I saw that site, and it is very misleading because it actually mentions other psychoactive mushrooms which are not relevant here, since magic mushrooms / shrooms like what we talk about in this thread are psilocybin containing mushrooms and not certain Amanita's some of which can indeed be poisonous to consume.
So they pile them together there on that site which is ridiculous since they contain very different compounds. So no that site does not explicitly say that psilocybin mushrooms are dangerous because that is not true.
It's quite the talent you have for picking out the websites that comply with your ideas, if you use certain google terms then sure you can find the ones that are misleading or uninformed... but the actual toxicological research that has been done shows that shrooms are not toxic.
Matthew Johnson, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins and lead author of an earlier Hopkins paper on hallucinogen safety, explained that “safety with psilocybin encompasses more than its direct pharmacological effects. We know that psilocybin is remarkably non-toxic to the body’s organ systems.
Here is what someone with actual credential says ^ ...
Actual studies will read indeed that there is toxicity, but the symptoms listed and the incidence of something remotely serious happening do not warrant calling it a poison. In such studies, it is merely used as a technical term since any changes in bodily condition are in that context a toxic reaction. That doesn't mean it is reasonable to use 'poisonous' in any normal context.
Don't mistake some side-effects of a drug for toxicity that is relevant to mention in this discussion in the way you did...
It's just a little ridiculous to say that 'the body hallucinates as a manner of getting the poison out of you', it is not consequential. It has a psychedelic effect that is not linked to the minor changes in bodily condition, your claim is staggeringly unscientific.
You could argue that every single drug and all pharmaceuticals are all poisons because technically they all produce side-effects which you could call toxic reaction if you're being as technical as a study. However that has little to do with why the alkaloids exist in the mushrooms let alone the conclusion that it must act as a poison.
Cannabis is of quite low toxicity as well, it is not reasonable to call that a poison in the middle of a discussion either - no it doesn't have to be lethal to call it that (lethal is just a manner of dosage by the way, eventually everything is lethal), but at least there would have to be considerable acute or chronic effects beyond just some harmless change in blood pressure or whatever. Otherwise, the minor changes in bodily condition simply don't matter.
Especially considering there psilocin is relatively one of the safest one of them all. Sure, barring a massive overdose in an infant or something of the sort, but does not really tell us much about actual toxicity for a normal healthy adult.
I've also had countless mushroom trips, and many of them were horrible - I don't advocate something like shrooms because my feelings for them overshadow the scientific evidence. I switched to LSD and other psychedelics when they became available and actually don't appreciate mushroom trips by comparison. Even if I loved them, I wouldn't defend them in the light of scientific data.
Just because something is less toxic to us humans doesn't make it not a poison.
It actually does if the toxicity is nearly negligible for all intents and purposes because we are humans and we are obviously talking about use in humans. That a compound could kill a dog says nothing to me - chocolate kills dogs, but I have yet to find a person who casually claims in a discussion about chocolate that it is a poison, without mentioning "well ok, to dogs and certain other animals it is - a human would have to eat such a pile for it to become a problem that it doesn't really matter much to our health at normal portions".
Context is important for semantics - otherwise using a word like that is as misleading as your arguments and that emedicine page are.