Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 latherdome
envy of the drug world
Registered: 10/25/06
Posts: 733
Loc: PNW
|
 Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13204488 - 09/16/10 12:30 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
curenado said:I have gotten less "Grrr!" about the psychologists (not much though..) but still, the real purpose of psilocybes is for healing sickness.
I hear you on the potential for abuse. But as one who has been helped rather mightily beyond relief of bodily sickness (of physical healing I am neither skeptical nor convinced), I must ask why you want to limit the "real purpose" to one?
Quote:
curenado said:But anyway - you have a disease that will kill you if not gotten rid of so what do you pick?
This:
Psychologist/Philosopher "It's OK to die"
or This:
Savage/Physician - Cancer-stomp-the-shit-out-of-er
Wait, Griffiths (above) is the one doing work on HEALTHY people, advancing psilocybin as for the betterment of the well instead of the healing of the sick or just the comfort of the dying, as Grob. I have no beef with either. Seems unfair of you to lump them together.
I've read your stuff here about physical healing occasioned by mushrooms, mostly quotations from other sources. Interesting, for sure. Here you are stating pretty flatly that shrooms cure cancer, without much in the way of rigorous clinical evidence such as "the psychologists" are offering for their claims. Again, does it have to be either/or? Are you implying that it does, and that this constitutes a conspiracy to suppress the "real purpose" of psilocybes?
Edited by latherdome (09/16/10 12:40 PM)
|
 Tripke
It's an exercise in fertility.
Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 50
Loc: Holland 
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today! [Re: latherdome]
#13204666 - 09/16/10 01:12 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
synthetic heroin?? hope its better than before 
--------------------
Best regards,
Tripke from Holland
I hope I didn't brain my damage!
 P.C. Ban Hua Thanon 
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: latherdome]
#13205271 - 09/16/10 03:23 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
<<I must ask why you want to limit the "real purpose" to one?>>
I don't. Beyond the way too much power and abuse concerns, I don't have that much problem with psychologists being involved either. I just am not able to see psychology as a real science.
To me it is a theoretical and subjective game that got a "medical" license and so can take off the turban, hide the tarot cards and get paid even better, but basically the same thing.
I think Psychiatry should always oversee psychology, but that does not seem to matter much in our country anymore so - for me and mine, but do as one pleases with their own. America is based on caveat emptor.
It's responsibility as well - your doctor is ultimately responsible for the protection of your "integrity and well being" and I would be (and do) scrutinize with "no sweet eye" anybody wanting to fool around in my patients head and life. I'll still have to be there when the "counselor" has gone on merrily away and left me with a body that still breathes in whatever condition. People go through counselors like revolving doors, and the primary gets to deal with whatever comes of it, good or bad the whole way.
I also feel like they are playing games with us, because all the benefits they offer, you could have at home with your friend and have no need of psychological involvement at all. That is better mental health to me. But there has to be something for folks who are alone or don't have friends that good. I see that.
<<Wait, Griffiths (above) is the one doing work on HEALTHY people, advancing psilocybin as for the betterment of the well instead of the healing of the sick or just the comfort of the dying, as Grob. I have no beef with either. Seems unfair of you to lump them together.>>
You are right - it is, and I will take Roland's pic off the post.
I have also changed (radically) my position on this, based on the idea that someone laying miserably and dying could get that as opposed to mellaril, which is a really shitty thing to do to a dying person to me.
I see little harm in psychologists and folks playing subjectively in psybes if somebody really suffering can have a bite too.
Part of it OWM, is honestly bias of hard experience - I would trust simple users any day more than about the majority of my colleagues at first blush. Some would disagree with that, others would say "Spot on. Smart man." You guys are more open and honest, desiring your hearts and minds to be heard. They are an industry, with industrial goals. When they put on collars, tell the truth and do it for free with vows it might be different. But it won't be.
Part of it is perspective too. When people want counseling they look for some grinning "happy-happy joy-joy" person for their feelings and introspection.
When there is a zucchini sized lump on their liver they want somebody serious. I'm groomed and manufactured serious, life is no "game" (at all) and when the "grizzly" comes, I bet even Roland moves over to stand behind me or someone like me.
