![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cam W. on March 20, 2001, at 9:52:29
In reply to Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by steve on March 19, 2001, at 20:13:54
Steve - In the late fifties and early sixties many studies were done on treating people with serotonergic disorders (eg OCD, panic, etc.) and alcoholism using LSD and peyote. In researching a term paper years ago I found that there seemed to be a very good success rate in treating a few people with OCD and even more with alcohol (and other substance abuse) problems. These studies would not stand up to our stringent research criteria, but there were some interesting results. The LSD treatments were done in conjunction with psychotherapy. The study subjects would gain insight into their problems while under the influence, and at the next appointment (while not under the influence) the doc and patient would talk about the experience and how that person could change things in their life to overcome their problem (it was assumed that the OCD symptoms and alcoholism were results of other problems in these people's lives).
Then Tim Leary got ahold of LSD and screwed it up for the scientific community. Media scares about LSD soon put a stop to the studies. The real problem was that LSD was used in uncontrolled environments and in improper dosages and in unpure forms (eg mixed with strichnine or atropine).
Doing controlled studies with LSD will be hard. It will be near impossible not to know who got the placebo. New research with LSD has been going on for at least the past 3 years, but the results are not publicized very often, for obvious reasons. When enough of the results are published, though, it will be interesting to see what they find. - Cam
> Read all about it at the NY Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/health/13DRUG.html?pagewanted=print
Posted by Eric on March 20, 2001, at 10:57:21
In reply to Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by steve on March 19, 2001, at 20:13:54
> Read all about it at the NY Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/health/13DRUG.html?pagewanted=printThis is a very bad idea. Hallucinogens are highly unpredictable drugs. There is no way any scientist will be able to ensure a patient reacts a certain way to them. To a large extent it is gambling giving someone a hallucinogen. Im skeptical of their use for any mental illness.
I think it is pathetic and ridiculous money is being spent on "hallucinogens for mental health" research. However, I am sure there is a sub group of psychiatry types who would be all into this research, weird as some of them are. However, psychiatry and psychology has always been known to attract some rather weird people sometimes so its not really surprising. Thats not to say all or most of them are "weird" but psychiatry has its share of weirdos with incorrect ideas about some things.
Instead of wasting money on bogus research such as this, why dont they take the money spent on this research and give it to some other more realistic research. Such as speeding up research on substance P antidepressants or CRF-Antagonists? Or researching new anti-psychotic medications? Or trying to research a workable, effective alternative to ECT? Or trying to figure out a way to develop "safe" MAOIs where you dont have to go on a diet to go on them? More usable, realistic research.
Research on hallucinogenic drugs for mental illness is going way out on a tangent, into left field and frankly its a waste of time and also potentially dangerous.
Unfortunately, psychiatry has a reputation and history of going way out into left field sometimes.
Eric
Posted by aDaMs on March 20, 2001, at 17:29:57
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by Eric on March 20, 2001, at 10:57:21
The study of any drug, even psychedelic drugs is never a waste of time, drugs like lsd, peyote, or mushroom are very safe when used under the right conditions. I think it is great to study psychedelic drugs for any purpose, and I think these drugs should be legalized as soon as possible.
Posted by pat123 on March 21, 2001, at 13:17:11
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by Eric on March 20, 2001, at 10:57:21
> This is a very bad idea. Hallucinogens are highly unpredictable drugs. There is no way any scientist will be able to ensure a patient reacts a certain way to them. To a large extent it is gambling giving someone a hallucinogen. Im skeptical of their use for any mental illness.
>You might want to read the research funded by
www.maps.org before you discount the benifit
these drugs my hold for the mentally ill.Pat
Posted by MSM on March 21, 2001, at 13:26:44
In reply to Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by steve on March 19, 2001, at 20:13:54
> Read all about it at the NY Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/health/13DRUG.html?pagewanted=printI did my share (well, more then my share) of expeirmenting with hallucinogens and I believe that some people/patients, certainly not all, might benefit from the use of psychedilics in the context of a theraputic session with their psychiatrist/therapist.
