[HN Gopher] Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blin...
___________________________________________________________________
Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-
controlled study
Author : freddier
Score : 281 points
Date : 2022-08-06 07:36 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| j_m_b wrote:
| I'm sort of surprised they didn't extract/synthesize psilocybin
| directly and administer that. Decades ago, I grew a few batches
| of P. Cubensis. Even amongst mushrooms from the same rice cake,
| the dosage wildly varies. You could have a "trip" from a tiny
| mushroom or eat a handful of duds.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Same. Most psilocybin research I am familiar with synthesizes
| psilocybin, in part to be able to exactly control dosage,
| indeed. But it may also be to avoid dealing with illegal
| market?
|
| I think this research was not done in the US but in another
| country (not sure which one?), not sure if research norms or
| availability or what differ there.
| IlliOnato wrote:
| It might be so that researchers investigate the common practice
| of "microdosing" and its effects, not necessarily (just) the
| effects of psilocybin low dosage. So they tried to closely
| emulate this practice, as it is done by users in real-life.
|
| But this of course introduces more uncertainty, as you pointed
| out, so to have any conclusive results a much larger sample
| group would be needed, I think.
|
| Also I agree with others that comparison with the baseline for
| each test subject, not just between the test group and control
| group, would be important.
| 14 wrote:
| They just need a large batch of mushrooms and grind it to a
| powder and weighed out and placed in a pill capsule, much
| like what I saw back in high school being sold. No taste as
| it is in a pill capsule and the dose is pretty consistent.
| TranquilMarmot wrote:
| It would be nice if they were to study the effects of
| different doses of psilocybin directly. Could feed into
| possible depression treatments in the future... if somebody
| is trying to treat depression with psilocybin, they probably
| want a predictable dose that you can't really get eating
| mushrooms directly.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I figured it was this as well - the motivation for performing
| the study is the anecdata from self-reports on microdosing
| with traditional techniques. I suspect that, if they had seen
| strong evidence for microdosing here - they would have moved
| on to investigating the effect in detail.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Is psyocybin the only active chemical in mushrooms or is it
| like Marijuana where other chemicals in it can have some effect
| too
| Kab1r wrote:
| Psilocin is also present.
| entropie wrote:
| > Even amongst mushrooms from the same rice cake, the dosage
| wildly varies
|
| This is the main reason with psychoactive mushrooms overall.
| You can't dose exact via bio material so overdosing happens
| regular and could be actually harmful.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Extracting from shrooms with ethanol is quite consistent, the
| psilocybin isn't very soluble so after a few days soaking you
| can be pretty confident that the ethanol has taken up all it
| can. for microdosing the ethanol probably isn't enough to
| worry about trying to take it back out of solution, drink .25
| oz or so.
| sowbug wrote:
| Would you mind citing a case of harm caused by
| pharmacological effects of mushroom overdose? My own online
| research since your post found no such recorded instances,
| but perhaps we're using different terminology.
| varispeed wrote:
| It's interesting that when it comes to cannabis they often do
| the opposite - that is they give subjects synthetic THC rather
| than the whole spectrum extract. THC isolate is quite nasty -
| but the same amount of THC combined with CBD and other
| cannabinoids can work wonders.
|
| I think there may be that if they isolated psilocybin, they
| could have missed other compounds that play a part in causing
| desired effects. Obviously this is a different substance than
| cannabinoids, but I think when it comes to plants it makes more
| sense to test it exactly how subjects use it rather than use
| synthetics.
|
| edit: I hope I didn't cause offence to any mushroom - of course
| they are not plants, but I hope you get my point.
| monktastic1 wrote:
| One improvement is to take the entire batch and blend it up, so
| that at least doses from that batch are consistent. Still
| doesn't help inter-batch consistency for scientific studies, of
| course.
| anovikov wrote:
| It's very difficult to dose mushrooms properly, in real world,
| content of psilocybin in a particular bag of mushrooms may vary
| by a factor of 5 or more, plus it decays at speed hard to
| predict. Even proper taking of mushrooms is quite unpredictable -
| you can be blown away or hardly feel anything - and microdosing
| is always harder. Personally i don't like mushrooms for that
| reason. If you could eat more if the original amount turned
| insufficient that would be OK, but psychodelics just don't work
| that way.
| jack_pp wrote:
| Considering micro-dosing either helps you or at worst it has no
| bad effects I don't see why you wouldn't try it if you had access
| to it and the legal aspect didn't hinder you.
|
| Personally and subjectively it did help me, I wasn't depressed
| but it did help with creativity and learning, I gained like
| 150-200 points on chess.com just from playing and reviewing games
| (rarely)
| jack_pp wrote:
| To all those down-voting, I'm sorry but am I to believe n=20
| studies when there's a huge replication crisis or hundreds of
| people who took the risk, tested it on their own and reported
| on it? I'm not saying studies are useless but just basing your
| beliefs on small studies like this is crazy to me.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| It improves your mood, which quiets down the internal critic
| always shouting at you that what you're creating is a waste of
| time. That's probably the actual most important benefit.
| CPLNTN wrote:
| Exactly, from personal experience I would say the effect of
| proper micro dosing is very similar to the benefits that
| experience meditators report when asked
| gwern wrote:
| Note: the 2021 preprint version
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.30.470657v1....
| was also extensively discussed, so that is why this might sound
| familiar.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| > microdosing
|
| > half a gram doses of cubes.
|
| I don't think the studies designers really thought this one
| through.
| erokar wrote:
| Agree, does seems high.
| Jolter wrote:
| If you think the dose is too high, yet they found no
| significant effect compared to placebo, what would you expect
| would happen at a _lower_ dose?
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| 0.5 grams of p. cubensis is a noticeable dose. Its not a
| microdose by any means, and usually will result in some
| impairment.
|
| Its about what I'd take if I wanted to enhance a visit to a
| museum or art gallery, or music production.
|
| Its not what I'd take and try do a day of work.
| hinkley wrote:
| Pun intended?
| Gatsky wrote:
| I think this is saying that microdosing is mainly placebo effect,
| and otherwise doesn't do much. This makes sense. All these
| participants took full dose psychedelics at some point, and thus
| had very strong associations.
| BossingAround wrote:
| So far, as far as I know, that seems to be the prevailing
| scientific opinion, i.e. microdosing seems to be about as
| effective as placebo (at least microdosing of psilocybin).
| bkitano19 wrote:
| I think the point of differentiating between the blinded and
| unblinded groups was to show that placebo alone does not
| account for the effects of microdosing.
| jerrygoyal wrote:
| I wish these academic articles also had TLDR section
| fumblebee wrote:
| You mean, the abstract?
| mjlawson wrote:
| That's the purpose of the Abstract.
|
| > According to our findings, low doses of psilocybin mushrooms
| can result in noticeable subjective effects and altered EEG
| rhythms, but without evidence to support enhanced well-being,
| creativity and cognitive function. We conclude that expectation
| underlies at least some of the anecdotal benefits attributed to
| microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms.
| iammjm wrote:
| I had some positive results with microdosing. I used the fadiman
| protocol for a whole month, ingesting about 0,1g - 0,2g self
| grown dried mushrooms, on an on-off-off-on basis.
| nevershower wrote:
| I see the appeal of microdosing, but to me it renders similar to
| the kick you might get out of rebelliously sipping a pocket-flask
| at work. You get the mental boost of "letting loose" while
| impaired just below the radar.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| This is a common fallacy perpetuated by people who have only
| experienced the alcohol drug.
|
| Microdoses of psychedelics are not impairing. On the contrary,
| they can improve performance, especially in abstract problem
| solving.
| geden wrote:
| Apparently not, according to this study at least.
| hinkley wrote:
| And according to several other top level comments with
| anecdotes.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| This study doesn't bear that out, nor have any other placebo-
| controlled trials.
|
| Also, I've experienced about 40 different psychoactive drugs,
| including both micro and megadoses of psychedelics. And my
| experience tracks with GP in that it does cognitively impair
| you. Maybe don't make blanket statements about people you
| disagree with, it doesn't make your argument look any
| stronger.
| manmal wrote:
| Now we have two blanket statements.
| [deleted]
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I'm not sure what blanket statement you're referring to.
| Please be specific.
| istinetz wrote:
| >I've experienced about 40 different psychoactive drugs
|
| That is insane
|
| How is your brain not fried
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I didn't say it wasn't :)
|
| I jest, but mostly I took reasonable precautions and
| stuck to things I was reasonably sure weren't harmful, or
| at least toxic. I've had some very bad times with the
| synthetic cannabinoid, though, and I don't wanna go into
| it other than to say: I was hella lucky not to have my
| brain fried. Happy to say I've gained a healthier
| relationship to drugs since then.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Perhaps the "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda was
| just that, propaganda?
| jahnu wrote:
| Well if all on one weekend it might be but over a
| sufficient amount of time it probably, maybe, has less of
| a impact as having had 40 nights out on a different
| alcoholic beverage ;)
| ace2358 wrote:
| This aligns with my experiences. Especially for me, how low
| my productivity was during the come down, which could
| sometimes last a week or four!
| cdot2 wrote:
| How do you know you wouldn't have felt the same about a
| placebo?
| ace2358 wrote:
| Fuck Brah, have you taken psychedelics or other hard
| drugs? The comedown feeling where you nervous system
| feels on fire and your skin feels tight it unmistakable
| for me. I might possibly feel like that from a placebo,
| the placebo effect can be very tricky and you kind can
| play tricks.
|
| But I'd say 99% chance no. I'd know the difference.
|
| This is obviously talking about doses closer to mega dose
| than micro dose. Although as time went on, even small
| doses that wouldn't get me much of a buzz would still
| ruin me for weeks afterwards.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Perhaps people are different in this regard.
| austinjp wrote:
| Erm, define "impairment". Yes this study notes reduced
| performance in some areas (but the authors acknowledge
| plenty of weaknesses and explanations in their discussion).
| However, increases in something like "creativity" might
| reduce e.g. verbal fluency, while increasing "performance"
| for artists, or increasing insights when problem solving in
| many disciplines.