I have to be ready for the situation or you for sure don't want me protecting your life and well being. I'm a partial victim of my proper role in your life, which is usually "Are you really sure about this?"
(and yes - I could not resist the movie reference. No, I don't want my patients being "a 40 year old virgin, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an oscar meyer wiener"  no matter how happy that would make the government. I also don't like "Barney" the purple dinosaur. Fine I guess, but not my kid?)
<<rigorous clinical evidence such as "the psychologists" are offering for their claims>>
Some people accept subjective and guided reports as clinical evidence - I just take it in consideration and continue watching. That has to be factored in - I consider most of their evidence just testimony and guided testimony for now. Others accept it as much as they would my factual, physical petri dish or blood sample.
<<mostly quotations from other sources. Interesting, for sure>>
Actually more my patients than others, but the articles were written more for awareness and easy reading than hair splitting APA style. In some ways that has hindered more interested and serious people like you, which we realize. In the beginning, we were just asked to back up what others had said. IF that part (APA Style) is done - it will be an intern doing it. I'll sign
I did always figure all you little professors out there would !run with it! and replicate it repeatedly for yourselves. I trusted your "chutzpah" because I've always been able to.
Everything I have ever submitted is easily replicable by almost any reasonably experienced person, pro or not. Just don't take on cancer, livers or SARS on your own, yah? (I said that too..)
I suppose what has been most frustrating is ten years of wheel spinning, when they should have just gotten even one damn good MD with a ball bat and sent him up the hill to get some red tape settled.
I'm a LOT more frustrated with the legislature than the lollipop guild - it may be best that they are dealing with people more willing to still be shoved around than me though. (I'm a bit of a bear with critters "My size or bigger".)
I have no need to convince anyone how "happy" or politically correct I am. I see constipation in the process and am trying various laxatives hopefully.
I just don't think this approach has been successful - all the "wording" and "curtsying" and "styling" this pharmacolization thing - that's not medicine or legislature. You go up the hill with your notebook and demand. When you hit a brick wall, you reach in your little black bag and pull out jackhammer.
The thing needs effective leadership of a serious MD with a ball bat.
Are all those MAPS listings just people who can write papers? The papers have not functionally gotten us very far in over a decade.
I once told Alicia I owe no "heads up". At that time the plan was mustering "doctor" support for legislation in Arkansas that basically said "Oh the people can have within reason, without fear of decades in jail and fines, but you industry predators and profiteers will be overseen scrupulously by a competent, experienced MD in Arkansas - period."
Either the "Domestic Administration of Home Remedies" as we have here, or NOT "industry friendly" professional control and oversight with monitoring. (May sound like a dick, but responsible to protect the patients and public, which priority has fallen off some in this country. Especially in mental health, pharmaceuticals and certainly in Arkansas.)
...and I have been reminded 3 times now how late I am - but I will continue to follow and respond to anything. I am sorry this is so dashed off as to barely be a adequate response. I could list out guidelines and protocols by condition for everything you've read and more. ("in my sleep") I suppose if their were more guys like me in the US we could have put this easy thing behind us and been rolling (PhD's & MD's) by now, but such is our situation for the present.
There are plenty of MD's friendly to this, but doing nothing about it beyond advising their own patients privately - so in that respect, much success has been achieved. Just not enough in the right places.
I'll be back when I can surface again (Gaw! ) but I am super late at the moment.
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
|
badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 7,904
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13205522 - 09/16/10 04:13 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
curenado said:
The thing needs effective leadership of a serious MD with a ball bat.
Are all those MAPS listings just people who can write papers? The papers have not functionally gotten us very far in over a decade.
This seems to be the source of much of your frustration. The scientists the you so despise and harass for doing hallucinogen research are just that..."scientists". It is not their job, their mission, or their primary goal to change the laws and legislature.
They do the science, put it in the public domain, and after that, it's up to lobbyists, lawyers et al. to get it done.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
jivJaN
yes
Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,054
Last seen: 1 day, 6 hours
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today! [Re: bourndead]
#13205830 - 09/16/10 05:22 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bourndead said:
Quote:
jivJaN said:
i wanna know why people see eyes , and why i see them eeeevery time i eat the mushroom 
I used to see faces in everything on LSD and Psilocybin, and after my first few trips I'd still see them in many things...sober.