I too believe that controlled scientific studies would be difficult to carry out, dificult to document and dificult to interperet. So much depends on the individual taking the drug.
The experience seems to be as different as the individual.I know first hand of people who have had wonderfull, insightfull, spirtual like experiences
which could have been expounded upon in the proper setting with the help of a trusted professional. I have also known people who commited suicide while taking hallucinogens.
Posted by pat123 on March 21, 2001, at 20:51:04
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by MSM on March 21, 2001, at 13:26:44
> I too believe that controlled scientific studies would be difficult to carry out, dificult to document and dificult to interperet. So much depends on the individual taking the drug.
> The experience seems to be as different as the individual.
>have you ever read a study on drugs ? As i mentioned before, www.maps.org , if you would like to check real life methodology. Intresting stuff going on with OCD and psycilibin (sp?). It has been reported that psycilibin halts OCD behaviors and the obsesive thoughts, many patients have reported this. The behaviors can be observed and the thoughts are self reported, I do not see how cause and effect could not be more clear. the behaviors and thoughts are either there or not.
This could lead to 2 possibilities, if you don't take the "war on drugs" stance that all drugs are bad. 1) Study what really happenes that causes the OCD to stop, isolate, and see if the new agent is psychedelic. 2) Test to see what the threshhold is, perhaps it is below the level that causes visions. 3) Studying something that is well reported to totally halt OCD can only lead to better understanding of the biochemistry of OCD. Why throw away something that, at least for a short time, is far more effective than anything we have and that works through systems not researched ?
Pat
Posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 2:17:19
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression » steve, posted by Cam W. on March 20, 2001, at 9:52:29
Cam,
The only use of hallucinogens that I could sanction is the use of peyote by the Indians who have done so for thousands of years, and perhaps by others under their supervision.
This whole article smacks of rich people wanting to play God. It is interesting that a Rockefeller is partly funding this work. As you may know, this is not the first time an organization associated with that family has funded psychiatric research overseas as it would have been inacceptable in the US. What I am referring to is the Reign of Terror by Cameron et al at the Allen Institute at McGill, your most acclaimed university.
Unnecessary ECT on a daily basis, with the aim of "destroying" a person's personality, massive doses of needless neuroleptics, lobotomies for the heck of it, and more, supported by the US government and the Rockefeller Foundation. It's too bad I can't find a link about it, I read about it in some reputable history of psychiatry, but it seems that most of the websites that are obsessed by it are a little more paranoid than I would like. What was done cried to heaven, and I think that if organized psychiatry's main dedication had been to its patients (ha!) they would have arranged a Nuremberg style accounting.
In any event I know that if was a Rockefeller (ha!) and was sincerely interested by such stuff, and had the interests of humanity at heart, I would not in any way associate my family name with such undertakings, because of the foul odor that surrounds the name in such aspects. Pace, U Chicago (dr.bob) To me this feels like the performing the Fiddler on the Roof at Bayreuth, an absolute abomination.
One of the establishment newsmags, Atlantic Weekly, or the Nation, reported that Ted K, the Unabomber had probably been given LSD as part of the mind control experiments conducted on unwitting Harvard students. Whether that caused him to go nuts we'll never know, but I think it's a given that subjecting * anyone * to such tests should result in a life sentence, and LSD can seriously scramble people's brain.
Since you pride yourself on your knowledge of and affiliation with psychiatry, let me ask you how familiar you are with Cameron's "work", and how it has affected your view of psychiatry. Do you think that any other branch of medicine would have gotten away with near as brutal "experiments," and why do you think that the guild let it be swept under the table?
S.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gottlieb.html
> Steve - In the late fifties and early sixties many studies were done on treating people with serotonergic disorders (eg OCD, panic, etc.) and alcoholism using LSD and peyote. In researching a term paper years ago I found that there seemed to be a very good success rate in treating a few people with OCD and even more with alcohol (and other substance abuse) problems. These studies would not stand up to our stringent research criteria, but there were some interesting results. The LSD treatments were done in conjunction with psychotherapy. The study subjects would gain insight into their problems while under the influence, and at the next appointment (while not under the influence) the doc and patient would talk about the experience and how that person could change things in their life to overcome their problem (it was assumed that the OCD symptoms and alcoholism were results of other problems in these people's lives).
