|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
'Shroom Science: Safe and Effective?' --The Scientist
#6593881 - 02/21/07 02:00 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll let the article speak for itself... The author's email can be found at the end of the article.
______________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/43641/
'Shroom Science: Safe and Effective? Fifty years after its introduction to science, psilocybin returns to mainstream clinical research.
Are Ritalin and psilocybin equivalent in terms of effect and safety? In the August issue of Psychopharmacology, Johns Hopkins researchers published a study in which some subjects were given psilocybin and then asked to relate their experiences. Francisco Moreno of the University of Arizona published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry his patients' reports that psilocybin helped them with migraine headaches. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center psychiatrist Charles Grob told the Chronicle of Higher Education that he is giving the compound to patients dying of cancer to see whether it eases pain by relieving anxiety.
The study of so-called magic mushrooms isn't new; it could be argued that it is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It began, as best anyone can tell, when Wall Street banker R. Gordon Wasson documented his trip to a healer in Oaxaca, Mexico, whose brew, he claimed, enabled him to see the reality of ideas and concepts. His 1957 essay in Life magazine excited the imaginations of scientists around the world. Sandoz patented the two active chemicals in the mushrooms, calling the compounds psilocin and psilocybin. Chaos ensued as researchers struggled to do excellent scientific work using a family of substances whose effects - to put it mildly - were not easily measurable using the tools of the time.
The scientists who used psilocybin in their research in the 1960s poked at the nature of consciousness, but this particular compound just refused to be caged by ordinary scientific conventions. Paper after paper stabbed at descriptions of the effects and utility of psilocybin, but scalar measures of transcendence just could not capture its effects, or side effects. A few of the leading scientists engaged in its study, most notoriously Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary, simply abandoned the strictures of scientific research as insufficient to grasp the power of psilocybin.
By the time the FDA banned hallucinogenic drugs in 1970, the majority of those experimenting with mushrooms were not in universities. Hallucinogens became part of a counterculture that aged quickly. By the 1980s, the next counterculture devoted to brain modification was moving in a completely different direction, experimenting with highly addictive stimulants, such as cocaine, which assist in thinking faster, concentrating harder, and intensifying ordinary experiences.
Time passes, and what's old becomes new again. In 2007 millions of people take legal stimulants and antidepressants. A decades-long quest for endless work capacity, unfettered concentration, and happiness on-demand has perhaps hastened the return of those who wonder whether the touch of transcendence could provide new insights into treating the maladies that have become rampant in our time. And indeed, new studies suggest that psilocybin may offer hope in treating a few of them, ranging from obsessive-compulsive disorder to rampant addiction.
With the dramatically enhanced ability of neural imaging to identify changes in brain state, and advances in the genetics of neuroscience, it is no wonder that some of those who researched psilocybin in the 1970s have begun to point again to the potential of that compound. Magic mushrooms are not addictive and have been around more than half a century. So should we really be worried about the potential that new research will lead a new generation to "turn on, tune in, and drop out"? Yes.
Ethics committees examining the research programs underway with hallucinogens need to be mindful that what sparked the widespread illegal use of psilocybin in the 1970s was not its mystical power but the reports of its safety and efficacy coming out of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States. Scientists are acting with great care this time around, but let's avoid a bad trip.
Hallucinogens have not been scientifically demonstrated to be either safe or effective enough to be used in the treatment of any disease. Studies of them should be undertaken only when investigators avoid sending subtle messages about the safety or delight of chewing on backyard mushrooms. For example, in the Hopkins study subjects were given either Ritalin or psilocybin, sending the terribly premature message that the two substances are in any sense equivalent in terms of effect or safety. It would have been much better to compare psilocybin with, well, anything other than a compound prescribed to tens of millions and often abused by those seeking better cognition.
Thankfully that study was all but ignored by the media. When it comes to hallucinogens, if the research sends the wrong message, drop it. Or rather, don't.
Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics. gmcgee@the-scientist.com
Edited by ChuangTzu (02/21/07 06:28 PM)
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Shitty article on mushrooms in research in The Scientist [Re: ChuangTzu]
#6593905 - 02/21/07 02:10 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I like this reply in the comments section:
Quote:
You want a bad trip? Try a headache syndrome so severe sufferers sometimes commit suicide to escape the recurring pain... THATs a bad trip.
Cluster headache sufferers have found psilocybin and other tryptamine hallucinogens to be extradordinarily effective at relieveing cluster headache attacks and cycles, and a case review study by John Halpern and Andrew Sewell at McLean determined more research is warranted. Not yet proven, but thats just a matter of time and money. I am personally sure tryptamines have saved me from a life of misery.
Should your speculative fears prevent the millions of cluster headache sufferers around the world from finding relief from one of the worst pain sysndromes known to medicine? Wrap your ethics around that one.
...
|
ApJunkie
part-time Ninja
Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 2,735
Loc: Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
|
Re: Shitty article on mushrooms in research in The Scientist [Re: ChuangTzu]
#6594002 - 02/21/07 02:44 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
man, the people who posted comments to this article came back with some very well thought out, intelligent responses. I'm glad to see the whole scientific community isn't as close minded as this man.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Shitty article on mushrooms in research in The Scientist [Re: ApJunkie]
#6594008 - 02/21/07 02:45 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
^^ Agreed.
|
ApJunkie
part-time Ninja
Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 2,735
Loc: Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
|
Re: Shitty article on mushrooms in research in The Scientist [Re: ChuangTzu]
#6594064 - 02/21/07 02:59 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the more I read the more I laugh. these people continuously make valid (and very persuasive) points in their defence, and Dr. McGee (which is a sweet name btw) does nothing but argue his opinion. I'm glad the subscribing community of The Scientist are able to see the flawed viewpoint presented there. Secondly, it really charms me to see so many reputable scientific minds not only discussing, but downright heralding the beneficial effects of psychoactive substances on the human psyche, body, and spirit.
Thanks for posting this!
|
|