| belorn wrote:
| There are definitively a number of artists that say they
| work better with alcohol. "impairment" would be defined
| as something that increase risk of reduce performance, as
| in, people who drink alcohol has a higher risk of having
| their driving skill reduced compared to those who don't
| have alcohol in their blood. Such statement doesn't
| exclude the possibility that alcohol may increase driving
| ability compared to base line, only that the variance is
| higher and thus risk.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| A lot of artists on the autistic spectrum have stated
| they're not "normal" if they don't start their day with a
| drink.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Well, to look for impairment at any specific task, you
| want to just do that task, of course.
|
| I agree there's really no meaningful concept of "general
| impairment" unless you're talking about something more
| extreme like a brain disorder or heavy alcohol
| intoxication with global involvement leading to something
| like a coma or gross movement disorder.
|
| These various neuropsych tests try to test something as
| specific as possible. Working memory for instance. Their
| development is a complicated field all on its own. And
| this is psychology, so it's good to keep the
| reproducibility crisis in mind and adjust one's credences
| accordingly.
|
| There's a really cool painter whose name I forget who
| mainly does self portraits while under the effect of
| various substances. The one where he huffed computer
| duster for instance,is just a few meaningless lines on a
| mostly white canvas. That's a pretty good example of
| global impairment right there. And there's also sorts of
| paintings on psychedelics, showing varying degrees of
| visual impairment. Really recommend googling the guy if
| you want a very visceral way of visualising the various
| impairments brought on by psychoactive drugs.
|
| This is becoming an unfocused rant so I'll cap it off
| here I guess.
| [deleted]
| mjfl wrote:
| Looks like they found no change on a wide variety of tests, like
| measurements of openness and creativity, except for an array of
| subjective, psychedelic experience questions like "Sounds
| influences things I see", "I see distorted shapes", etc.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Based on available literature, 0,5 grams of dried mushrooms is
| definitely not a microdose.
| danielunited wrote:
| Microdosing is great but not for everyone. It can actually
| increase your anxiety if you take too high a dose. Personally, I
| take a micro dose of LSD every other Friday, drink a cup of
| coffee and hit the gym. It does wonders. And definitely not
| addicting.
| goodoldneon wrote:
| What's your dose and what are some of the benefits you get?
| InCityDreams wrote:
| You're lucky you can repeatedly trust your source, and their
| measuring skills.
|
| /jealous.
| CPLNTN wrote:
| If you switch to RC there very reputable vendors in the EU
| knbknb wrote:
| The study participants tried psilocybin (mushrooms) for
| microdosing (low dosing actually); but it seems to me that the
| more common practice is to use LSD for microdosing, at least
| according to the references #1,2,3 in the paper.
| ivoras wrote:
| I have a feeling the hedonic treadmill is to blame.
| rco8786 wrote:
| Blame for what
| drekipus wrote:
| How does one even get contacts to consider this (in a safe
| manner)?
|
| One thought about this and I'd actually consider myself fairly in
| tune and at peace with my inner self already, so I'd be curious
| to see how it could help me deal with some of my ruts I get in
| from time to time.
|
| Alcohol definitely isn't helping
| failTide wrote:
| Go to shroomery.org - your best bet is to learn how to grow
| them. It's an awesome hobby in general, and you can grow non-
| psychedelic mushrooms as well if you just want to get the hang
| of it.
|
| https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/2192202...
| isn't a terrible place to start.
| jnovek wrote:
| I know my posts on Hacker News are like a broken record, but
| have you considered talk therapy (if it's available to you)?
|
| "Rut" and "alcohol" are two words that set off depression
| alarms. Medication and therapy -- or if you're opposed to
| medication, just therapy -- help. I know from experience.
|
| Edit: Not to be down on psychedelics at all --- I'm optimistic
| about the role of psychedelics in future depression treatment.
| It's just that nearly everything about dosing for depression is
| anecdote and more mundane tools work in a large number of
| cases.
| drekipus wrote:
| Cheers, I appreciate that.
|
| I have had therapy over the years, but one thing I was told
| was that it couldn't be depression because it's so
| infrequent. I'm more likely just getting sad at times.
|
| Most of the time I'm pepper and optimistic, etc. I might just
| have a minor burn out from work or I start feeling like I'm
| not doing enough. Meditation has helped, along with going to
| the gym, but some times I burn out from that too like boredom
| (from doing the same thing over and over), and I don't know
| why
| ebb_earl_co wrote:
| If you live in Canada, and specifically in Vancouver, there are
| de facto legal operating dispensaries for psilocybin [0]. If
| you don't live there, but live in the USA, some of said shops
| will ship products to USA. Now, I don't know if this hits your
| threshold for "safe", but seeing as the doses involved are
| quite low, one could argue that it would be safer than, say,
| starting a new (SSRI) antidepressant if you take into account
| long-term effects [1], side-effects, etc [2].
|
| [0]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/magic-
| mushro... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024808
| [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
| ryanchants wrote:
| I'm in US, so that's all I can speak to. Psilocybin spores are
| legal to purchase in most states, though growing/possession are
| illegal. Once you have the spores, you just grow your own.
| Techniques(teks in the magic mushroom world) like PF Tek and
| Uncle Ben's Tek are pretty easy. Uncles Ben's is especially
| popular, because it takes out the sterilization step.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| The only thing I got from microdosing shrooms was a near death
| encounter with a bus. :)
| toxicFork wrote:
| Can you elaborate please?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Assumedly, they nearly walked in front of a bus after
| microdosing(?) shrooms. If not, ELABORATE PLEASE.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| yes, this. my awareness was somewhat diminished. but then
| again I had no proper way to really accurately microdose -
| so I might have taken too much. trying to accurately dose a
| natural product like mushrooms is rather difficult.
| mmsnberbar66 wrote:
| iryntyis3 wrote:
| Look into Reckful if you have any interest in this subject
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| Been doing it for some months on & off, this shit is legit.
| Altough 0,5g has me tripping so I rarely dose above 100
| milligrams.
|
| Get up early, do a workout, take cold shower, meditate and then
| pop a microdose shrooms, feels great. Microdosing is like
| steroids for meditation.
|
| Especially helpful for the programmer logic types of people like
| me, gets you out of your head for some time and helps you connect
| with your emotions and body.
| riekus wrote:
| I recommend dosing before your workout, I enjoy my long runs a
| lot more on micro/thresh
| aeturnum wrote:
| > Been doing it for some months on & off, this shit is legit.
|
| > Microdosing is like steroids for meditation.
|
| I feel like I see a bit of wanting it both ways from people who
| like microdosing. There are lots of reports, like in this
| study, that the practice slightly (but only slightly!) lowers
| performance in most tests. On one hand, that's a pretty good
| trade-off as far as psychopharmaceuticals go. On the other
| hand, that's never how advocates present it. It's never "I'm a
| little less sharp but a lot happier."
|
| My personal view of the situation is that the traditional view
| that psychedelics push peoples' mental mindsets away from those
| that work best with capitalist models of productivity is
| correct. Stoners really don't make 'good workers' (though a
| good worker could still gain a much needed respite by getting a
| little stoned here and there). But actually that is good! A
| drug that had mild side effects and allows you to be released
| from the productivity-focused conditioning of our work-culture
| is a really useful tool. You just shouldn't focus your advocacy
| on the idea that these drugs should be promoted on the off
| chance they increase productivity: because the mean case is not
| going to.
|
| Edit: A clearer way to state what I mean is - occasional
| stoners probably do make more balanced workers - but they
| probably don't do their best work while they are stoned (or
| micro-stoned) and trying to insist they do seems unlikely to be
| the argument that decriminalized psychedelics.
| NotTameAntelope wrote:
| Eh, just sounds like you have a good routine going, based on
| the study results you could probably skip the microdosing and
| achieve the same performance.
| riekus wrote:
| I recommend dosing before your workout, I enjoy my long runs a
| lot more on micro/threshold dose of CBD or acid.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Yeah, drugs feel great, news at 11. If psychiatry was just a
| matter of giving people a constant buzz, it would be solved a
| century ago.
|
| I'm not judging you for wanting to be high all the time, I've
| been there myself. But be intellectually honest and call it
| that, at least. Because it's not some kind of psychological
| panacea, and I wish people would stop implying it is.
|
| And yes, I've tried it. It made me high, but generally I was
| far less productive than I would be taking stimulants for my
| ADHD instead.
| shudza wrote:
| This. People need to stop looking for excuses and
| justification for wanting to experience drugs. I bet 95%
| percent of them 'missed out' doing it when it was age
| appropriate, and are just looking to scratch that itch while
| having a moral justification.
|
| They end up overdoing, and overthinking about it and it all
| has a bad end.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| Trust me I tried all kinds of drugs and psychedelics are not
| the kind that get you hooked. Stimulants are especially
| addictive in my opinion. Psychs are the kind of drugs you say
| I have enough for a while if you overdo. On top of it they
| build tolerance immediately.
| carschno wrote:
| That's hardly a counterargument. GP said you were high all
| the time, that's different from being addicted. There is
| some overlap, depending on the substance, but also
| significant difference. Think of nicotine, caffeine
| (addictive, but no high) vs psilocybin (high but arguably
| not addictive).
| valec wrote:
| you literally can't be high all the time on psychedelics
| (at least tryptamine-derived psychedelics) because of how
| quickly a complete tolerance to their effect forms at the
| 5ht2a receptors
| peteradio wrote:
| Microdosing isn't supposed to make you high. OP said they
| were taking /20 of a high dosing. So the assertion of
| "being high all the time" is sort of insulting.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I don't see how being high is an insult. OP didn't seem
| insulted to me.
| peteradio wrote:
| I think incorrectly paraphrasing someone that misleads
| the conversation is insulting, perhaps that is a personal
| feeling of my own.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I could argue it's condescending to be insulted on the
| behalf of someone who's clearly not insulted, but how is
| this useful? We're all adults here, feelings are boring
| and irrational and they don't advance the discussion at
| all.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Can confirm, especially mushrooms. I had one trip on them
| and what my main take away was: It's exhausting to trip on
| mushrooms and after 4-5 hours I wanted to be sober again.
| I'll probably do it again in a few month but for me it's a
| whole-weekend kind of deal and hardly a party drug
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| It can be a "party drug" if you dose low, especially if
| you are chilling at a bar with friends. Just pushes you
| into a slightly better mood. I'll rather have a microdose
| with some beers than getting shitfaced drunk, feels
| subjectively healthier to me.