>
> Then Tim Leary got ahold of LSD and screwed it up for the scientific community. Media scares about LSD soon put a stop to the studies. The real problem was that LSD was used in uncontrolled environments and in improper dosages and in unpure forms (eg mixed with strichnine or atropine).
>
> Doing controlled studies with LSD will be hard. It will be near impossible not to know who got the placebo. New research with LSD has been going on for at least the past 3 years, but the results are not publicized very often, for obvious reasons. When enough of the results are published, though, it will be interesting to see what they find. - Cam
>
>
> > Read all about it at the NY Times.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/13/health/13DRUG.html?pagewanted=print
Posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 9:25:48
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression » Cam W., posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 2:17:19
> Cam,
>
> The only use of hallucinogens that I could sanction is the use of peyote by the Indians who have done so for thousands of years, and perhaps by others under their supervision.
>
> This whole article smacks of rich people wanting to play God. It is interesting that a Rockefeller is partly funding this work. As you may know, this is not the first time an organization associated with that family has funded psychiatric research overseas as it would have been inacceptable in the US. What I am referring to is the Reign of Terror by Cameron et al at the Allen Institute at McGill, your most acclaimed university.
>
> Unnecessary ECT on a daily basis, with the aim of "destroying" a person's personality, massive doses of needless neuroleptics, lobotomies for the heck of it, and more, supported by the US government and the Rockefeller Foundation. It's too bad I can't find a link about it, I read about it in some reputable history of psychiatry, but it seems that most of the websites that are obsessed by it are a little more paranoid than I would like. What was done cried to heaven, and I think that if organized psychiatry's main dedication had been to its patients (ha!) they would have arranged a Nuremberg style accounting.
>
> In any event I know that if was a Rockefeller (ha!) and was sincerely interested by such stuff, and had the interests of humanity at heart, I would not in any way associate my family name with such undertakings, because of the foul odor that surrounds the name in such aspects. Pace, U Chicago (dr.bob) To me this feels like the performing the Fiddler on the Roof at Bayreuth, an absolute abomination.
>
> One of the establishment newsmags, Atlantic Weekly, or the Nation, reported that Ted K, the Unabomber had probably been given LSD as part of the mind control experiments conducted on unwitting Harvard students. Whether that caused him to go nuts we'll never know, but I think it's a given that subjecting * anyone * to such tests should result in a life sentence, and LSD can seriously scramble people's brain.
>
> Since you pride yourself on your knowledge of and affiliation with psychiatry, let me ask you how familiar you are with Cameron's "work", and how it has affected your view of psychiatry. Do you think that any other branch of medicine would have gotten away with near as brutal "experiments," and why do you think that the guild let it be swept under the table?
>I agree with everything you posted Cam. LSD and similar such hallucinogenics have absolutely NO PLACE in modern day psychiatry. That is exactly the opposite sort of thing we need in psychiatry. Hallucinogenics are very unpredictable drugs and those with major mental illnesses already have brain chemistry that is scrambled enough as it is. Giving them hallucinogenics is the wrong thing to do, in many cases LSD would just scramble brain chemistry more. It might create perception problems(psychosis) where there was none before.
Instead of viewing mental illnesses as "psychological problems" we need to begin viewing mental illness as neurological problems and neuroendocrine problems. The psychological models of mental illness need to be destroyed as crude, backwards and dinosaur like. Just as epilepsy was viewed as "freakish" a hundred or more years ago, we now know much more and realize it is a genuine disease. A medical problem. Hopefully, eventually someday more people will begin to realize severe forms of mental illness are the same. Medical problems. Something is wrong with the old noggin and nervous system.