I remember reading that people see things like faces and eyes because it's just an associative/familiarity thing...we're seeing them all the time in our daily lives and they just bleed into other things after awhile.
I used to swear I saw faces, some tortured, some happy, in wood, trees etc. Was on a trip thinking that it was the souls of the dead which had been returned to the earth and reborn into trees.
yea i get that, but i didn't see eyes in things.
this is a full blown hallucination , not just visual distortion.
It literally covers my field of vision as if you put a screen over my eyeballs and it is a very luminescent electric white that kinda reminds me of those little pictures that change when you move them.
its pure white , but you can see every color in it , subtly shining.
and these eyes are looking at me.
and they change too.
its dynamic .. as if they were alive.
the first time i experienced this , the eyes were completely foreign to me.
i didn't at all have the feeling that i brought them out of my memory and projected somehow.
sry to be a bit off topic here but you replied so i thought i'd explain a bit better , since there are many people that report similar experiences.
even alex grey depicts them in several of his paintings , quite accurately too 
--------------------
---------------------
All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional.
They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively.
I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal.
If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..
|
greggor22
Stranger
Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 91
Last seen: 8 months, 23 days
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today! [Re: jivJaN]
#13207709 - 09/16/10 11:58 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
wow trippy eyes watching you... while you trip. How odd. Oh wait nevermind thats normal lol.
in all seriousness there are some certain images that seem to recur in various halucinegenic reations which probably point back to some shared species memorie of Homo Sapien.
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today! [Re: greggor22]
#13211851 - 09/17/10 08:57 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
OK - finally got home and I went back and cleared up that who's who post.
As to Chad's point - I guess I'm feeling like the lawyers and the lobbyists must need a doctor then, if they can't do any better than this. I also think more knowledgeable people in professional positions should stop being comfortably quiet and champion better medicine and the people who they live off of. I feel they have an ethical obligation towards harm reduction, education and livable regulation for psilocybes that benefits more than doctors and pharmceutical profiteers.
We in fact are responcible - or at least we seem to like being mighty godly when it is making u$ look good and is ri$k free. So how 'bout living up to and earning some of that status better. (note, not a question mark.)
None the less - the general approach does not seem to be helping and perhaps is not being handled by the right people. As I said before, the only thing I felt I could do was back up what others were saying and make every effort possible to get certain savages to give their chosen people liscense, so they did not have to look like they knew less and had less expertise and repretoire than say, like tiny brother colleges in Arkansas!
(and it's not funny. Medicine is serious and people are suffering needlessly. Even the ones who get help feel they must sculk around like guilty criminals; that they comforted or spared their flesh.)
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/17/10 09:15 PM)
|
latherdome
envy of the drug world
Registered: 10/25/06
Posts: 733
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today! [Re: curenado]
#13213370 - 09/18/10 08:50 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I guess it's hard for me to get too worked up over the possible pharmacol-ization of psilocybin. Not any more than, say, echinacea or mint or shiitake. If the rich, timid, lazy or dying can get a pricey prescription with professional sitting, well, that will just make my picking a bit less outlaw in feel if not letter. More people will have access to the good, one way or another.
|
latherdome
envy of the drug world
Registered: 10/25/06
Posts: 733
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13213858 - 09/18/10 11:26 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
curenado said:(Dr. Roland Griffiths, not pictured here, Studies the occasion of mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance) Though I think he accepts believers only for his data, whereas I would throw them all in a fish tank and count the ones who said "I saw Jesus!" as opposed to the ones who just giggled and saw the pretty colors (about 1 out of three I believe - untested) Also, I would never allow the risky "God in a pill!" thing to be attached to me because that to me would be bogus. We do not know the whole of why these things happen and should not try to create the illusion of it. I also think it's funny to give people a psychotomimetic and then say it was more than their own self and reflections. God is not in the pill anymore than in every leaf or bit of salt. That is bad psychiatry.
Let's say you're right about no more than 1 in 3 random people experiencing more than giggles and pretty colors. I think you may well be right. It's almost common knowledge, right? It's unpredictable. What good would that study be? "Shrooms result in weird behavior with random lasting mental effects, but do they cure cancer? Film at 11." I don't see anything wrong at all with Griffiths carefully screening his pool for "success." It's a far more useful result to say "people exhibiting the following characteristics reap the following benefits from this carefully controlled (guided, if you will) administration of psilocybin."