| Thiez wrote:
| Of course you _could_ also just stop drinking after a few
| beers without taking additional drugs.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| easier said than done. But you are right of course,
| that's where you want to go.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Of course, a few beers are much worse for you than a
| microdose of shrooms, so why choose the former?
| fernandotakai wrote:
| my main issue with mushrooms is how nauseous i get --
| also, i lose all my appetite for at least 12h (last time,
| it took 24h for me to be actually hungry again).
| palimpsests wrote:
| are you consuming them on an empty stomach?
|
| what are you eating the day beforehand / how is your diet
| in general? (like, lots of greasy, heavy food the day
| before / day of, or more on the lighter, healthier side
| of things?) this can really impact a body's response to
| mushrooms on a gastrointestinal level.
|
| those being more fundamental, I would say - but on top of
| that, could consider a hot-water infusion with anti-
| emetic herbs like ginger. tends to be smoother on the GI
| (provided you haven't filled your stomach contents as way
| as well). tends to come on more quickly as well.
|
| something else to consider is that gastrointestinal
| distress with psilocybin can be an indication of
| unprocessed emotional material and / or trauma. there's
| different ways to work with that, in that context.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Lemon tek ;)
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| This anecdote has nothing to do with microdosing and is
| generally applicable to any short-term substance abuse.
| henriquemaia wrote:
| That's an uncharitable reading. OP is just sharing what works
| with her/him. Which is ok. From what I understood from your
| comment, for you it doesn't. Which is ok too, as now you know
| yourself a bit better. Two personal experiments with very
| different outcomes. There's no need for moral judgments
| either way.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I'm not saying her experience is invalid. If it works for
| her, great. But there is this tendency of microdosing
| proponents to oversell what is effectively a high(nothing
| wrong with that, I love getting high) as some sort of
| profound self-help tool. It's a high. That's fine. Getting
| high can have positive effects too. Call it that, though.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Bit of a tangent here but I noticed you used "her"
| instead of the default assumption of "him". Is this a new
| practice?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Assumption based on the username "EmilyHughes". Otherwise
| I would have used they/them or maybe a he/him would've
| slipped through, though I try to avoid that.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I think that's because the OP's handle is "EmilyHughes".
| Is "Emily" a name that's common for males?
|
| I know some English names can go both ways like Evelyn or
| Shannon etc, but is Emily one of them?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Emil or Emlyn (Latin and Welsh) are similar male
| versions.
| davidgrenier wrote:
| The paper stated James Fadiman as the source for the
| characterization of a microdose, it however failed to
| properly convey his point of view.
|
| I've heard James Fadiman reporting twice that it is 10%
| of a recreational (1-3g) or therapeutic dose (3.0-3.5g),
| but certainly not 10% of a heroic dose. This study went
| with 0.5g which is 10% of what's considered a heroic
| dose.
|
| The effective dose is considered to be 6mg if psilocybin
| or 0.6g of dried magic mushroom, thus the amount given in
| the study is very close to being detectable (and
| incidently was in most of the cases) which I don't think
| you can charaterize as a microdose. James Fadiman
| expressly stated a microdose would be a dose that you
| couldn't detect and would forget you had taken while
| going on about your day.
|
| If one is taking 0.2-0.3g of dried magic mushroom this
| would be, without question, not getting high.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| depends on your individual sensitivity to psychedelics,
| 0.2 would be too much for me to go into work, no visuals
| but a head trip. I also know plenty of people who can
| take 0.5 and don't feel much.
| nick__m wrote:
| Mushrooms have so much variance that giving range like
| you did is almost impossible.
|
| During my youth, I had strong trips with .5g and meh
| one's with a few grams, sure it's not the norm but it's
| not an exceptional occurrence either.
|
| My experience told me that the stem of the smallest
| mushrooms are a lot stronger than those of the bigger one
| but that an heuristic not an hard rule.
|
| If I wanted to microdose psilocin (for which psylocibin
| is a prodrug), I would order 4-AcO-DMT1 fumarate (another
| prodrug for psilocin) from a reputable Canadian chemical
| supplier. It's almost identical to mushrooms, the
| difference being that it is predictable and somewhat
| easier on the digestive system.
|
| 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Acetylpsilocin
| https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/4-AcO-DMT
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Does "if it works for you" also go for things like aspirin,
| antihistamines, antihypertensives, antibiotics, etc? I've
| never heard anyone say "if aspirin works for you then take
| it, but it doesn't work for me". I've only heard this kind
| of thing said for things like homeopathy, astrology,
| accupuncture, osteopathy, and microdosing, of course.
| Hence, I'm very skeptical.
|
| [Edit: OK, I've _heard_ people say that aspirin doesn 't
| work for them, but what they meant was that they had pains
| that were too strong to respond to mere aspirin.]
| tssva wrote:
| It is quite common for different people have differing
| responses to medications like aspirin, antihistamines,
| and antihypertensives. For example my brother and I both
| have bad seasonal allergies. My brother takes Claritin
| for his and gets relief from the worse of his allergies
| when he does. If I take Claritin it doesn't reduce the
| impact of my allergies to any noticable degree. If I take
| Zyrtec my allergy symptoms are mostly eliminated.
| [deleted]
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I think you're right and not all medicine works on
| everyone, but if one antihistamine doesn't work on you,
| then another one probably will. Like you say, one works
| on you, the other doesn't. That seems to be down to
| genetics, or some kind of biological characteristic, I
| guess.
|
| But, for example, I was told that homeopathy doesn't work
| for me because I don't believe in it. And I think what
| the OP says that it's OK if "it" (in this case,
| microdosing rather than homeopathy) doesn't work for you
| then that "is OK too" is something I hear the most not
| from people who find that, say, aspirin doesn't work for
| them but ibuprofen, or paracetamol, does; but rather what
| I hear from people who take a remedy that not only has no
| effect on others, but has no documented effect on most
| people _and_ has no clear mechanism of action, other
| perhaps than the placebo effect (which I understand to be
| regression to the mean).
|
| So that's why I'm skeptical. With normal medicine, drugs
| will have an effect on some people or others regardless
| of whether someone believes they will or not, but with
| alternative remedies, they will only have an effect on
| those who believe in them and we can only observe the
| effect by asking them how they feel (for example, no
| homeopathic remedy will ever reduce blood pressure).
| [deleted]
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| > Does "if it works for you" > also go for things like >
| aspirin, antihistamines, > antihypertensives, >
| antibiotics, etc?
|
| A lot of the time, yes. For example, I have a bad
| physical reaction to aspirin -- it makes me vomit. I've
| tried several times over my life, and each time I had the
| same result. It does _not_ work for me in the common use,
| plain medical sense of the phrase.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| It's really common, AFAIK, in psychiatry. Try this try
| that, gotta "find the molecule that works for you, we're
| all different". I believe that is a common occurrence. In
| my experience when my general practitioner wanted me to
| try something, it kinda felt like a shot in the dark as
| to which one we were gonna try, to be reevaluated at a
| later time if we should go for another.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| psychoactive drugs are a whole different category. You
| bring your whole mental baggage with you when you take
| them, unlike aspirin.
| BossingAround wrote:
| How do you define "psychoactive"?
| its_bbq wrote:
| This is so disingenuous. Psilocybin directly affects
| levels of different neurotransmitters in the brain.
| Aspirin is an anti inflammatory.
| BossingAround wrote:
| It's not about disingenuousness, it's about the proper
| terminology. Caffeine is "psychoactive" yet very few
| people would say that you need to clear your mental
| baggage before you start drinking coffee.
| hackernewds wrote:
| It's a difference in the degree of effect. it seems there
| is some intentional focus on being pedantic and
| perfunctory.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| Anything that influences your psyche in an obvious way.
| BossingAround wrote:
| Isn't Aspirin psychoactive in the same way? I.e. it takes
| away pain, which influences your psyche in an obvious
| way.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| You could argue that. there is no clear line of course,
| but most people would agree that a beer influences them
| more than aspirin or an antibiothic.
| BossingAround wrote:
| I see. To me, it is not very useful to talk about
| "psychoactive" substances, since sugar, caffeine, or
| nicotine are also "psychoactive". I would recommend the
| term "entheogens" in your original post.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Entheogen is even worse, that specifically means
| psychoactive drugs used for religious purposes. And guess
| what: nicotine _is_ an entheogen!
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It's nit psychoactive in the sense that is has any direct
| perceptible effect on the brain. It reduces inflammation,
| which can be perceived as less pain indirectly altering
| your mental state.
|
| Whereas psychoactive drugs generally affect the actual
| underlying processes in the brain through various
| interactions with receptor, enzymes, or
| neurotransmitters.
|
| I hope that distinction makes sense.
| [deleted]
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Thank you for replying, but I would like to understand
| what "mental baggage" is and why it makes a difference.
| Why doesn't "mental baggage" affect aspirin?
|
| Also, just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that
| you have to be in a special frame of mind for
| psychoactive drugs to make a difference. For example,
| I've been told that homeopathy doesn't work for me
| because I "don't believe in it", but I'm pretty sure that
| a sufficient dose of psilocybin would get me just as high
| as anyone else (modulo tolerance), belief or no belief.