Would a doctor give LSD for any other medical problem? I think not and if you suggested it youd get laughed out of the office. It should be the same way for mental illness. Instead of playing games with hallucinogenic drugs for these illnesses, more money needs to be spent to overhaul psychiatry and research what actually causes major mental illness so it can be fixed better.
Hallucinogenics for mental illness makes me want to go vomit...just the thought of using LSD for depression is sick, twisted and warped.
Of course, we all know there is a small and vocal minority who enjoys experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs. I think that is what we have here in this study. Let them fry their brains on usesless hallucinogenic drugs, then throw them in jail is what I say. Its very sad that we as mentally ill persons must tolerate such research in the first place. It is insulting to us depressives to hear that "hallucinogenic drugs may someday help us." More like screw us up even more than we already are would be my assessment of it.
Eric
Posted by Cam W. on March 22, 2001, at 10:21:13
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 9:25:48
Eric - You have misread the text in the post that you responsed to. I totally disagree with you and steve and do so from a unemotional, purely scientific viewpoint (sorry).
My evaluation of the several hundred reviews of the thousands of scientific journal articles on this topic lead me to believe that LSD (and mescaline, the chemical constituent of peyote) are worth scientific examination. The can give us a much clearer understanding of how seemingly disparate brain circuitry results in the phenomenon which we call the mind. These chemicals may also help us determine why, the neuronal plasticity, such a wide variety of personalities arise from such a small genome.
Science needs to use as many tools as possible to find answers to the mind/body paradox. Just because some people use these substance indiscriminately does not mean that they should be studied. Setting (environment) and set (mindset or emotional state) play a large part in determining the type of experience one will have after ingesting a hallucinogenic. This is why these substances should be used in a controlled environment. When these factors are controlled, hallucinogenics are safer for the body and mind, both short term and long term, than are cigarettes. I have the scientific journal articles to back these claims as well.
Please check out the following website to see some of the interesting work being done in this area:
Sincerely - Cam
Posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 10:35:56
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression » Eric, posted by Cam W. on March 22, 2001, at 10:21:13
Oh...yeah I see what the problem was. I made an error I wasnt talking to you Cam. I was agreeing with Steve. I disagree with you Cam...its too bad you actually believe hallucinogenics have bonified uses in psychiatry. Arent you a pharmacist or something? That is scary, a pharmacist believing hallucinogenics might have uses in treating mental illness.
Psychiatry and psychology attract strange and weird characters sometimes unfortunately.
Posted by Cam W. on March 22, 2001, at 11:06:09
In reply to Re: I was agreeing with Steve, not you Cam, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 10:35:56
Eric - I do take offence at being called "weird" or "strange", especially without any corroborating evidence or definitions. I help many people to overcome their illness and help them to lead normal lives. I have helped many on this board with their drug questions and in both cases have alleviated much suffering. I do not answer as many questions as I used to because this sort of situation.
You may want to examine the scientific literature, in an effort to learn about the science which you denigrate; especially before calling those who do the research by undefined, but derogatory names. - Cam
> Oh...yeah I see what the problem was. I made an error I wasnt talking to you Cam. I was agreeing with Steve. I disagree with you Cam...its too bad you actually believe hallucinogenics have bonified uses in psychiatry. Arent you a pharmacist or something? That is scary, a pharmacist believing hallucinogenics might have uses in treating mental illness.
>
> Psychiatry and psychology attract strange and weird characters sometimes unfortunately.
Posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 11:56:18
In reply to Re: Name-Calling » Eric, posted by Cam W. on March 22, 2001, at 11:06:09
> Eric - I do take offence at being called "weird" or "strange", especially without any corroborating evidence or definitions. I help many people to overcome their illness and help them to lead normal lives. I have helped many on this board with their drug questions and in both cases have alleviated much suffering. I do not answer as many questions as I used to because this sort of situation.
>
> You may want to examine the scientific literature, in an effort to learn about the science which you denigrate; especially before calling those who do the research by undefined, but derogatory names. - Cam
>
>
>
> > Oh...yeah I see what the problem was. I made an error I wasnt talking to you Cam. I was agreeing with Steve. I disagree with you Cam...its too bad you actually believe hallucinogenics have bonified uses in psychiatry. Arent you a pharmacist or something? That is scary, a pharmacist believing hallucinogenics might have uses in treating mental illness.
