Some 13 million Americans struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Existing therapies only bring relief for a fraction of patients, and new treatments are sorely needed, according to psychiatrists wrestling with the scale of the problem. So, there was distinct disappointment when an advisory committee at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted earlier this month against a therapy that many had hoped could offer the first new treatment for PTSD in 25 years.
A number of experts who study psychedelics have since spoken out in support of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD and have sharply criticised the recommendations of the FDA’s Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee. But some are still optimistic that the treatment might be approved when the FDA delivers its final decision in August.
Ahead of the meeting, FDA approval of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD seemed likely, says Sandeep Nayak, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, who investigates psychedelics as treatments for substance use and mood disorders. About two-thirds of people who received three sessions of MDMA and talk therapy no longer qualified for a PTSD diagnosis at the end of two Phase 3 clinical trials.
It’s an outcome that is “almost double that of existing medications”, says Gül Dölen, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who researches the mechanisms of how psychedelics achieve therapeutic effects. “What’s more, [the treatment] led to durable improvements in these patients lasting at least six months.”
I understand it’s easier for you to pretend I said something different than I said, but make-believe is not as convincing as you think it is.
MDMA is not ready as a therapy yet.
It isn’t effective yet against the symptoms or disorder, and it isn’t safe yet.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/06/1093327/fda-advisors-just-said-no-to-the-use-of-mdma-as-a-therapy/amp/
You should do all the drugs you want, drugs are great, but you shouldn’t tell people not to take effective and safe therapies because you personally enjoy a drug that may have benefits in the future.
Psilocybin is here.
It helps with these problems.
MDMA does not yet have an effective therapy regimen.
9 out of 11 FDA researchers say:
Hold your horses
I’m not telling anyone not to take psilocybin. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m questioning the bias in that FDA advisory board. A reasonable question considering decades of prohibition and that historically FDA advisory boards have owned stocks in pharmaceutical companies that stand to lose profits if MDMA is approved as a medication.
In other words, the 9 out of 11 statistic that you just cited is a statistic that I don’t trust because these individuals have historically been biased and are not specialists in psychedelic medicine.
And your whole argument hinges on this idea that because we have a treatment that could be effective we should not look into more effective treatments. In which case, meditation works just fine for all of this and is much safer than any medication we can put in our body. So, should we not use any mental health medications? And put all of our research money just into meditation? After all it is safe and effective, and much safer than either of these drugs.
Question and enjoy whatever you like.
Meditation is not much safer than psilocybin.
Magic mushrooms are twice as safe as coffee.
Just because MdmA doesn’t work, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to use any therapies at all that do work.
This is the problem with your approach and conclusions.
You’re so devoted to your personal experience with MDMA that when MDMA has been rejected, your next question is so then there’s nothing?
That is not the logical conclusion.
The treatment you prefer is not yet safe or effective.
That’s fine. There is a safe and effective treatment already.
Whatever else you are reading into this conclusion is your own.
There’s nothing wrong with having effective solutions that don’t jive with your personal preferences.
One has to wonder how many drugs you may have ingested that would make you think saying the same thing over and over again, without verifiable scientific proof (that is not simply a copy-pasta of an article in a tech mag) somehow proves your point.
You don’t believe scientific articles or studies.
Convincing rebuttal.
You haven’t posted any. Do that and I will read them.
I’ve posted a few, this is a longer conversation than you might be assuming.
Which type of articles are you specifically looking for?
The ones that scientifically support your statements.
I’m going to go ahead and let you scroll back to my earlier conversations on this topic if you don’t have any specifics you’re curious about.
It’s all in the post history.
If you want something new or specific that wasn’t covered, let me know.
You have exactly zero studies in any of your prior posts and you’re telling me to go back and look anyway?
Either support what you say or sit down.
I can’t help you if you don’t know how to scroll.
But that’s not on me.
I’m sure there’s some YouTube tutorial you could watch.
I support what I say. You apparently don’t know what you’re looking for.