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| Your prior mental state, past trauma, physical state and
| comfort, will have a significant impact on how your
| experience develops.
|
| Any neuroticism can bubble to the surface and you might
| find yourself obsessing over a bad habit you have instead
| of enjoying the mystery and pattern of the universe.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Sorry, that sounds too mystical to me and I don't believe
| in the supernatural. I note you're not the OP though?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| The phrase is "set and setting" meaning that it is
| strongly advised to only take psychedelics when you have
| a good mindset and a good setting. The thing about
| psychedelics is that you will have powerful mental
| imagery during the trip, that's just how they work. So
| what is on your mind that day will affect what you think
| about, and with the power of psychedelics I'm told it
| could get scary or bad if you're in a particularly bad
| mood.
|
| For example I've twice taken mushrooms while I was
| lonely. About 1 gram. In both cases I ended up just
| feeling an amplified sense of loneliness that was very
| difficult to handle. Another time, and this wasn't
| particularly bad, but I ended up thinking about my
| parents dying (they're still alive) and it was a powerful
| feeling. That was good though, because after that I began
| to put more effort in to seeing them and spending time
| with them.
|
| But my point is that the experience is a powerful mental
| experience that is affected by what is on your mind. So
| they strongly recommend only doing a trip if you have a
| good mindset and a good setting to do so. Otherwise wait.
|
| By the way the parent comment is correct. Psychedelics
| bring up a powerful feeling of connectedness with the
| universe. You feel like you're seeing patterns of the
| matter around you and you feel one with it all. I'm not a
| mystical person but that's how I've felt on a strong
| trip.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Thanks for taking the time to explain, but if I
| understand correctly in the instances you relate, you
| were taking mushrooms specifically in order to get high,
| correct?
|
| Whereas the OP (root of the thread) is talking about
| microdosing, which is, if I understand it correctly,
| taking drugs in an attempt to not get high, but get other
| benefits?
|
| As to the "powerful feeling of connectedness with the
| universe", well, I've been drunk and I found that I loved
| everybody around me and I felt a strong emotional
| connection with total strangers. But, I was drunk. It's
| relaxing, it's disinhibiting, it's fun, it's making
| yourself deliberately and temporarily mentally impaired,
| why not? But there's nothing more to it.
|
| In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the defining
| characteristic of intoxication, in my experience, is of
| being dumber than usual, which can be suprisingly
| enjoyable. Certainly not something to be desired as a
| constant state, though.
| hackernewds wrote:
| the importance of "set and setting" is almost universally
| known and easily verifiable. I've had terrible trips when
| stressed out and beautiful revelational ones when in the
| right frame of mind. shrooms are not as benign as
| alcohol. you're usually even less in control of your
| mental state, which can be both amazing and scary
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I don't dispute the "set and setting" idea. I am asking
| why that makes a difference in the therapeutic or
| otherwise beneficial use of psilocybin and why it doesn't
| make any difference with other drugs like aspirin.
|
| To clarify, as far as I understand, "set and setting"
| matters when taking psilocybin to get high, but
| microdosing is taking psilocybin (or other similar drugs)
| to very deliberatly _not_ get high.
|
| So what does "set and setting" have to do with
| microdosing, and why doesn't it matter with aspirin,
| which also doesn't get you high?
| jokoon wrote:
| Yes, those drugs can't replace SSRI
| nicoburns wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but I think the GP may see being
| less productive as a _positive_ thing (productivity not being
| a universal value)
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > And yes, I've tried it. It made me high, but generally I
| was far less productive than I would be taking stimulants for
| my ADHD instead.
|
| I had some coworkers try microdosing several years ago.
|
| They were _convinced_ that they were smarter and more
| productive on those days. Meanwhile, the rest of us could
| clearly see that they were just operating slower than normal
| and had a weirdly positive response to even slight
| achievements. Eventually the illusion was shattered when the
| rest of us would casually guess when they were microdosing
| and call them out because they were making obvious mistakes,
| missing things, or being amazed at benign realizations.
|
| And before anyone asks: Yes, they tried many different doses
| down to minuscule amounts.
|
| In retrospect, this is actually the least surprising result:
| That taking a micro-dose of a psychedelic produces a micro-
| trip.
| hinkley wrote:
| I have often wondered this about people doing the napping
| versus sleeping experiment. Euphoria makes you feel like
| you know so much more than you do.
|
| I know of maybe one or two people who gave themselves
| cognitive tests during their experience. I don't recall the
| results but I clearly didn't take them seriously since I'm
| still unconvinced. I don't know about you guys but I tend
| to do better if I'm given the same kind of test three or
| four times. So if I were doing this experiment and my
| results stayed steady, I'd objectively be losing capacity
| versus the control.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| There's studies on "brain training" apps like Lumosity
| that tend to show that all you're improving at is the
| specific test, not the underlying mental capacity like
| working memory.
|
| And a related anecdote: I once asked my psychologist to
| do an IQ test on me, mainly out of curiosity. She
| refused, basically giving the logic you did. We have no
| reason to believe your IQ is low, or even average, and if
| we did do a test, and at some future point we needed a
| test for actual diagnostic purposes(say if I had a stroke
| or something), it could taint the result.
|
| So I'd say you're right on the money wrt the limited
| usefulness of doing these neuropsych tests repeatedly.
| Especially over short periods.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Yeah not sure what the source of this homeopathic type
| logic is. It's very strange, and applies to basically
| nothing else. So I'd like some pretty extraordinary
| evidence before I believe that taking deliberately
| ineffective doses of anything has any effect. And, good
| luck producing a dose-response curve...
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Uh, so you took a break from your ADHD medication to
| microdose?
|
| And you claim it is the microdose that made you less
| productive?
|
| I posit you need to take a microdose with your normal ADHD
| medication, otherwise the anecdote is meaningless even as a
| personal reference.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| No, I wasn't on medication at the time, couldn't get a
| script. I was looking for possible replacements, and a few
| psychedelics(LSD and 2C-B to name a couple) have
| psychostimulant properties. The idea was to try a few
| different regimens:
|
| True microdose alone: no noticable effect on concentration,
| and some worsening.
|
| Subpsychedelic yet strong enough doses to have stimulant
| effects: significant effect, but working memory was
| somewhat impaired. Impulsivity also increased.
|
| Various conventional but obscure RC stimulants: some were
| highly effective, even more so than D-amp or mph. But it
| wasn't possible to rule out long term cardiotoxic effects
| like valvulopathy, so I didn't stick to them for safety
| reasons.
|
| Then I did some limited trials with said stims + a true
| microcode, this just made me extremely scatterbrained and I
| quickly discontinued.
|
| Eventually I decided even if I found something, which I
| had, I couldn't safely use it long term anyway. I cleaned
| up my act long enough to get real meds.
| pengaru wrote:
| > And yes, I've tried it. It made me high, but generally I
| was far less productive than I would be taking stimulants for
| my ADHD instead.
|
| If it made you high, you didn't microdose.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| With even lower dose, no effect was present. See my
| response to one of the other replies.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Get up early, do a workout, take cold shower, meditate and
| then pop a microdose shrooms, feels great.
|
| But if you did all of those things without the shrooms you
| likely would still feel great.
|
| Especially exercise which is scientifically proven to improve
| wellbeing unlike the shrooms.
| EmilyHughes wrote:
| sure, it's just the cherry on top on some days. You don't
| microdose and lay on your couch eating McDonalds, would feel
| wrong to me. Stacking all the good stuff has a nice synergy.
| Scalestein wrote:
| Does your daily routine change when you microdose? Do you still
| take the cold shower and meditate and all that regardless of it
| being a microdose day or not?
|
| I found that when I was microdosing it made me way more mindful
| and apt to make "good/healthy" choices than normal. I think
| this is a tremendous benefit but for me very difficult to
| differentiate from a placebo effect.
| BossingAround wrote:
| > Been doing it for some months on & off, this shit is legit
|
| The linked study seems to contradict you:
|
| >> According to our findings, low doses of psilocybin mushrooms
| can result in noticeable subjective effects and altered EEG
| rhythms, but without evidence to support enhanced well-being,
| creativity and cognitive function. We conclude that expectation
| underlies at least some of the anecdotal benefits attributed to
| microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms.
| kortex wrote:
| Lack of strong evidence is not strong evidence of lack.
| Subtle effects like "well-being, creativity, and cognitive
| function" can be quite hard to track, and there are
| confounders galore.
| paulcole wrote:
| > We conclude that expectation underlies at least some of
| the anecdotal benefits attributed to microdosing with
| psilocybin mushrooms.
|
| That's the key point. This person expects it to work so it
| works. They're not adding it to their Morning Productivity
| Hacks Routine because they think it doesn't work.
| superb-owl wrote:
| > The reported acute effects were significantly more intense for
| the active dose compared to the placebo, but only for
| participants who correctly identified their experimental
| condition
|
| I find attempts to study psychedelics with placebo control kind
| of comical. The positive effects are not due to a chemical
| change, they are due to a direct subjective experience [1][2].
| It's like trying to placebo control the effects of reading a good
| novel or seeing a sunset.
|
| But I guess this does help to dispel the similarly comical idea
| that a completely non-psychoactive dose of psychedelics can be
| beneficial.
|
| [1]
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033615/#:~:tex...
|
| [2] https://superbowl.substack.com/i/65186479/the-psychedelic-
| ex...
| mlindner wrote:
| "Experience" is a thing represented by chemical markers in the
| brain however. It's all electrochemical in the end. And I have
| heard first hand stories directly from people who used to use
| the stuff that it absolutely changed their personalities, i.e.
| brain damage which is a chemical effect.
| Cockbrand wrote:
| The TL;DR essence from the abstract:
|
| > The reported acute effects were significantly more intense for
| the active dose compared to the placebo, but only for
| participants who correctly identified their experimental
| condition. [...] For all other measurements there was no effect
| of microdosing except for few small changes towards cognitive
| impairment. According to our findings, low doses of psilocybin
| mushrooms can result in noticeable subjective effects and altered
| EEG rhythms, but without evidence to support enhanced well-being,
| creativity and cognitive function. We conclude that expectation
| underlies at least some of the anecdotal benefits attributed to
| microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms.
| moravak1984 wrote:
| > but without evidence to support enhanced well-being,
| creativity and cognitive function. We conclude that expectation
| underlies at least some of the anecdotal benefits attributed to
| microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms.
|
| Well, clearly far-fetched from original research goals, and
| from what it means to creativity in particular.
|
| In my experience, creative periods require a sustained
| abstainment of other info sources combined with a self-
| stimulating force and (sometimes) a controlled use of mind-
| altering substances (from coffee to full-dose mushrooms). So
| asking for creativity improvements on a small-sample, scope-
| constrained study is way too far-fetched from that.
| Syzygies wrote:
| > but only for participants who correctly identified their
| experimental condition.
|
| So the creatures who can take flight in a light breeze are the
| ones who can sense the breeze. That sounds about right.
| Rackedup wrote:
| here even spores are illegal....
| Kalanos wrote:
| sounds like a temporary anti-depressant, but a bad lifestyle
| choice
| BossingAround wrote:
| > but a bad lifestyle choice
|
| Care to elaborate why?
| Kalanos wrote:
| Did you read the paper?