> >
> > Psychiatry and psychology attract strange and weird characters sometimes unfortunately.
Cam...I was not calling you weird. I was saying that some of the people who are attracted to the professions of psychiatry and psychology are "weird" which they are you have got to admit. Id definitely say that the psychiatrists involved in this hallucinogenic study are weird. Im not the first person to say that. Its not really name calling, its just putting it like it is.Psychiatry has a bad name overall and much of the reason it has a bad name is due to its roots in the "old days" of psychiatry. And back in the old days of psychiatry crazy things like this hallucinogen drug idea were rampant within psychiatry. Hallucinogenic drugs for mental illness is right up there with lobotomies, forced ECT, insulin coma treatment, ineffective talk psychotherapy and a variety of other very negative things that have been part of psychiatry's history.
It is very unfortunate we have to put up with so called "research" which in reality is nothing but an excuse for some people to experiment with recreational hallucinogenic drugs. These drugs have no uses for mental illness. The unpredictability factor is too strong. Hallucinogenics are widely recognized for inducing psychosis and negative changes in perception. Again, the unpredictability factor comes into play. This is the last sort of thing any mentally ill person needs.
Mentally ill people need positive solutions to their problems. I dont consider taking hallucinogenic drugs, even under the "guidance" of a psychiatrist who approves of them positive solutions.
Posted by roo on March 22, 2001, at 12:24:42
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 11:56:18
...Lots of cures have been discovered in ways that
were originally thought of as "crazy" or "weird".
Penicillin, for example. In the old days, wood cutters
used to put moldy slices of bread on their cuts to
cure their wounds...who'da thunk it?
Just something to think about :-)
Posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 13:27:56
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by roo on March 22, 2001, at 12:24:42
Since you mention using mold as a therapy, it might interest you to know that the first hallucinogens were ergot mold.
Women with loose mores would soak the likes of a broom handle in water contaminated with that mold, and then insert it to a bodily aperture in a manouver psychiatry once acknowledged as a treatment for PMS, hence the notion that they rode brooms.
Ergot would commonly make them psychotic, as it is related to LSD, and the authorities of the time would diagnose them as "possessed," and organize a BBQ. Today our authorities also recognize that something is seriously wrong with people who voluntarily slip into a psychotic state, and provide bucolic if involuntary accomodations to remove them from society.
And now they want to risk inflicting such suffering on those already screwed up! Why don't they start with themselves!
S.
> ...Lots of cures have been discovered in ways that
> were originally thought of as "crazy" or "weird".
> Penicillin, for example. In the old days, wood cutters
> used to put moldy slices of bread on their cuts to
> cure their wounds...who'da thunk it?
> Just something to think about :-)
Posted by roo on March 22, 2001, at 13:28:10
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by roo on March 22, 2001, at 12:24:42
The medical application of leeches, once thought to be a ridiculous quack
treatment associated with the "bloodletting" therapeutics of medieval
medicine, has recently staged a comeback. Leeches, when they "bite", begin
injecting their hosts with a natural anticoagulant to keep the blood
flowing. Doctors have recently been using leeches on patients who have had
delicate vascular microsurgery (like limb reattachments) to prevent
microclots from damaging the delicate repairs.
Posted by roo on March 22, 2001, at 13:35:37
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 13:27:56
Wow Steve! That _is_ interesting! I never heard
that!
Posted by JahL on March 22, 2001, at 14:16:35
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 13:27:56
> > Today our authorities also recognize that something is seriously wrong with people who voluntarily slip into a psychotic state,
Hi Steve, me again. In the past myself & the majority of my peers would frequently 'slip' voluntarily into psychotic states, thoroughly enjoying the experience in the main. In what way is there 'something seriously wrong' with us?
Also, *English* authorities realize that the forces which shape recreational drug use are infinitely more complex than you imply. It goes *way* beyond personality flaws, or whatever it is you're suggesting.
