Is psychedelics causing psychosis a myth? Or not?

[outlandish]

@Outer  I know what placebo means, and how double blind experiments work and all that, but my question is: are researchers simply looking if people can differentiate between a microdose vs. placebo, or are they looking at whether or not people demonstrate measurable improvements vs placebo on some cognitive tasks such as IQ, memory, creative association and so on.

 

[Forestluv]

19 minutes ago, outlandish said:

are they looking at whether or not people demonstrate measurable improvements vs placebo on some cognitive tasks such as IQ, memory, creative association and so on.

Those are the studies I wish would happen. They are easy experiments and I predict will yield fascinating results.  Yet the stupid sched. 2 designation makes it nearly impossible for researchers to do the research.

[Outer]

1 hour ago, outlandish said:

are researchers simply looking if people can differentiate between a microdose vs. placebo, or are they looking at whether or not people demonstrate measurable improvements vs placebo on some cognitive tasks such as IQ, memory, creative association and so on.

I don't know if they are doing that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Because it's just one question in their questionnaires: If this day's pill was placebo or not. They probably do ask it because that gives info whether people are able to feel the effects or not. They are of course are checking cognition. You can see p. 12 it saying so.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Those are the studies I wish would happen. They are easy experiments and I predict will yield fascinating results.  Yet the stupid sched. 2 designation makes it nearly impossible for researchers to do the research.

They are actually schedule 1.
 

Quote

 

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

 

Quote

 

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

 

https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling

It's like a dystopia.

Quote

 

Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:

Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol

 

Xanax have low potential abuse and risk of dependence?

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Outer

[Forestluv]

@Outer I know it’s crazy. Cannibis sched 1 and xanax sched 4 ?

[outlandish]

@Outer yeah the drug laws in the USA (and most of the world) are so backwards it's absurd.

I think MDMA is on the verge of being approved as a prescription medicine, and I think this means it will have to be re-scheduled. Let's hope this is the first brick to fall in this ridiculous wall. 

I heard a talk from Rick Doblin and according to him MDMA is one of these rare non-divisive issues in the USA currently. People on the right and left are rallying around approved MDMA therapy for PTSD.

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, outlandish said:

@Outer

I think MDMA is on the verge of being approved as a prescription medicine, and I think this means it will have to be re-scheduled. Let's hope this is the first brick to fall in this ridiculous wall. 

It's currently in stage III clinical trials to test effectiveness in large sample sizes. The stage II trials convincingly showed efficacy in a small sample size, no they need to show effectiveness before advancing to stage IV clinical trials. 

Stage III trials generally take 2-4 years. At stage IV, MDMA will be allowed in clinical settings by psychologists and psychiatrists in the U.S. Yet, they will undergo a lot more regulation and reporting than traditional methods. During stage IV, people will start hearing about MDMA therapy and know people that are going through it. Stage IV will take a few more years. With positive stage IV results, the therapy will become mainstream therapy.

[outlandish]

@Serotoninluv sweet thanks for the details, this is good stuff to know. When it goes stage IV, does that imply that the drug will become re-scheduled since it will have an accepted medical use?

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, outlandish said:

@SerotoninluvWhen it goes stage IV, does that imply that the drug will become re-scheduled since it will have an accepted medical use?

One would think so. Yet, cannabis is still schedule I . . . 

I would love to do experiments with psychedelics in my lab, yet with current regulations . . . I'd have to secure a large grant, go through a couple years of approval process and be willing to undergo strict "health" regulations and a bunch of paperwork. (Even to just experiment with fruit flies). I'm currently collaborating with a lab that has a schedule I license and let him to the work with psychedelics. Yet, I'm so tempted to use my private stash. Yet, what would I do if I got positive results? 

I can easily order enough mercury to kill thousands of people, yet I can't order a trace amount of MDMA that wouldn't even make a single fruit fly trip. . . 

There is a movement in the sciences to relax the restrictions on psychedelic research. Yet we haven't hit the critical mass at the societal level. Everyone knows someone who suffers from depression, addiction, PTSD etc. So as word gets out, social support will gradually increase. Yet we have a ways to go. Currently, social support for psychedelic research is about where cannabis was 20 years ago. . . . 

[outlandish]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

One would think so. Yet, cannabis is still schedule I . . . 

...

Currently, social support for psychedelic research is about where cannabis was 20 years ago. . . . 

Yeah I was thinking that about cannabis too.. it's really nuts. 

It's so crazy about how hard it is to gain permission to research this stuff. On the other hand it's waaay easier now than it was in the 80s and 90s.