|
| "However, we observed a trend towards impaired performance in
| some cognitive tasks (i.e., attentional blink and Stroop)...
| future research should also explore the potential impact of
| microdosing on aspects of human physiology that could
| compromise its long-term safety."
|
| How hard is it to come off it?
| schappim wrote:
| TL;DR (via GPT3): Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms did not
| have any positive effects on well-being, creativity, or cognitive
| function. The only noticeable effects were subjective changes and
| altered EEG rhythms.
| thegreatdukd wrote:
| What did you add as an input to GPT-3 and what was your prompt?
| Have you considered some smaller models like Longformer or Big
| Bird with fine-tuning on research papers?
| umvi wrote:
| Do mushrooms make you write incoherent ramblings on Facebook
| about how you are God and how everyone else is stuck in the
| matrix? Because I have 3 different friends who all started doing
| that after dabbling in psychedelics
| hinkley wrote:
| There is something to be said for waiting until you're 25 to do
| this stuff. Let the brain form all the way first. I think the
| last study I saw on marijuana linked most of the worst effects
| to starting while still a teenager.
|
| The logistical problem of getting access to these experiences
| if you wait until well after college is not insurmountable
| (especially with THC, today) but it definitely seems more like
| a project than just showing up on a Friday night to your
| extended social group.
|
| Poor Paul Stamets ('the' mushroom guy of this era). From his
| writing it seems like half the people who want to talk to him
| want him to hook them up with psychedelics. It's hard to tell
| if he's playing up that ratio or playing it _down_. His
| standing answer is "I don't do that, I can't help you." He
| also mentions that the DEA has made him aware that they are
| aware of his existence.
| akomtu wrote:
| That "god" thing is often misunderstood. If we assume that
| humans are somehow connected, by quantum entanglement in their
| brains or whatever, then mushrooms make this connectedness
| apparent by muting the link to the body motor complex. In other
| words, that "god" is the union of all humans, and currently
| it's undergoing, for its own reasons, a severe form of
| schizophrenia when its big consciousness is split into a few
| billions small consciousnesses.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Your friends are doing their best to connect with others and
| share their newfound perspective using whatever crude tools are
| available to them. Be kind.
|
| Psychedelics give you a new map into reality. If nobody teaches
| you how to read the map, it's easy to get lost or misread it.
| Integrating a bunch of different maps can be very challenging.
|
| Charitably, what they probably mean is that if we model god as
| the sum total of all experiences and all things, then it can be
| said that we are all aspects of divinity.
|
| The tree recognizes itself as a tree and as part of the
| forrest.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Playing into and encouraging other people's delusions isn't
| helping them.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Denying people's experiences and calling them delusions
| isn't helping them.
| maybeiam wrote:
| Have you tried it? They're pointing at something here that all
| of humanity has tried to point at.
|
| I'm a very strident atheist and even I would claim that I have
| "found god" while high on mushrooms. And you and I both happen
| to be "it".
|
| I'm not pointing at the institutional god. But I end up using
| the institutional words, because it's hard to find other words
| that describe it properly.
|
| Alan Watts is the closest I've found that describes it without
| using religious phrases.
| texasbigdata wrote:
| No. Schizophrenia does. Probably a few other things.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| As far as I know it is a possible side effect of psychedelics
| indeed
| BossingAround wrote:
| The perceived effects of psychedelics can be very strong. That
| is why it's recommended to take them with a professional, so as
| not to become delusional, e.g. being a god.
|
| However, the effects of even a single trip can be quite
| profound and life changing.
| EricDeb wrote:
| i mean.. maybe they're right?
| jnovek wrote:
| I've seen the observation that psychedelics evoke a sense of
| spirituality in people. I wonder if this is how people cope
| with that feeling of spirituality if they don't participate in
| any organized religion?
| the_doctah wrote:
| The last time I took mushrooms with a friend they tried to
| talk me into joining them in worshiping Satan. Maybe you're
| onto something.
| palimpsests wrote:
| it depends, of course. to experience a transpersonal /
| "spiritualized" angle into reality can be deeply challenging
| for non-religious, non-spiritual, or atheist folks.
|
| or it can feel quite curious, new, refreshing, even
| liberating.
|
| or anything else along that spectrum.
| kayza wrote:
| It actually really does show you a ,,different reality". It has
| different effects on different people, I assume. For me, it was
| quite eye-opening, in that it made me stop using cigarettes for
| example. But for others, it leads to those strange thoughts of
| living in the matrix or something
| MrDresden wrote:
| Anecdotally in the past I have felt major differences in my mood
| right after and over the next few months since after taking
| mushrooms containing psilocybin (liberty caps locally picked
| growing in nature).
|
| The quantity was anything but microdoses though. Each time I had
| them the amount ranged from 6x to 10x individual dried caps (over
| a period of 4-5 hours each time).
|
| I'm not sure about its impact on my creativity though, but it
| sure did not impact negatively.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| It's not clear what you mean here?
|
| I've taken magic mushrooms quite a few times, and it definitely
| had an impact on negativity right after and for many weeks.
|
| For me, negativity was _down regulated_.
|
| This might not be true of everyone's experience though.
| MrDresden wrote:
| Since it wasn't clear; I noticed a clear positive impact on
| my mood but did not notice any measurable positive gains in
| creativity (nor any negative impacts).
| kirsebaer wrote:
| Participants were required to bring their own psilocybin
| mushrooms. Probably because it can be expensive and difficult for
| researchers to get obtain and administer pharma-grade psilocybin.
|
| The dose was 0.5g of dried Cubensis mushrooms. Usually a
| microdose is 0.1-0.2g.
|
| All the participants were healthy volunteers. There may be more
| noticable effects in people with depression or anxiety disorders,
| etc. Consider that antidepressants often have no effect in
| healthy volunteers.
| josebrwn wrote:
| >The dose was 0.5g of dried Cubensis mushrooms. Usually a
| microdose is 0.1-0.2g.
|
| Precisely. This experiment had nothing to do with microdosing.
| Half a gram is a light dose but it is definitely inebriating.
| standardUser wrote:
| We need better terms for differentiating low doses and true
| microdosing. Half a gram is certainly a low dose, but I'd
| expect most people to feel at least some high.
| OJFord wrote:
| Am I reading this right, from the abstract:
|
| > The reported acute effects were significantly more intense for
| the active dose compared to the placebo, but only for
| participants who correctly identified their experimental
| condition.
|
| Does that 'correct identification' go both ways, psilocybin &
| placebo? If so I don't think they claimed a strong enough result!
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| and isn't that contradicting the premise of using "sub-
| perceptual" doses?
| feet wrote:
| Some people may also just be more sensitive to serotonergics,
| therefore it's simply easier for them to identify
| OJFord wrote:
| But regardless of what enabled them to identify it - even if
| just a 50:50 guess, but a correct one - _thinking_ they were
| on it (vs. _thinking_ they were not) made it a significant
| enhancement?
|
| That seems like a 'bigger' result to me than what's claimed.
| (Which is why I'm not sure I'm understanding it correctly.)
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| You could see it that way. More intuitive to me though is
| that the ones who guessed correctly, had a stronger
| subjective effect, therefore were more successful in
| guessing. Does that make sense?
|
| I hate these "two seemingly valid and contradictory ways of
| looking at it" things.
| austinjp wrote:
| It is ambiguously worded, I agree.
|
| I'm on mobile so I've only cursorily scanned the article.
| Looking at subfig E in figure 1, it seems that differences
| between active and placebo were minimal. I haven't checked
| their stats relating to those differences.
|
| So I think the effect the authors found does seem small.
|
| However, usual caveats: very small study, etc. I'd want to
| review the reliability and sensitivity of the
| questionnaires they used. Subjective experiences are of
| course difficult to capture reliably.
|
| Having said that, and considering I've only scanned this
| briefly, it seems like a well designed study - for what
| it's doing. Adding the quantitative elements of EEG etc is
| nice.
|
| The discussion section is good, the authors acknowledge
| several possible weaknesses and explore explanations.
|
| So overall, looks interesting, but it's not definitive (and
| the authors don't claim it is). It's not a refutation of
| microdosing, it just adds to the literature, and perhaps
| offers things for future researchers to explore/control.
| ___2-__---_--__ wrote:
| Thanks for all the great info. EROWID was long before the
| decriminalization trend, the "right thing" to check before you
| trip\try any new subtance people might use for psychoactive
| effects. And many (including "heroic-to-crazy" sounding
| combinations) pharm-and-farm\forrest caffeine+substanceX etc.
| Look for "trip reports" section, if its still in business.
|
| And any geek who had The Way Things Work on the (rents'?)
| bookshelf as a kid would get a kick out of PIHCKAL and TIHKAL,
| the father of "officially done right" psychoactive synthetic
| experimental chemistry's two compendious 1/2-&-1/2
| encyclopaediae\tomes, each split down the middle: first the
| detailed, timestamped group dose controlled-environment reports
| with friends and colleagues (maybe mainly fellow accademicians
| from Cal. Berkeley), then the terse Chemistry-journal style
| synthesis-procedure lab-8nstr7ction recipe database and huge
| index of subtance-nicknanes.
|
| I lived illegally for a time in a closet-sized office I rented in
| OAKtown; chill RockerChik[tm] who did the same down the hall told
| me about the guy's public funeral and his last gift (of which she
| accepted a dose to take home and try).
|
| And although probably already discussed on yc, the only other
| mass-market book I've ever read the didn't pander or condescend
| to the reader by expecting technical symbols to scare us away is
| essentially all of the (central-core + a bit of stringstuff)
| math-and-physics base-knowledge you need, from prehighschool
| fractions through exterior\Clifford Algebra tensor calculus and
| 1-forms and things, to be able to attack the real literature like
| a grad student. Diagrams every other page or so, including his
| own invention of graphic symbols which is really the only
| reasonable (visible notational) way to manipulate general
| Tensors. Flip through it and all that exotic\fancy\mysterious
| mathematics formula gobbledygook is dense and enticing for kids
| who haven't seen multiple and path integrals and PDEs before, but
| the explanation is well written an holds your hand to actually
| bring you through it. It's like 2 3/8 +inches of trade-paperback
| goodness 1st 580?\850? or so pages mainly math and relativity,
| rest of 1300pp or so of mainly quantum physics and cosmology, by
| the guy (Nobel in Phy.,PhD was math) who had the first famous bet
| with Hawking, wasn't it? Sir Roger (Penrose). Only complaints:
| stupid 1st title word, and overambitious promise RE posting
| solutions for the ton of easy-through-WTF-level excersise
| footnotes. Great for every mathscience-nonaverse 6+yo competent
| English reader on your list who thinks actual details scare only
| sissies, and if nec. you can always put tl;dr here: I personally
| recommend those who can afford c.$US 20(newish) to buy and
| READ\BROWSE\REREAD\SHARE ppbk "The Road to Reality" BY [now Sir]
| Penrose, Roger (RE:pre-Higgsmass edition)
| yarg wrote:
| (It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in
| scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be
| called a decidose.)