Bush (the ultimate figure of authority) would probably concur with yr sentiments, but then he endorses state-murder of mentally retarded individuals.
J.
> >and provide bucolic if involuntary accomodations to remove them from society.(How thoughtful of them.)
Posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 15:22:16
In reply to Re: Name-Calling » steve, posted by JahL on March 22, 2001, at 14:16:35
> > > Today our authorities also recognize that something is seriously wrong with people who voluntarily slip into a psychotic state,
>
> Hi Steve, me again. In the past myself & the majority of my peers would frequently 'slip' voluntarily into psychotic states, thoroughly enjoying the experience in the main. In what way is there 'something seriously wrong' with us?
>You actually sound like you are proud of this or something. Have you ever wondered if your current presence on this board is somehow related to your past recreational experiences with hallucinogenic drugs? In other words, you screwed around with too many hallucinogenics for "fun" and by doing so you scrambled your brain chemistry and thus became mentally ill? I seriously doubt youd agree with me however, people who are frequent recreational drug users rarely admit they have a problem...or that using recreational drugs is a problem to begin with.
Posted by JahL on March 22, 2001, at 16:49:22
In reply to Re: Name-Calling, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 15:22:16
> > > > Today our authorities also recognize that something is seriously wrong with people who voluntarily slip into a psychotic state,
> > >Hi Steve, me again. In the past myself & the majority of my peers would frequently 'slip' voluntarily into psychotic states, thoroughly enjoying the experience in the main. In what way is there 'something seriously wrong' with us?> > You actually sound like you are proud of this or something.
No. Just stating that once upon a time I indulged, & there is nothing 'seriously wrong' with me, or those who joined me. YOU however appear proud of the fact that you have led a sheltered life. Recreational drug-taking is a part of growing up (@ least in my country). The point is, most drug-taking begins @ an age when the user is unable to grasp fully the implications of what they are doing, so I think yr judgemental attitude is misplaced.
> >Have you ever wondered if your current presence on this board is somehow related to your past recreational experiences with hallucinogenic drugs? In other words, you screwed around with too many hallucinogenics for "fun" and by doing so you scrambled your brain chemistry and thus became mentally ill?
I don't like yr patronising tone. Actually I have been seriously depressed since aged 7. My erstwhile (*teenage+*) years of drug use amount to nothing more than subconscious self-medication.
I have had the full rundown with a highly respected neurologist who confirmed there is no connection.
> >I seriously doubt youd agree with me however, people who are frequent recreational drug users rarely admit they have a problem...or that using recreational drugs is a problem to begin with.
Of course they present a problem, but their regulation is more of a problem.
Oh & I've *never* had a 'problem' with any drug as is evidenced by the fact that I have taken no illicit substance for 3 years & have abstained from alcohol for the past yr (don't smoke). What's more, in each case, giving up was as simple as making the decision. Of course for others it isn't always so easy...
J.
Posted by pat123 on March 22, 2001, at 17:50:24
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 9:25:48
Lets throw some more water on the fire !
Hallucinogens are so close to neurotransmitters
the difference is often one atom. It can be argued
that some hallucinogens are neurotransmitters, in the case of DMT. You body makes several hallucinogens in small amounts. Given that NT's are not active when given through any route and
hallucinogens are, this makes hallucinogens a reasonable way to study neurochemistry.Pat
Posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 19:26:04
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by pat123 on March 22, 2001, at 17:50:24
> Lets throw some more water on the fire !
>
> Hallucinogens are so close to neurotransmitters
> the difference is often one atom. It can be argued
> that some hallucinogens are neurotransmitters,WRONG! Hallucinogenic drugs are not neurotransmitters! Hate to tell ya, but just that one atom makes them a lot different. What you are doing is rationalising hallucinogenic drug usage, which is a very common phenomenon among recreational drug users. Rationalisation is a sign of a person with a drug problem. You are trying to make hallucinogenic drugs sound benign and harmless, which they are not.
in the case of DMT. You body makes several hallucinogens in small amounts.Yeah? So what? That doesnt mean you should go around dropping acid.
