One dose of LSD in a clinical trial significantly improved anxiety and lasted for 12 weeks, convincing the FDA to give the drug a breakthrough therapy designation.
Compared with experiences with forms of LSD purchased illegally on the street, the study’s grade of MM120 did not appear to induce “bad trips,” Karlin said.
“LSD is difficult to manufacture with high purity and tends to degrade quickly in the presence of light and water,” Karlin said. “We’re manufacturing it to pharmaceutical industry standards, a highly pure version that is also shelf stable. So that’s a critical difference.”
Most adverse effects in the study were rated as mild to moderate by participants, occurring mostly on the day of the study, Karlin said. Those included euphoric feelings, illusions and hallucinations, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headaches, dizziness, nausea, excessive sweating, vomiting, numbness or tingling of the skin, and pupil dilation.
I do worry a bit whenever these articles come out that people will just read the headline, go out and procure some hallucinogenics for themselves, and then not have a good time because they didn’t read the fine print.
what ? because you think they have no way of experimenting on it because it’s illegal for common folks ?
Someone needs to visit a lab once it seems.
I mean how the fuck do you think they got this results ?
You are correct about legalization. However, having it as a schedule 1 drug severely limits the testing that can be done with it. Schedule 1 drugs are seen as drugs with no medical value therefore there is no need to work with them for medical purposes. It is the same reason marijuana isn’t legal. You can’t really test with it but people would point to it not having any long term studies as the reason it is not legal. It is a circular argument used by conservatives and liberals that are endorsed by pharmaceutical companies. The scheduling of drugs was politicized by Reagan to surppress the liberal movements that grew in the 60s and 70s.
I didn’t say about anything about how it works, simply that we need research, randomized controlled trials, actual data on all of psychedelics. Which means they need to be legalized first.
I’m well aware of how it works. Are you saying that anecdotal evidence should be given the same weight as randomized controlled trials? Research doesn’t remove it, but it sure carries a lot more weight.
My point about legalization still stand regardless of what type of evidence we are talking about.
I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary
From the article:
I do worry a bit whenever these articles come out that people will just read the headline, go out and procure some hallucinogenics for themselves, and then not have a good time because they didn’t read the fine print.
I wish I had read this 20 minutes ago before I started this
O7
And that’s why we need to legalize it all - so we can study it and have non-anecdotal evidence.
what ? because you think they have no way of experimenting on it because it’s illegal for common folks ? Someone needs to visit a lab once it seems. I mean how the fuck do you think they got this results ?
You are correct about legalization. However, having it as a schedule 1 drug severely limits the testing that can be done with it. Schedule 1 drugs are seen as drugs with no medical value therefore there is no need to work with them for medical purposes. It is the same reason marijuana isn’t legal. You can’t really test with it but people would point to it not having any long term studies as the reason it is not legal. It is a circular argument used by conservatives and liberals that are endorsed by pharmaceutical companies. The scheduling of drugs was politicized by Reagan to surppress the liberal movements that grew in the 60s and 70s.
That’s not how anecdotal evidence works.
I didn’t say about anything about how it works, simply that we need research, randomized controlled trials, actual data on all of psychedelics. Which means they need to be legalized first.
already done. First what do you think they do to ban them ? Second they are banned for sale to the public but experiments are done regularly
Research, randomized controlled trials and actual data will lot remove anecdotal evidence.
That’s not how anecdotal evidence works.
Anecdotal evidence is derived from personal experience. And is usually contrary or constrictive of what has been researched.
I’m well aware of how it works. Are you saying that anecdotal evidence should be given the same weight as randomized controlled trials? Research doesn’t remove it, but it sure carries a lot more weight.
My point about legalization still stand regardless of what type of evidence we are talking about.