The Griffiths stuff explicitly rejects the "god in a pill" thing. The most solid thesis of the work to date, to my thinking, is that mystical states are biologically normal, somewhat self-consistent whether endogenous or drug-induced, and tend to result in positive mood and behavioral changes for people matching a certain broad profile.
Quote:
curenado said:This!
This is the guy that I don't want getting ahold of one of my patients with his "Here, eat this mushroom and you won't worry so much about being terminal!" ("Dr. Euthanasia Parlor")
It's not like these people were getting shrooms instead of all the current orthodox oncology treatment. Even that wouldn't be euthanasia, right, unless the shrooms actually hastened death? Johnny TouchFaith... had "medicinal" shrooms failed to heal him before "palliative" shrooms became acceptable to you? At home in a hammock with M.Sabina sounds as good a way to meet the inevitable as any, for sure, as long as not too, too young and hungry yet to live.
Edited by latherdome (09/18/10 11:49 AM)
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: latherdome]
#13214143 - 09/18/10 12:41 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
OWM - I meant that 2 out of three would be raising their hand that "something bigger" was going on, but the one would be the "just saw the pretty colors". I think the majority would be "grabbed by the booboo". Just thought maybe I said that backwards...
<<had "medicinal" shrooms failed to heal him before "palliative" shrooms became acceptable to you? At home in a hammock with M.Sabina sounds as good a way to meet the inevitable as any, for sure, as long as not too, too young and hungry yet to live.>>
John's tragedy was that he did not take medical advice and wrongly thought that you could use any combination of mushrooms to treat cancer, especially a risky one like pancreatic. That is a very grave error.
His friends advised him to listen to the pros. I contacted this man three times myself, pleading with him to accept professional advice and help, offered to provide medicines for free because he was very poor and had a wife - every single time he would do the equivalent of "pat my head" and say "Ah, don't worry about me curenado. I'll be fine."
He did feel physically better because of what he was eating, but it was not the correct protocol or complete enough for what he had.
He is a testament of "Don't do it alone" as well as a example of how one medication can relieve pain and induce a nicer mind in the last stage terminal. I never saw anyone on mellaril in the nicer mind - doped, yes.
His wife said, on his last night he came in, brewed his own batch of mushrooms and psilocybes like he usually did and then went out to his hammock. She found him later.
None of the doctors - chemo or otherwise - ever really had a chance. He still died peacefully at home though, which is what he wanted. If the whole thing was the way he really wanted it, that too was his personal right to choose.
He wrote beautiful things, which I believe are still posted on another OMC, in the same thread where others were striving to reach out to him.
I don't mean to go on about that, but better details for you.
He is a testament that even though numerous mushrooms are cancer effective, they are still their own pharmacopeia, and there is danger in reading information and thinking "one cures all, and all by itself." No one has ever said that.
<<" I don't see anything wrong at all with Griffiths carefully screening his pool for "success.">>
I see it as me saying "Psilocybes cure cancer" and then only selecting patients with simple, easily arrested cases that I knew would most likely succeed. The scientifically accurate and honest thing to do is to test everyone and learn what is and what is not. I know there is money and politics involved, but I don't think that would justify me doing a study that way. I'd have to be prepared for the results - whatever they were.
Because if I did my study that way and only showed success, then someone else may believe that more slanted data and die.
<<had "medicinal" shrooms failed to heal him before "palliative" shrooms became acceptable to you?>>
Psilocybes are always acceptable to me in cancer, as long as the patient tolerates them and they are not contraindicated, as in severe organicity.
There is a point in a severely debilitated patient where the effects of the psilocybes can put a burden on the system - a "tipping" point which has to be evaluated case by case and organ by organ. It is not that hard but it is important. Just as in a case where a patient has to be fit for surgery, or the cure could kill.
I only consider psilocybes "palliative" in the instance of "nothing else to do and will comfort" and as many know, I consider them primarily medicinal and secondarily palliative.