Given that NT's are not active when given through any route and
> hallucinogens are, this makes hallucinogens a reasonable way to study neurochemistry.Hallucinogens are not a reasonable way to study neurochemistry and research mental illness. Except perhaps in lab animals like monkeys and rats. A safer, more reasonable way to study brain neurochemistry would be the kind of research touted by Dr. Amen using SPECT scans to study brain deficits or areas of hyperactivity in the brain. This kind of research approaches mental illness as if it were a brain disease and a neurological problem, which it is. As if it were a bonified medical disease, which is exactly what all severe forms of mental illness are. We need more research in brain neuroimaging for mental illness, such as that done by Dr. Amen or Dr. Mark George of the Medical University of South Carolina. That is the kind of reseach we need more of, not this psycho-voodoo research that is so risky it has to be done overseas...pathetic.
By the way, I looked at that MAPS website Cam kept talking about. A pretty sick and twisted group of people there. Ecstasy for depression? LOL One doctor on there is quoted as saying that psychedelic drugs will be for psychiatry what the microscope is for other branches of medicine. LOL They should pull that guys medical license if he is a U.S. doctor. Psychiatric diseases are nothing but diseases of the brain, the central nervous system and the endocrine system. Arguably in an ideal world, neurologists should be treating the mentally ill and psychiatry should be done away with.
I will give into you on one area though. I do agree there is nothing wrong with marijuana used medicinally. For severe chronic pain and cancer, etc. But that is more straightforward afterall. You have severe chronic pain. You smoke a joint. You get a buzz and relax. You are stoned. The pain eases. That is a lot simpler and a lot more straightforward than severe mental illness. Pot is also predictable. Hallucinogenics on the other hand, are not predictable.
Eric
Posted by Cam W. on March 22, 2001, at 19:51:31
In reply to Re: hallucinogens are a joke for mental illness, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 19:26:04
> > Lets throw some more water on the fire !
> >
> > Hallucinogens are so close to neurotransmitters
> > the difference is often one atom. It can be argued
> > that some hallucinogens are neurotransmitters,
>
> WRONG! Hallucinogenic drugs are not neurotransmitters! Hate to tell ya, but just that one atom makes them a lot different. What you are doing is rationalising hallucinogenic drug usage, which is a very common phenomenon among recreational drug users. Rationalisation is a sign of a person with a drug problem. You are trying to make hallucinogenic drugs sound benign and harmless, which they are not.
>
>
> in the case of DMT. You body makes several hallucinogens in small amounts.
>
> Yeah? So what? That doesnt mean you should go around dropping acid.
>
> Given that NT's are not active when given through any route and
> > hallucinogens are, this makes hallucinogens a reasonable way to study neurochemistry.
>
> Hallucinogens are not a reasonable way to study neurochemistry and research mental illness. Except perhaps in lab animals like monkeys and rats. A safer, more reasonable way to study brain neurochemistry would be the kind of research touted by Dr. Amen using SPECT scans to study brain deficits or areas of hyperactivity in the brain. This kind of research approaches mental illness as if it were a brain disease and a neurological problem, which it is. As if it were a bonified medical disease, which is exactly what all severe forms of mental illness are. We need more research in brain neuroimaging for mental illness, such as that done by Dr. Amen or Dr. Mark George of the Medical University of South Carolina. That is the kind of reseach we need more of, not this psycho-voodoo research that is so risky it has to be done overseas...pathetic.
>
> By the way, I looked at that MAPS website Cam kept talking about. A pretty sick and twisted group of people there. Ecstasy for depression? LOL One doctor on there is quoted as saying that psychedelic drugs will be for psychiatry what the microscope is for other branches of medicine. LOL They should pull that guys medical license if he is a U.S. doctor. Psychiatric diseases are nothing but diseases of the brain, the central nervous system and the endocrine system. Arguably in an ideal world, neurologists should be treating the mentally ill and psychiatry should be done away with.