|
| Anecdotally, I've had a degree of short term success treating my
| depression with smallish doses of mushrooms, but I've never had
| the continuing access required for a microdosing regiment.
|
| It'd be nice if the government were willing to come to the table
| on this, but alas.
|
| That said, every time that I've had a months long lift, it hasn't
| been a small dose, but an epic dose that often cast me into a
| night of turmoil.
|
| (Which would make the rigours of double-blind testing completely
| ineffectual.)
| kebman wrote:
| Why do you want to change your condition with a thing, when the
| answer is inside you?
| yarg wrote:
| Because searching inside for the answer when my brain keeps
| popping up with "nice train tracks over there..." doesn't
| really work for me.
| titzer wrote:
| Jeesh, the brain is not allowed to have physical maladies
| now?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > It'd be nice if the government were willing to come to the
| table on this, but alas.
|
| They're starting to, although they haven't funded a study on
| microdosing for depression.
|
| > [October 2021] Johns Hopkins Medicine was awarded a grant
| from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to explore the
| potential impacts of psilocybin on tobacco addiction. This is
| the first NIH grant awarded in over a half century to directly
| investigate the therapeutic effects of a classic psychedelic
|
| https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...
| yarg wrote:
| Different country, even more useless government.
|
| Though the progress in the US/Canada makes me think that
| maybe in 15-20 years NZ can have a referendum and continue
| with prohibition.
| game-of-throws wrote:
| I think decidose would be even less accurate. A normal dose is
| 3g-5g. A microdose is 0.1g-0.2g. That's not a ratio of 10. At
| least microdose has a widely-agreed on colloquial meaning.
| yarg wrote:
| > We investigated the acute and short-term effects of 0.5 g
| of dried mushrooms on subjective experience, behavior ... and
| brain activity.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| Have you tried Kratom? I'm by no means recommending it, just
| curious if you've tried it to combat depression.
| BossingAround wrote:
| As a daily Kratom user, I would not recommend using Kratom
| for something like depression. You're treating the symptomps
| at best while cultivating addiction.
| helsinki wrote:
| Yeah, always best to not fuck around with chemicals that
| bind to gabba receptors (alcohol, benzodiazepine, kratom).
| It will give you a hell of a withdrawal if you take high
| doses. This is why there are alcoholics.
| BossingAround wrote:
| Kratom binds primarily to mu-opioid receptors. It's a bit
| disingenuous to say it binds to gabba. I mean, I am sure
| it is true that some alkaloids in Kratom bind to gabba,
| but that's not the primary interaction.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Where did you read that kratom binds to gaba? I haven't
| heard that.
| loeg wrote:
| Why daily?
| hackerlight wrote:
| > night of turmoil.
|
| Can you elaborate?
| yarg wrote:
| Hanging out with spider demons at the end of time, that sort
| of shit.
| jmartrican wrote:
| My guess is OP is referring to a bad (or powerful) trip.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Whereas I'd say 'turmoil', is a beautifully-concise word to
| describe great trips, too.
| 34679 wrote:
| I'm of the belief that it should be called a dose. There are
| many therapeutics that will make you hallucinate if you ingest
| too much. We call that an overdose.
| dylan604 wrote:
| While others might call that the point.
| timthorn wrote:
| > It's strange that we're using the term microdose, even in
| scientific contexts - prefixes have meanings - it should be
| called a decidose.
|
| Not really - its from the Greek for small, rather than a SI
| prefix in this context. If the suffix were quantitative then
| you might have a case, but we talk quite happily about
| microphones and microscopes. Microdose is useful because it is
| not conditional on a particular regular dose size, we just know
| it is much lower than usual.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| What is the difference between "Low Dose" and "Microdose"
| though? I have heard the specific term Low Dose before.
| carrychains wrote:
| Generally, a microdose is supposed to be below threshold.
| In other words, imperceptible. A low dose can be above
| threshold. This study seems to be testing something most
| microdose adherents would refer to as a low dose.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Microdose = sub-perceptual dose
|
| Threshold dose = dose at which effects can barely be
| perceived
|
| Low dose = dose at which effects become definitely
| perceptible
|
| The people in this study were taking something between a
| threshold dose and a low dose, given some interpersonal
| variability.
| carrychains wrote:
| .5 is definitely a low dose for anyone who has
| experienced it more than a few times or an actual low
| dose at least once. Realistically, I'd expect only a
| first timer could possibly think .5 is imperceptible.
| [deleted]
| comonoid wrote:
| Also, 1 microbe is 1/1000000 of be.
| richthegeek wrote:
| Microbes are actually around 1 micrometer!
|
| Whilst I'd generally hate for a 1 meter bee to exist, it
| might be worth it just for the nerd joke.
|
| So purely factually, a microbe is only 1/10000th of a bee
| bch wrote:
| > Whilst I'd generally hate for a 1 meter bee to exist
|
| Luckily for you a rare sight - https://upload.wikimedia.o
| rg/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Sa...
| adrian_b wrote:
| While "micro" means indeed small, many people have the wrong
| impression that the similarly sounding "macro" must have an
| opposite meaning to "micro" so many incorrect terms have been
| coined, e.g. "macroscopic" vs. "microscopic".
|
| In reality, in Ancient Greek the opposite of "micro" was
| "mega", i.e. "big" (so megameter vs. micrometer was a correct
| addition to the metric system in 1873, like also the name
| Micromegas, which was coined by Voltaire in one of his
| novellas), while "macro" meant "long", not "big".
|
| ("macro" is cognate with words from other European languages
| which mean slim/slender/thin/lean, only in Ancient Greek its
| meaning has shifted from "slim" to "long", replacing the
| older word for "long", "dolicho").
| jimmaswell wrote:
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macro
| adrian_b wrote:
| That dictionary only records the fact that most English
| speakers now use the word "macro" incorrectly, which was
| my point, because they do not know Ancient Greek and they
| follow some previous English speakers who also did not
| know Ancient Greek, but that did not stop them to use a
| Greek word they thought as sounding fancy and whose
| meaning they attempted to guess, without bothering to
| look in a dictionary, so they have guessed wrong.
|
| This incorrect use of "macro" in English appears to have
| started in the second half of the 19th century, when the
| study of the classical languages in school was already in
| regression.
| akaij wrote:
| Language is a living thing, so it's in a constant state
| of change. A certain class of linguists would even go so
| far as to say there can be no incorrect use of words :)
| detaro wrote:
| The dictionary records what word means, today, in the
| english language.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Like everybody else, I also have to use the words with
| their current meaning, so I use frequently words like
| "macroinstruction", possibly abbreviated to "macro", or
| "macroprocessor".
|
| That does not mean that one should not be aware that the
| creation of such words was based on laziness and
| ignorance and one should not coin any new words of this
| series.
| Starlevel001 wrote:
| > That does not mean that one should not be aware that
| the creation of such words was based on laziness and
| ignorance and one should not coin any new words of this
| series.
|
| You say this, and yet you are writing English and not
| Proto-Indo-European. Curious!
| akaij wrote:
| That approach seems overly prescriptive and is certainly
| overkill for creation and day-to-day use of non-critical
| words. For a word to be used widely, it has to go through
| a process of adoption.
|
| Individuals around the world are still mostly allowed to
| use (or not) any word they choose. It may look like
| patchwork to you, but the importance of etymology of a
| word takes a backseat to its ability to successfully
| convey meaning.
| Gimpei wrote:
| The N of this study is 34, but it's probably multiple
| observation. How do you calculate power in this case? Is it just
| based off N, in which case, seems low...
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| Power analyses for repeated measures designs are usually done
| with Monte Carlo simulations: you generate fake but plausible
| data sets with a hypothesized effect size, then analyze these
| data sets and count how often the effect is detected.
|
| I agree that N=34 seems low. The effect would have to be quite
| large to be detected and there may be a risk of Type M
| (magnitude overestimated) and Type S (incorrect sign) errors.
| The results should therefore be interpreted in the light of a
| power analysis.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Statistical analysis exploratory studies tho get some ballpark
| numbers. They didn't even estimate power in this case. If you
| have to rely on statistics to observe effect, the effect is
| small.
|
| The most likely biases and noise comes from experimental design
| and other factors related to the study.
|
| In exploratory science doing two different studies with N=30 is
| much better than doing one study with N=60.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Psilocybin has truly saved my life. I micro 200-250mg of
| homegrown every few days.
| honeybadger1 wrote:
| I have been interested for quite some time to dabble with
| psilocybin but just haven't yet had the chance with
| buddies(outside of a work related traveling event) to do so.
|
| I absolutely refuse to try anything like this outside of an
| environment I have some level of control in or trust in the
| people around me(not the general public I.E: Bars, clubs, Vegas,
| etc).
|
| Any advice on what to avoid for a first timer from any
| experienced person here?
