taken them you trust the most, and ask
where to find/buy (the same part they buy). Know what are you taking (as much
as possible), read a lot about it on the internet, specially if you suffer
from some chronic illness or are genetically predisposed to something (e.g.
heart attacks). Only consume them surrounded by friend(s) in an known place,
not with strangers, have water ready (maybe food too); if you have no friends
around do the minimun dose at home (perhaps with music), have a medikit around
if you are feeling paranoid about it. Fir time take only the minimum
recommendation or so, try to have at least one friend around who will stay
sober, don't take more if you don't feel anything; better to not combine with
alcohol or other drugs.

------
towb
I just listened to a podcast that touched this topic, an interview with David
Nutt, seems like he does similar research over in the UK.

It's a Swedish podcast but not that much in this episode, the interview starts
14 minutes in: [https://soundcloud.com/user-659943582/david-nutt-magic-
mushr...](https://soundcloud.com/user-659943582/david-nutt-magic-mushrooms-
lsd)

~~~
proaralyst
For those who aren't aware, David Nutt used to be head of the UK Government's
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he pointed out that ecstacy was
less dangerous than horse riding.

------
SolaceQuantum
Hearing feel-good stories makes me wonder what would happen if a schizotypal
(generally summarized as a "less severe schizophrenic") person such as myself
could take them and still receive benefits. Maybe it will just be the final
tip into a psychotic break.

These stories often make me think that they are merely catered to people with
either "acceptable" mental illness (depression, anxiety, etc) or people who
have no mental illness. Anyone else may as well not exist in this worldview.

On another note, I find it quite amusing to read the HN stories here of how
their experiences went with psychadelics. The descriptions presented seem
understandable to me and I feel I've experienced such things in my day-to-day
existence. I'm not quite sure how they are profound, nor how they make someone
more open-minded, intelligent, etc.

~~~
mkoryak
Its really hard to write down "how" they are profound. I think the experiences
typically transcend language.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Yes, like I've said, I've been there in my day to day. My question is why they
are profound. Maybe it's because others are capable of being distanced from it
eventually. It's profound when you(general) don't have to stay "there", can
"come back" and relate how open minded and intelligent and elightened one is
now.

------
andrewthornton
I would love to get a hold of the playlist that they mention.

~~~
pmoriarty
If you are interested in this sort of thing, I'd strongly recommend _" The
Secret Chief Revealed"_,[1] which goes in to detail on the playlist selection
for psychedelic therapy and many other related topics. It's a truly excellent
book on the subject.

[1] - [https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-
Stolaroff...](https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-
Stolaroff/dp/0966001966/)

------
nightbrawler
For some awesome insight into Magic Mushrooms, Hamilton's Pharmacopeia on
Viceland had a great episode:

[https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/magic-mushrooms-in-
mexi...](https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/magic-mushrooms-in-
mexico/5824ee7c26bc7bcd771ba6c3)

------
toodlebunions
Interesting.

I guess nobody had a bad trip?

~~~
atom-morgan
From personal experience and from some other people I know, there are really
no such things as bad trips. Only uncomfortable trips with often uncomfortable
truths or revelations about the world and/or yourself.

(Obviously I'm not counting extremes like dosing someone and throwing them
into a haunted house. That would be a bad trip.)

~~~
corndoge
From personal experience, there are such things as bad trips.

I recently had one of my friends -- a relatively experienced psychedelic user
-- dive out of a window because he thought the world was going to end. Among
other things this resulted in my friend barely escaping death by hemorrhage (I
called emergency services, he was hospitalized), an uncomfortable police
encounter, quite a few articles of clothing lost due to being soaked in blood,
and some unsavory legal consequences for my friend. Not to mention a rather
scarring mental experience for myself.

Set was good, setting was good, substance was known good. I had absolutely no
reason to suspect anything going wrong. But it did go wrong.

Even if you know what you are doing and are experienced, it is always possible
for bad things to happen. Getting cocky and saying there are no such things as
bad trips is an invitation for trouble.

~~~
bioluminescent
How much did he take? It sounds like he took too much. Taking a sensible dose
should not result in this.

~~~
corndoge
He had prior experience with the same substance at the same dosage. It was a
little high but nothing unheard of, certainly not a heroic dose.

~~~
bioluminescent
I just want to mention that I'm glad he survived, and I hope this doesn't put
him off using psychedelics for the rest of his life. I take shrooms regularly,
only ever in doses of 1g dried at a time. I would like to take more but I am
aware that it is possible to lose control, and I am very cautious of this.

~~~
firethief
> I hope this doesn't put him off using psychedelics for the rest of his life

I think a lot of people could benefit deeply from responsibly using
psychedelics, but they're not always the answer. They're powerful tools with
great potential for good and great potential for harm. When or whether to take
psychedelics is a very personal decision; our psychological landscapes can be
very difficult to map out even from the inside. Part of being responsible
about psychedelics is not making blind judgments of what other people should
do with their minds.

------
zeckalpha
Another datapoint for the Bayesian model?

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-
way-u...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/)

------
josscrowcroft
What effect could four years of Trump presidency have on such research, trials
and progress? Anybody have any comments or links to related resources? Thanks
in advance.

------
mads
Where could I get hold of this?

~~~
goatsi
Look into 4-aco-dmt, a prodrug of psilocybin (and suspected to have some
activity on it's own) that is legal to purchase in most of the world. Googling
"buy 4-aco-dmt" will give you a number of sites that will happily sell it to
you after you promise that you are purchasing it for reasons other than human
consumption. I would recommend the Canadian sites over the Chinese ones.

------
Jach
So is a dose like 22 caps?