>
> I will give into you on one area though. I do agree there is nothing wrong with marijuana used medicinally. For severe chronic pain and cancer, etc. But that is more straightforward afterall. You have severe chronic pain. You smoke a joint. You get a buzz and relax. You are stoned. The pain eases. That is a lot simpler and a lot more straightforward than severe mental illness. Pot is also predictable. Hallucinogenics on the other hand, are not predictable.
>
>
>
> Eric
I'm sorry Eric, but you are really out of touch with neuropsychopharmacology. I suggest a class in physiology would do a world of good. You have to have a basic unerstanding of how the body works (esp. neurotransmission) to see what Pat and I are REALLY talking about. You need to lighten up a bit when talking about chemicals and see thm for what they are...molecules (be they serotonin or LSD). They all act on neuroreceptors, hence, are neurotransmitters. There is nothing magic about them, they just stimulate different combinations of receptors. This whole arguement is inane. - Cam
Posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 19:51:44
In reply to Re: Name-Calling » steve, posted by JahL on March 22, 2001, at 14:16:35
> Hi Steve, me again. In the past myself & the majority of my peers would frequently 'slip' voluntarily into psychotic states, thoroughly enjoying the experience in the main. In what way is there 'something seriously wrong' with us?
I think you didn't get the point I was trying to make. Being in a psychotic state clearly is "seriously wrong." If it weren't we'd have to rethink our laws pertaining to involuntary commitment, the DSM, and lastly what it means to be human. To voluntarily become psychotic is simply stupid imo, and a good way to go about qualifying for the Darwin Award. You told Eric that an acclaimed neurologist had ruled out any connection between your hallucinogen use and subsequent mental disorders. I can find you an acclaimed neurologist or shrink that Dr. Breggin cites, who testified that the likeliness of becoming addicted to benzos is about 5 per million. Just because a doctor tell you something is safe doesn't make it so, and to me it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution.
>
> Also, *English* authorities realize that the forces which shape recreational drug use are infinitely more complex than you imply. It goes *way* beyond personality flaws, or whatever it is you're suggesting.I don't know what you are trying to say with this.
>
> Bush (the ultimate figure of authority) would probably concur with yr sentiments, but then he endorses state-murder of mentally retarded individuals.The only reason I bring names and psych history into psychobabble is so that babblers can understand the history and motivations of the industry and thereby come closer to completing the due diligence that is essential for giving truely informed consent. There are plenty of other fora for Bush bashing. But since we've already brought the dynasty up, and there are reports on the web saying that Daddy was on Lilly's board, don't you think it is a little drole that some herbal dopamine reuptake inhibitors like cocaine are banned, whereas non-herbal, patented ones like Prozac and Wellbutrin are advertised on tv? To me it would seem that they are either all inherently dangerous, or that they are all safe. Which do you think?
S.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 22, 2001, at 20:42:00
In reply to Re: Scientists test hallucinogens for depression, posted by Eric on March 22, 2001, at 9:25:48
> Hallucinogenics for mental illness makes me want to go vomit...just the thought of using LSD for depression is sick, twisted and warped.
>
> Of course, we all know there is a small and vocal minority who enjoys experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs. I think that is what we have here in this study. Let them fry their brains on usesless hallucinogenic drugs, then throw them in jail is what I say.> Psychiatry and psychology attract strange and weird characters sometimes unfortunately.
> Have you ever wondered if your current presence on this board is somehow related to your past recreational experiences with hallucinogenic drugs? In other words, you screwed around with too many hallucinogenics for "fun" and by doing so you scrambled your brain chemistry and thus became mentally ill?
Please be supportive here. Otherwise, I'll have to block you from posting. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups, if any, regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 22, 2001, at 20:45:47
In reply to Healthy Psychotic states! » JahL, posted by steve on March 22, 2001, at 19:51:44
> To voluntarily become psychotic is simply stupid imo
Opinions like that should be kept to oneself, at least here. I've warned you before, so I'm going to need to block you from posting now.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups, if any, regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.