I am glad you got at this and gave me the opportunity to clarify things. Both from the physical med side as well as our own practice.
I would have been embarrassed if someone thought:
<<... had "medicinal" shrooms failed to heal him before "palliative" shrooms became acceptable to you?>>
of me. I have more knowledge, skill and experience than that.
and actually, OWM, I can't say in John's case because I never had him near me but, yes, with my big "rum te tum" self I am actually speculating that at his stage and in his individual case it is very likely that the way in which he applied them may have contributed to his death.
That is one thing you have to watch that your doctor already will - just because it does not hurt does not mean that it is "OK".
Heartbreaker of a case but that is why I think to memorialize him in a cause to comfort the last stage folk instead of the other example he was about "Don't go it alone, on blind faith". He was very much loved by his friends and I am sure they remember him passing sweetly among them and would hope that it could be as kind for others, if he is remembered for something.
and again, thank you for being a good student and tasking me harder than you do Roland - for the chance to tell John's story a little, and for the chance to clarify the requirements of my own position.
I think we (pros) are for "handling, inspecting, turning round and round" - so that you may have the benefit of what we have and have learned as well as the possibility that you might just be the guy that takes it further.
PS -
<<If the rich, timid, lazy or dying can get a pricey prescription with professional sitting, well, that will just make my picking a bit less outlaw in feel if not letter>>
Perhaps you did not know that one of my primary vetches is that "me and all my buddies" WILL have and get paid for it - but y'all will still be left in the pooper, and I stand for naturalization or citizen right protection BEFORE OR WITH pharmacolization.
I have no doubt the "man" will be fine, but y'all are getting tore up and maybe worse later, and I feel we have some ethical responsibility to be less self centered and selfish regarding the people we live off of. We are not separate on that issue. That everyone may have in a educated and reasonable environment with protective or remedial legislation.
This particular substance is about everyone, not just those who partake of or profit from it.
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/18/10 01:43 PM)
|
latherdome
envy of the drug world
Registered: 10/25/06
Posts: 733
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13215673 - 09/18/10 07:16 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
curenado said:<<" I don't see anything wrong at all with Griffiths carefully screening his pool for "success.">>
I see it as me saying "Psilocybes cure cancer" and then only selecting patients with simple, easily arrested cases that I knew would most likely succeed.
If you could in fact demonstrate efficacy in these "easy" cases, to a similar or greater degree than orthodox treatments, with a convincing degree of scientific rigor, then that would be progress! It would make the next, broader, harder study easier to get behind.
I say this as somebody who's watched 2 close friends die of cancer (esophageal and lung) in their 30s leaving wives and kids, and who has a third getting a colostomy bag on Tuesday after a year of chemo. I'm sure you've seen a lot more hurt, but I get it, too.
<<" The scientifically accurate and honest thing to do is to test everyone and learn what is and what is not. I know there is money and politics involved, but I don't think that would justify me doing a study that way. I'd have to be prepared for the results - whatever they were.">>
Well, we're not talking bunnies here, are we? Real live human cancer patients don't make great experimental subjects EXCEPT in the toughest cases where orthodox medicine says "sorry, you're Terminal. wanna be part of our dataset for this 'what is and what is not' fungus healing experiment? you're gonna die anyway, and we need your death to testify to the study's lack of bias."
<<"Because if I did my study that way and only showed success, then someone else may believe that more slanted data and die.">>
Slanting the results -- suppressing or distorting findings -- is different than conducting the experiment narrowly/slantily enough to produce useful results without need of dishonest conclusion-making. As long as you're up front about the narrow conditions, right?
Edited by latherdome (09/18/10 07:22 PM)
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: latherdome]
#13216288 - 09/18/10 09:48 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah - one of the major differences we're using in our comparisons here is the discrepancy between studies in mind and flesh. Of course they will be handled different, but I get what you are saying and it's translatable.
In any physical study we might provide, there would be that percentage of patients whose "result" was that they did not respond or respond well enough, and that was obvious pretty quickly from their lab. So they would be moved from that therapy (immediately) to the program that would give them results because no - we do not allow patients to perish just to demonstrate that in a particular disease and/or body condition the primary therapy wasn't sufficient
But all of us do that all the time normally in every medical environment. Here we always start, if it seems likely, with the least severe and most nutrition based protocol and then proceed to more severe measures if very good results are not quickly seen. i.e. If I see for example, that you have not gone from stage three back to stage two within 12-18 days then I notify (all and whoever) that we need to consider chemo/surg/rad strategies.
