Is there any evidence for the benefits of psychedelic drugs that isn't pseudoscience? I don't mean to cure specific illnesses, that's been pretty well proven but I mean a reason everyone should do them.
Is there any evidence for the benefits of psychedelic drugs that isn't pseudoscience...
Asher Taylor
Logan Reed
Drugs will mess up your brain. Your parents should have told you this, faggot.
Angel James
>everyone should do them
Of course not. Only people that could benefit from them should use them, just like any other treatment or medication. There is plenty of evidence that certain illicit substances are effective in treating certain illnesses and disorders.
Jose Edwards
But user something something Joe Rogan something something PTSD something something altered states of consciousness something meme something Terrence McKenna
Isaac Rodriguez
Psilocybin (mushrooms)
In one recent study, 36 healthy volunteers received a high dose (30 mg/70 kg) of psilocybin with no sustained deleterious physiological or psychological effects. The investigators corroborated previous findings that psilocybin could reliably catalyze mystical experiences leading to significant and lasting improvements in quality of life.21 In another study, the effects of psilocybin were examined in patients with severe, refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Researchers concluded that psilocybin is safe and well tolerated in subjects with obsessive-compulsive disorder and may be associated with “robust acute reductions” in core obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, although there was no clear dose-response relationship.22
Jace Hughes
>Only people that could benefit from them should use them
What I'm asking is if theres any proof that everybody benefits from them like some advocates claim.
Jacob Price
>Everyone benefits
No. Are you stupid?
Anthony Myers
Are you? Everyone benefits from eating healthy, exercising, et cetera why is it so inconceivable that everyone could stand to benefit from a psychedelic experience? The study posted in this thread seems to suggest that's the case.
Gavin Perez
Define "benefits" please.
I think a good analogy would be exercise. Everybody should do it, but they don't. And too much of it, or exercise that is too extreme can be bad for your health.
Blake Harris
>Everyone benefits from exercising and eating "healthy"
So you are retarded. Okay. Here's the thing with "everyone:" if even one person doesn't benefit from a given treatment or lifestyle, then you can't say everyone benefits from it. People with anxiety issues or paranoia/delusions or any number of other issues shouldn't experiment with psychedelic drugs because there is plenty of evidence it will exacerbate the issues. In some individuals it may even precipitate diseases that wouldn't have manifested otherwise.
Nathan Bell
>being autistic and focusing on semantics
Wew.
Grayson Gutierrez
Oh I guess I am stupid. I understand you now and you're correct.
Nolan Perez
That's just linguistics pal. When talking about people, 99% = everyone.
Brayden Barnes
Tbf it's an important distinction
Dylan Green
This is a good analogy. At the very least it's generally not harmful and it can help people work through life issues and make connections they might otherwise not have made.
Ayden Hall
This is the only board on this website where the distinction between everyone and "everyone" is important and not semantics. Saying "autism" is not an argument, either.
Camden Gutierrez
Not him, but no, it's not semantic. Science is about precise claims, precise hypotheses, precise predictions, and precisely-defined observations and evidence. They literally have different meanings.
The more information you present and study these with, the more information you gain about the natural world.
If you mean seeing a particular statistically significant benefit in the general population (of course there will be bad trips and misfires) as I assume you do, it's important to explore various clearly defined, objective benefits that we can test, if we want to get meaningful conclusions.
This is notoriously difficult when we're not treating specific diseases. Nootropics research identifies and measures various components of cognitive ability and the compounds' effects on them, if any, but a huge amount of them are marketed and sold without compelling evidence. Even worse, the specific marketing strategy is to ignore the "trite" parameters we can study, hiding behind a veil of "generalized well being." This is the tactic of the snake oil salesman, and it's only tolerance for imprecision that gives him his power.
If you mean it purely colloquially, then as an avid psychonaut I'd say yes. That answer really isn't useful, though, and really doesn't tell you anything.
Joshua Gray
I know many people with messed up brains who don't do drugs and many without who don't
Mason Russell
Once I did mushrooms and cried in the back yard about how dragons use optimal foraging theory to lure their prey to them.
James Carter
I legitimately think that some dude weed lmao is good every now and then. Having a smoke and then thinking over some things can give me an entirely different perspective on the matter.
David Hernandez
that all depends user, how far are you willing to go down the rabbit hole?
can you handle the truth?
Robert Adams
While colloquially "semantics" is associated with pedantry, in a linguistic sense it literally means meaning. So this definitely is semantic.
Logan Myers
...
Ayden Myers
I think anyone can benefit from a truly beautiful experience.
Brandon Ramirez
Psychadelics can severly fuck you up if you have the wrong genetics etc. They can also be of good help, as they've been to me.
I'm a MD, ya'll are you just trolls or stupid.
Robert Scott
>Science is about precise claims, precise hypotheses, precise predictions, and precisely-defined observations and evidence.
Holy shit you are autistic. Science isn't synonymous with precision. You can do a scientific study without any precision and still make valid conclusions. This entire post just shows you're more interested in the philosophy of science then science itself. Which you're still wrong about.
>Here's the thing with "everyone:" if even one person doesn't benefit from a given treatment or lifestyle, then you can't say everyone benefits from it.
This just shows you are not an experienced scientist. Have you ever even taken statistics? Data is full of outliers, that scientists need to remove before making sense of the data.
Let me rephrase the question for your autistic brain:
Is there any proof that psychedelic drugs are beneficial for the average person?
Dylan Taylor
They're illegal to start with so its fishy however most of the controlled studies do offer positive results as well as the microdosing ones with Fadiman.
Andrew Roberts
Psychedelics are mostly of not completely subjective experience and science doesnt do subjective experience because hurr durr consciousness is nothing