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I would say that if you want to maintain your cognitive
| function at peak efficiency your best bet is to not do anything
| that has a chance to affect it negatively, like doing drugs.
|
| An "experienced person" in this case will not help you because
| it means someone who's been doing drugs for a while and there
| is at least a chance that their cognitive function is impaired
| and that you shouldn't trust their judgement.
| dkarl wrote:
| I haven't tried psychedelics yet for the same reason. The
| people I know who offer them to me don't show any level of
| care or responsibility when it comes to dosing themselves.
| For example, they'll buy drugs from people they've never met
| before, random people they run into in bars and clubs. I
| haven't yet personally met anybody who takes drugs who is as
| careful as I would like to be.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| As an aside, I like to quote this passage from Terry
| Pratchett's The Carpet People:
|
| _Other shamen ate the yellow-spotted mushrooms that were
| found deep in the hair thickets and said things like:
| 'Hiiiiyahyahheya! Heyaheyayahyah! Hngh! Hngh!' which
| certainly sounded magical._
|
| _Pismire said things like, 'Correct observation followed
| by meticulous deduction and the precise visualization of
| goals is vital to the success of any enterprise. Have you
| noticed the way the wild tromps always move around two days
| ahead of the sorath herds? Incidentally, don't eat the
| yellow-spotted mushrooms.'_
|
| _Which didn't sound magical at all, but worked a lot
| better and conjured up good hunting. Privately some
| Munrungs thought good hunting was more due to their own
| skill. Pismire encouraged this view. 'Positive thinking,'
| he would say, 'is also very important.'_
|
| https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/childrens-article/the-
| car...
|
| Don't eat the yellow-spotted mushroom, folks. I guess it's
| not trendy to say it, but the magical shamen have had one
| too many.
| effingwewt wrote:
| What pure bullshit.
|
| Safe to say you are speaking of something you have no
| first-hand knowledge of, and in fact assume anyone who
| has such knowledge to be tainted as a 'drug user'.
|
| I'm sure you have taken over counter medicines, why
| should we trust you, being a druggie and all.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Hi. Have I recently posted a comment that used offensive
| language like "pure bullshit" in response to one of your
| comments, or have I in some other way shown disrespect to
| you?
| effingwewt wrote:
| That wasn't to you, but your quote.
|
| You did, however (regardless of 'offensive' language),
| shit all over anyone who uses 'drugs', and you very much
| disrespected myself and other users by saying such
| beautiful gems as we are not to be listened to, as we are
| drug users, and thus nothing we say can be true or have
| value.
|
| So lets not play who's more offended please.
|
| You admitted you've never used them yet proceeded to
| speak as if from a point of holier-than-thou authority.
|
| You responded to someone saying that they- from a point
| of experience no less, advised being careful with mental
| state and prior traumas as 'too mystical to you' and you
| 'do not believe in the supernatural'.
|
| _That_ was some bullshit right there.
|
| You can say things in the sweetest of ways and start with
| a pleasant 'hi' but it makes what you are saying no less
| disrespectful and yes, in these cases- bullshit. As in
| not true or facetious.
|
| Remember there are people who think the aspirin you take
| is a drug, even though it's from the bark of a tree, such
| as members of the 'faith tabernacle' or whatever.
|
| When you start judging, expect to be judged, someone out
| there can always be holier than thou.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| lake_vincent wrote:
| Yes, go find an experienced person to do it with. Microdoses
| are fine to do alone, but anything beyond that and you will
| want a guide.
|
| It can be an unpredictable experience, even in the right
| setting, so that is why traditionally, entheogens are always
| consumed in the presence of a shaman/guide.
|
| Edit: How to find them? Go make friends with some artists or
| hippies. The pizza delivery guy with a crystal necklace? Ask
| him to hang out :)
| CPLNTN wrote:
| The ideal would be to have someone with you during the trip
| that you are very comfortable with, since whatever emotion you
| might feel will be amplified. Even in that case tho, that
| person should know what to do, a little reading about how to
| trip sit would be the ideal, since for example asking "hey are
| you okay? You're acting very weird" would be a bad idea.
|
| In case you don't have such person, for you first experience I
| would say that doing alone is better than doing with bad people
| or in crowded places. I would suggest tripping in a place you
| are comfortable with, with lots of blankets and pillows. For
| the first time I would avoid going outside, because even tho
| nature is astounding on trip, as a first time it could be a bit
| overwhelming. Prepare music that you like and gives good vibes
| to you. I personally prefer music without lyrics as those can
| be distracting. If you have a dog or a cat, know that they
| might act weird towards you, like if they are kind of scared.
| This is the setting.
|
| The most important thing is that a trip is kind of like a
| roller coaster, once you get on it, you can't get off until it
| finishes, meaning that you have to be open minded and ready to
| see and feel whatever your mind will show you. I personally
| like to think about people that I love in my life, and I
| explore the feeling inside of my body. This is the set.
|
| If you are feeling like you are entering a thought loop, or
| negative thoughts, changing the setting (so changing music,
| going to another room) could help. At some point you will need
| to go to the bathroom. Be ready, the experience will be very
| weird, because the bathroom is usually smaller than other room,
| you are naked, and there are mirrors. For your first time I
| would suggest to avoid looking at yourself in the mirror, as
| the experience of seeing yourself aging or morphing could be
| quite disorienting.
|
| If you need any more info there are subreddit that provide
| great source for everything you need. Have a safe trip!
| toxicFork wrote:
| From personal experience: Phone notifications, doorbells,
| cameras, recording or healthcare equipment, people with bad
| vibe
| ryanchants wrote:
| Queue up your favorite good-mood music, or a just a tripping
| playlist from Spotify or similar. Music has a huge impact on
| trip feel for me, and I can normally adjust out of a difficult
| trip with a music change.
|
| Stay in a safe place, with a trust friend that is sober(a
| "tripsitter"). And start low, 1.75g dosage or so.
| Maursault wrote:
| Maybe the trendy hallucinogenic microdosers should try
| microdosing food, water, air, speech and constantly being the
| center of attention. It just isn't interesting giving credibility
| to a new ignorant generation rediscovering what was known in some
| cases 60-80 years earlier, in some cases thousands of years
| earlier. Rediscovery is not interesting. It is embarassing.
| moravak1984 wrote:
| > and constantly being the center of attention.
|
| Microdosing that one alone would bring enormous benefits...
| "Ego death" is basically an axiom on all doctrines promising
| more fulfilling, meaningful lives.
|
| Yes, psilocybin helps a lot on microdosing it... One-point
| anecdata.
| palimpsests wrote:
| i find the notion of ego-death to often be quite
| misdirective.
|
| folks are getting taught that the source of their problems is
| their "ego", ignoring that we need a functioning ego to
| survive. it's not something to be demonized or eliminated.
| rather, an opportunity to integrate that part of ourselves
| and our relationship to it, including any stories that we may
| be telling ourselves about the inherent pathology of ego.
|
| please note i am using the term "ego" in a psychoanalytic
| sense, not in the pop-connotative sense of displays of
| narcissistic arrogance.
| effingwewt wrote:
| I think 'death' is a misnomer here. It doesn't kill it so
| much as force you to acknowledge and face it.
|
| I'd say it 'dies' during the trip as it is ripped from you.
| In my experiences however it took quite a dose to achieve
| that.
|
| To me the folks warning to be careful about stress and
| things you avoid facing when tripping hard are dead-on.
|
| Mushrooms have a way of cleansing the mind and soul, but
| that's if you are lucky,and you'd best be ready for it.
|
| Usually it's just some cool visuals and good feelings.
| aszantu wrote:
| embarassing for whom?
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| I wish people better understood that their advocacy of and for
| drugs is and was pushed by the CIA to essentially deconstruct and
| damage a society that would otherwise organize and oppose the
| will of the ruling class. There is an interesting book that was
| recently released, The Poisoner in Chief that is a good
| introduction, even though it seems it is meant to also be a bit
| of a rehabilitation of a horrible human, Sidney Gottlieb.
| tananaev wrote:
| Any links to support this theory?
| j_m_b wrote:
| >that would otherwise organize and oppose the will of the
| ruling class
|
| Eh, perhaps that was their motivation, but I'm not at all
| convinced that would have been the result. Though illegal,
| Psychedelics have been widely available for decades. Those
| results have failed to materialize.
| phonescreen_man wrote:
| Are you suggesting the CIA pushed lsd/shrooms to alter society
| in a way that was beneficial for the ruling class, or they
| pushed society in a direction to ban those substances to keep
| people from organizing and becoming a ruling class? Or
| something else?
|
| If you think about it, a lot of the Silicon Valley advancement
| of the chip and subsequent computer revolution was driven by
| the early lsd/shrooms advocates. In a way they did become the
| new ruling class.
| eternalban wrote:
| Hardly. Negotiations are continuing. Over in China, Ma was
| cut down to size. Earlier we had Gates' congressional woes
| before he found philanthropy Jesus, and Jeff's dirty laundry
| was all over internet. The last time something like this
| happened was with Oil. Rockefeller was integrated. A couple
| of centuries before that bankers were integrated. (There was
| a "glorious revolution" and that's what got serious
| European/English imperialism going.)
|
| Issue with tech titans is that unlike oil, it (software)
| threatens to directly displace finance. So oil and finance do
| tussle ("who runs barter town?") but there are synergies. But
| finance is likely a subset of an abstract notion of
| 'software'. Lords of software threaten to displace those of
| finance. (If we lived in a SciFi world, Apple would be
| secretly building an armed forces with their mountain of cash
| by now :)
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The history of the CIA's acquisition and use of psychedelics
| and other drugs is detailed in 'Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD and
| the Sixties Rebellion' (1994)
|
| Certainly the CIA was trying to use psychedelics as
| interrogation tools and perhaps as part of a 'dirty tricks
| campaign' (secretly dosing politicians before speeches, etc.),
| and there was a lot of collaboration with various university
| psych departments in terms of research (students, prison
| inmates, etc. as research subjects) as well as in prostitution
| houses. This is all well-documented.
|
| However, it really escaped from their control and had
| unexpected side effects. A good case example is that of Frank
| Olson, a bacteriological warfare specialist who was
| collaborating with the CIA in the MK-ULTRA program. After being
| dosed in a 'training session' with CIA members, he had apparent
| pangs of conscience (early 1950s) and wanted to quit the
| program. This was a period when the USA had an active
| biological weapons program, built in part on research results
| taken from the Japanese biological weapons program, and may
| have been testing biological weapons in North Korea as well.
| (This was all later exposed in the 1970s Congressional
| hearings, but at the time was top secret). It's quite likely
| that the CIA assassinated Frank Olson while claiming his death
| was a suicide, out of fear he would reveal all this to the
| public.
|
| Hence, I doubt the central theme of your argument -
| psychedelics can have a wide variety of effects on individuals,
| and tend to be feared by authoritarians because of these
| unpredictable effects (abandoning religious belief or faith in
| authority is not an uncommon result). In addition, drug use is
| something humans have gravitated towards in every known society
| throughout recorded history, there's no need to invoke
| secretive government agencies and hidden motives to explain it.