I have never counted the % numbers, but there are patients that go entirely with the primary protocol, patients that combine therapies, and patients who, for whatever reasons, cannot avoid the more severe/radical approaches owing to their case/condition.
We would never be selective on a "ideal" but eclectic and provide each case with the therapies that for all the reasons considered are in the best interest of/to the best benefit of each individual.
With psilocybes specifically, I would never count on them to be the "only" required thing unless we were dealing with essentially "shadows" i.e. superficial minor cell involvement which they can handle in a acceptable amount of time. By the time a patient has reached a measurable stage, you need more bullets in your gun - or you are gambling dangerously.
But - we have digressed a bit - suffice to say that we, imo, in the case of this psilocybe thing have not gone "from stage three back to stage two" in a acceptable amout of time, so now I'm obliged to notify, and locate the forms and codes for the ballbat/jackhammer/thumbscrew cart to be brought. (if only I could  God knows we've tried in our fields)
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/18/10 10:20 PM)
|
Dan4th
Psilocybin Researcher
Registered: 10/22/07
Posts: 31
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area
Last seen: 6 hours, 2 minutes
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13224721 - 09/20/10 09:52 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This is the guy that I don't want getting ahold of one of my patients with his "Here, eat this mushroom and you won't worry so much about being terminal!" ("Dr. Euthanasia Parlor")
When the answer is:
"Here, a lot of people have fun giggling with their friends on this mushroom which is also going to help get rid of your terminal thing there. Don't eat just once! Oh, and by the way, no matter what hype you may have read, not everyone is obligated to imaginary guide their trip on any spiritual thing and that is really not my business. Some people just have a good time and enjoy the pretty colors. It's a side effect. If something neat does happen, that's you and God's personal business as well."
I have to jump in here. You are way off the mark on your depiction of Charlie. First of all, he is an MD. He's a psychiatrist and not a psychologist. He is not a good candidate for a symbol of widespread abuses in the mental health professions. After reading the views you have shared in this forum, I think you would respect him, his philosophy on his work, and how he relates to the participants in the study.
I am respectfully requesting that you reconsider what it means to post his photo with incorrect information about him, his values, and how he practices his profession.
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: Dan4th]
#13224983 - 09/20/10 10:38 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Done! But when will there be some complete and correct information that is less sensationalism aimed at the public (That psychiatry article was even a little ? to me) and when will the lot of the psychedelic researchers so-called be put to the same kind of simple task I have been in this thread?
No pros see it as the public does. That perspective is so wholly different - and if some people don't want to be misinterpreted and misunderstood, perhaps they should be more careful or complete in what they allow to be published. I have not seen anything in the press that would cause me to think differently, and I am trying to get there but...it's got to get some things in place before I can step on that boat.
You have to admit I have been trying.
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13225713 - 09/21/10 05:35 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
?
?
Hello?
Misunderstood and abused scientists?
Hello?
Yes, I was pretty sure that you would leave the public to defend and handle your apologetics - as usual.
Now we are back to - nevermind...see ya'll next time you get put in the paper and want to honk it or want money from the public. Until then don't worry, other people will explain and defend you. They most voiciferously will - my head is full of dents over thee and thine!
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/21/10 08:20 AM)
|
badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 7,904
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13239486 - 09/24/10 05:13 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's a reporter's misinterpretation of a peer-reviewed article.
I would hope that, as a physician, you would collect data on your patients suffering from cancer. Then meticulously document the effects and benefits of psilocybin in objectively reversing the cancer.
These results should then be published as a series of case reports. You can attend a myriad of conferences and meetings and present what you found.
This would champion your cause and you could get the word out.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: badchad]
#13239981 - 09/24/10 09:17 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
That is the way to go. If you claim to be or someone names you a discoverer. I never even checked to see who is doing practial medicine with these in what areas where - I was just illustrating for people who already knew and the public that the biggest hallucination I see is the attempt to accomplish this goal by a wholly unbalanced approach and the ignoring of other features obvious to everyone.