I agree that social support is about where cannabis was 20 years ago, but I feel it will take less than 20 years for PDs to get the point where cannabis is now. I think there's some real momentum happening right now with the way being paved by cannabis, and because of the promising research that's going on rn. Time will tell. If I had to wager right now I'd say 10 years.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, outlandish said:

I agree that social support is about where cannabis was 20 years ago, but I feel it will take less than 20 years for PDs to get the point where cannabis is now. I think there's some real momentum happening right now with the way being paved by cannabis, and because of the promising research that's going on rn. Time will tell. If I had to wager right now I'd say 10 years.

I agree. I'd guess about 10 years and momentum is gaining. Yet, I still shake my head at times. I know several psychologists that specialize in PTSD therapy and were shocked when I told them about the MDMA research. Then within a month, I'll get a text like "Oh my gosh, I was just talking with a colleague who mentioned MDMA therapy for PTSD. I can't believe it!!"

I think a big turning point will be when psychedelic research has a prominent presence at scientific meetings. Scientists love hot, new things.

The first cell biology paper showing neurotrophic properties of psychedelics in cell culture was recently published in the journal Cell. This is the top journal in cell biology and it carries a lot of weight in the scientific community. 

Regarding the clinical studies, I just want to reiterate for others reading this thread. The clinical studies were done with patients that had already received a lot of psychotherapy before the trials. The psychedelic therapy was in a relaxed controlled setting with a loved one and their trusted health care provider. After the treatment, patients continued psychotherapy to help integrate the insights. We are not talking about handing out MDMA to PTSD sufferers and having them work through things on their own.

[lmfao]

@Outer Thanks for the advice man. I don't need a drug to surface up emotional baggage and neurosis anyway, meditation and mindfulness gets that job done. I'm still considering microdosing at some point (probably in 7 years or something at 25 when your brain is supposed to have fully developed). Ideally I'd see for myself if safe low dosing has any good effects for me personally, regardless of what some studies have concluded.

 

[Outer]

I don't understand why you want to micro-dose. That is a pharmacological intervention. I've had a change of heart and I'm not telling you not to, I am just curious what's your reason. Because once you explain your reasons maybe there are other pharmacological tools that are more useful or have more evidence if you want to go that route of altering your brain. There are always other routes, and that doesn't mean the pharma way is bad. For instance neurofeedback, or meditation/self-inquiry biofeedback, exercise (as the non-active state is notoriously bad for your brain), therapy, etc.

[outlandish]

On 2/15/2019 at 11:55 AM, Serotoninluv said:

Regarding the clinical studies, I just want to reiterate for others reading this thread. The clinical studies were done with patients that had already received a lot of psychotherapy before the trials. The psychedelic therapy was in a relaxed controlled setting with a loved one and their trusted health care provider. After the treatment, patients continued psychotherapy to help integrate the insights. We are not talking about handing out MDMA to PTSD sufferers and having them work through things on their own.

Yes, however I was surprised to Rick Doblin to come out in support of self-medication with MDMA for PTSD. As he first started talking about it, I was pretty shocked and was thinking .. "oh no don't go there, this is dangerous turf". But as he explained his rationale, I can totally see why he is cautiously giving self-medication a thumbs up.

To cut a long story short, MAPS recognizes that there are vast numbers of people who suffer from PTSD (in the USA alone) and that they have a huge challenge in scaling up to train therapists to address this massive issue - it will literally be impossible to scale up fast enough to save a lot of lives that will be lost to suicide.

He told a touching story about an individual who was suffering from PTSD and tried to get into one of their trials, but they had to deny this individual for some logistical reason. Two weeks later he killed himself and left a suicide note addressed to Rick explaining that MDMA would have probably saved his life. It wasn't meant to condemn MAPS or Rick at all for not letting him in to the trial, but as a beacon to draw attention to the problem with this bottle neck. 

The fact of the matter is that people do successfully self-medicate. MAPS has their protocol and approaches for therapy well documented and freely available online, so it's an option for people who are genuinely suffering and for whom this is their best option.

I could dig up a link to the talk if anyone is interested.

 

On 2/15/2019 at 11:55 AM, Serotoninluv said:

I think a big turning point will be when psychedelic research has a prominent presence at scientific meetings. Scientists love hot, new things.

Yes and a lot of scientists are closeted trippers too. Let's see how it unfolds.

[Forestluv]

@outlandish Those are great points about maximizing potential benefits. Ideally, there would be plenty of trained professionals and the treatment would be accessible to all that suffer. Yet due to social stigmas and regulatory restrictions - that will be a long ways away. If someone has a baseline level of maturity and support, I could see a self-guided at home kit being beneficial. For example, a manual to prepare beforehand, a guided trip (perhaps with a loved-one as a sitter) and a workbook for integration afterwards. As well as a supportive online forum. Hopefully, those enforcing laws wouldn't be so draconian that they would prosecute these activities.