| magnat wrote:
| > These changes were accompanied by reduced EEG power in the
| theta band, together with preserved levels of Lempel-Ziv
| broadband signal complexity.
|
| Sounds more like a specs of a DSL modem than a psychiatry paper.
| I certainly didn't expect to see Lempel-Ziv mentioned in a
| context other than compression.
| zosima wrote:
| In studies such as these with huge intersubject variability, and
| probably also quite large intrasubject variability from day to
| day on many scales, it makes sense to look at change from
| baseline for individuals in the various groups rather than just
| differences in raw scores between treatment groups.
|
| It seems by a cursory glance that most analyses done were of the
| latter kind, and I think then a study such as this, with low N,
| is expected to not show very much effect of any kind. (Since the
| intersubject variability and potentially also the natural
| intrasubject variability for most measured scales seem higher
| than any expected treatment effect).
|
| I am almost certain that e.g. none of the approved and quite
| convincingly working SSRI:s would have shown any efficacy in a
| study with this design and similar N.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > it makes sense to look at change from baseline for
| individuals in the various groups rather than just differences
| in raw scores between treatment groups.
|
| That's called cherry picking. Results are always noisy. You
| could give two groups of people the same tests on different
| days without any drugs at all and some subset would show
| "improvement". If you start focusing on the individuals that
| show the result you want to see, you cherry-pick your way into
| false results.
|
| This is a well-known way for researchers to abuse variable or
| noisy data sets to misleadingly show the result they want to
| show.
|
| > I am almost certain that e.g. none of the approved and quite
| convincingly working SSRI:s would have shown any efficacy in a
| study with this design and similar N.
|
| Thats not true. SSRI studies with ~30 people will show a trend
| toward improvement in the SSRI group that exceeds the placebo
| group. I think you're confusing the different statistical
| measures.
|
| This study showed that expectations and placebo effect were
| _the_ predictor of micro-dosing success. The blinded group and
| unblinded group showed completely different results.
| karmanyaahm wrote:
| > > it makes sense to look at change from baseline for
| individuals in the various groups rather than just
| differences in raw scores between treatment groups.
|
| > That's called cherry picking. Results are always noisy. You
| could give two groups of people the same tests on different
| days without any drugs at all and some subset would show
| "improvement".
|
| No, GP is talking about a matched pairs design. You look at
| the _difference between the scores_ of very similar
| individuals by applying one treatment to each (active and
| placebo), or, applying both treatments to the same individual
| (in random order).
|
| Cherry-picking would mean only using scores from selected
| individuals, whereas matching only emphasizes the difference.
| zosima wrote:
| No, why would you claim that?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Claim what? If you go through the results and exclude the
| individuals who didn't show the outcome you wanted to see,
| that's called cherry-picking. It's a well-known phrase.
|
| There is a concept of subgroup analysis in studies like
| these, but you have to be careful about how it's done and
| what conclusions are drawn. If you simply select positive
| results and exclude negative results then even the placebo
| group would show great success.
|
| This study showed that telling people that they were
| microdosing was more important for the perceived outcome
| than the micro dosing itself. In other words, placebo is
| key to making it work.
| _drimzy wrote:
| > If you simply select positive results and exclude
| negative results then even the placebo group would show
| great success.
|
| Where did zosima ask to do that? They mentioned that the
| variable of comparison should be changes from baseline
| metrics in treatment group vs changes from baseline
| metrics in control group. That would be a fair study, and
| isn't cherry picking.
| snet0 wrote:
| They're not saying you should look at some subset of
| individuals with positive results, you have misread.
|
| The notion is that the difference between participants can
| mask the effect of the drug, such that comparing any
| individual participant to anyone but themselves is improper.
| nine_k wrote:
| I don't see how this may be relevant to the usefulness of
| microdosing.
|
| - Assume that a microdose either improves an outcome, or does
| nothing. Then, averaged over a large group, such random
| improvements would lift the group's outcome a little. It's a
| microdose worth taking.
|
| - Assume that a microdose can both improve and worsen the
| outcome, or have no effect. If the experimental group's
| averaged results are indistinguishable from the control group's
| averaged results, it means that the microdose worsens the
| outcome about as often and / or as much as it improves it.
| This, to me. means that a microdose is a gamble not worth
| taking.
|
| There is, of course, a difference between a microdose having no
| effect at all, or having an effect which can be either positive
| or negative. This difference is important for further research.
| For usage here and now, it's sadly irrelevant.
|
| If a microdose only works when the person taking it knows it
| works, then it's basically the placebo effect. A good placebo
| can be useful, at least for commercial purposes.
| zosima wrote:
| If the natural variability is high enough, then any effect
| will be hidden by it. Sure, we can say with some certainty
| that the effect of microdosing on most scales are not that
| huge. But we wouldn't have expected very large effect sizes
| anyway, because they are almost unheard off. (Unless the
| subjects become really severely impaired)
|
| And there may still be meaningful treatment effects, at least
| judging by current standard of care for many psychiatric
| ailments and how those have performed in studies.
|
| Again, I'm quite confident that the effect of many current
| psychiatric standard of care treatments would never have been
| picked up by this study. Not because they don't work (at
| least somewhat), but simply because there is too much noise
| and natural variability.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Quite confident but utterly wrong.
|
| As has been pointed out to you several times.
|
| Science does not and cannot work by cherry picking.
| pfisherman wrote:
| If the observed effect of an intervention does not rise
| above the background variance it means that the
| intervention does not do what you want it to do.
|
| Either (1) it has no effect or (2) the strength and
| direction of the effect are random. Either of those
| qualities renders the intervention ineffective. You can't
| justify giving a patient something that will have no
| effect, or will make them worse off half of the time when
| there are more effective options are on the table.
|
| Of course this is comes with the caveat that the study is
| adequately powered to detect the strength of the effect you
| are looking for. That being said, there is plenty
| historical data for the placebo, so I don't think that
| being underpowered because of misestimation of the
| background variance would be an issue.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| >This, to me. means that a microdose is a gamble not worth
| taking.
|
| This has always been the problem with psychedelics as a
| therapeutic approach. It's hard to reconcile being a
| responsible clinician and recommending a therapy with such
| mixed and often-negative results. They are in charge of a
| person's mental well-being in a way that people evangelizing
| psychedelic therapy don't seem to properly appreciate. If a
| patient is interested in that therapy, they might be a better
| candidate, but even then... if the results aren't great it's
| hard to justify.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with psychedelics for
| personal use, and I've seen them do wonderful things for
| people. But I've also seen them do horrific things to people
| and I feel like a lot of young people have a great trip and
| then immediately conclude that literally every human being
| NEEDS to go out and trip without any more consideration. That
| same sort of evangelism carries over to the microdosing
| realm. It may have a place! But personally, I've tried it
| with psiolocybin, and I found that typical microdoses have a
| very detrimental effect on my ability to focus.
| bnralt wrote:
| I wonder how much of this is true for therapy in general.
| When I've looked into it, the evidence for cognitive
| behavioral therapy (CBT) is a lot less than I would have
| expected, and there seems to be some question about how
| much of its effect is due to the placebo effect. This study
| on microdosing makes the point that if an experiment isn't
| double-blind - if the researchers know what is the placebo
| and what isn't - than this will have an impact on the
| results (and they seem to think this is the reason their
| double-blind experiment got different results). But I'm not
| sure it's possible to have double blind experiments when it
| comes to therapy (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and
| would likely make many single-blind studies of therapy
| appear more useful.
| jerojero wrote:
| As far as I know experiments of CBT + psychedelics have
| shown very promising results for treating PTSD and certain
| kinds of depression, specially in people that are about to
| die and need to come to terms with that.
|
| These are not microdosing experiments though. The usual way
| it is handled is that you get a few weeks of CBT then you
| get half a dose and the following week you get a full dose
| followed by more weeks of CBT. There is no placebo effect
| here that's possible because, well, it is impossible for
| someone to believe they have taken a full dose of
| pscychodelic drugs and not feel anything. But you still
| have a control in this case because you have a group that
| goes through CBT and another group that goes through CBT +
| drugs.
|
| In fact, from these studies there have been very little
| "bad trips", mostly I guess because you have the half-dose
| session and then the full dose session in a very controlled
| environment and so on. These experiments are obviously done
| quite responsibly.
|
| So I think you're mixing things up a little bit and I would
| suggest doing a little more research in the topic.
| Psychodelic therapy, at least the kind that is being
| explored seriously is not really done through microdosing.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > There is no placebo effect here that's possible
| because, well, it is impossible for someone to believe
| they have taken a full dose of pscychodelic drugs and not
| feel anything.
|
| From what I recall, a low dose of methylphenidate is used
| as a control in many studies because it has some of the
| same side effects without the trip. For psychedelic-naive
| people who don't really know what to expect, I could see
| it being an ok control. Once you've experienced a single
| high-dose trip though... yeah... you're never going to
| trick someone with it.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Just a small note but my understanding is that "CBT" aka
| cognitive behavioral therapy is a specific form of
| therapy, while most research around psychedelic assisted
| therapy centers around traditional talk therapy rather
| than a more specific technique.
| meaningjoj wrote:
| Keep in mind this is study is evaluating the claims that
| microdosing lead to specific outcomes such as enhanced
| wellness and cognitive enhancements, which people seek out
| while microdosing. That's different from using strong doses
| of psychedelics to, say for example, break entrenched
| thought patterns (addiction, depression, OCD).
|
| In the former case, a positive outcome is expected and
| therefore negative outcomes are in a sense less tolerable,
| especially since a false positive would lead to people
| _repeatedly_ microdosing over an extended period of time,
| to their long-term detriment.
|
| In the latter case, a "negative experience" does not
| preclude getting the desired results. And an acute negative
| experience in a one-time dose may be tolerable when
| contrasted with the long-term severity of the pathology it
| is meant to treat.
| redox99 wrote:
| Did you actually read the methodology? Because what you are
| saying doesn't really fit the used methodology.
|
| They had all participants on shrooms for 1 week, and on placebo
| for 1 week (order randomized), and compared the results.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-06 23:01 UTC)