I wanted to say "People, this is a bigger ride than it was the first time and while the things work and help a lot of people...and "Why do all the professionals, colleges and government try to act like we did not know this and a boat load more?" "Why do we pretend to be ignorant?" - because a lot of people are.
I never felt this route would be successful because it is a repete' of a previous failure.
I saw the most successful strategy as getting it into physical medicine first (Moreno, coming closest in work has seemingly failed as well.) and then allowing cross applications as is done with many medicines. However it seems that everyone is so stubbornly busy on their own agendas there really is no unified front in medicine. I also saw the most successful strategy as one that is more normal in life - get the eye surgeons a medicine and let people abuse it if they will - who cares? They can't abuse it much and it is less dangerous/harmful than loratab.
All the justifications I have heard seem less than successful too:
1) Well, the congress is stupid beasts so you act like you are "Barney" and only want good and look how good you are! Oh pwetty, pwetty pwetty pwease? (I never really saw that work with them you know. Rock heads they may be, so you present soemthing a rock head actually can relate to, not try to get rock heads to be "Barney" or believe him.)
2) Well the public is stupid babies so you have to talk to them that way because they can't understand and are simple and you need to get what you want from them. (I don't think they have to be all hyped up in a lather. I think they would consider tangible things and pain as much as sad things and happiness. i.e. physical and psychological.)
3) Well, everybody is so mentally gone that they only recognize the Psychological! Hallucination! obsession and are mindless to anything else, so it has to be mind games to succeed, because that is all they can "relate" to. That is what allures, frightens and gratifies them the most and they are too base and sensate for reason. (When what psybes do to the perception is not remarkable or new at all compared to what they do to the flesh.....actually)
Literally, it was presented to me as we try this hallucination stuff because it is all the lawmakers can "relate" to.
Then it is time they woke up and weren't so stupid. How can they legislate something they are so stupid of? Maybe if we cut all the Groff subjective "Baba RumDum" crap and just said "Looka dis dish right here" then something could get done and the various psychology depts could go right down to the pharmacy on site and get a big 'ol bottle of professional canned bullshit to paint with however they want like me and respiratory too?
Even physical things hinted at by MAPS have to be wrapped in a mystical burrito or they are not accepted. That isn't obvious to everyone?
Not "Your immune system goes bazzo on these!" but "When you are imagining Ghandi on these it rubs your immune systems tickle spot" - when atheists get pain relief and symptom reduction just like believers here.
Anyway - the bottom line is I am just a voice and one of little consequence really. I see the physical medicine side either pretending none of this exists or being academically shut out.
I simply thought that we in our particular position, might be able to pull the plug on the pipeline by catering to other things about doctors and legislators "people" don't believe, or don't like to think about, that carry a lot more weight than the follies they do.
Not to mention that there are now extremely resistant viral and bacterial threats and in a short while many people will not be prioritizing nice dreams but rather effective bitters.
Psilocybes have some physical medical benefits at sub-hallucinogenic levels. That makes them a ipso facto physical medicine for extreme pain, infection, intractable and terminal conditions that is still being held up by the current paradigm.
Only shooting stars break the mold. I am far too old and ugly. I am some guy who will's evil professor. I am just a squeek for the wheel.
If I mattered a jot in this, or was recognized as a discoverer there would have already been handlers and vultures Reps and lobbyists - Oh My!
So far, all quiet at Rosewood.
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/24/10 09:29 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 1 day, 19 hours
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13240071 - 09/24/10 09:53 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
    
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
|
curenado
73rd Man
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 2,601
Loc: North Central Arkansas
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: MushroomTrip]
#13240176 - 09/24/10 10:28 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
One thing is for sure, they will never listen to YOU
--------------------
Yours in the Natural State!
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep; but I have patches to keep, and jars to sterilize before I sleep...."
Edited by curenado (09/24/10 10:38 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 1 day, 19 hours
|
Re: Results of Harbor-UCLA Psilocybin Study Published Online in Archives of General Psychiatry Today [Re: curenado]
#13240213 - 09/24/10 10:38 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well, at least you tried to be funny.
--------------------
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
6,992 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
