• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

LSD chromosome damage

Status
Not open for further replies.
well In high concentrations it could be dangerous or at least thats what studies say.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12654518 "expression of some genes increases rapidly and decreases rapidly, while other genes change more gradually. Dose-response studies show two classes of expression; gene expression maximally stimulated at lower doses, versus gene expression that continues to rise at the higher doses. " i am not sure what the implications of this are

LSD also could be bad for your immune system.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Immunological+consequences+of+in+vitro+exposure+to+lysergic+acid+diethylamide+(LSD).

i am trying to determine the safety of LSD and all possible negative consequences should be considered i feel. when i post this kind of stuff im not saying it is true i am trying to find out and I am looking for peoples opinions on the matter and looking at how they can refute it.
 
Either address the responses, markosheehan, or the thread gets closed.

This is not a one-way street and we're not here to enable you, that would be bad HR.

If you recall I've expressed the same suspicion / concerns in another thread and/or PM by the way, so it's really starting to get hard to avoid it.
 
LSD is usually taken in a much smaller dose than other drugs. 1 gram of LSD is more toxic than 1 gram of weed
 
"LSD is able to suppress the proliferation of B-lymphocytes; the production of the cytokines IL-2, IL-4, and IL-6; and the induction of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes at a concentration of 100 microM."
So from this line i am guessing it is a bad thing because its good to have B-lymphocytes to defend against infection. And as it says It was in a concentration of 100 mics so within the human dosage.
So from this It COULD be bad for your immune system
 
Last edited:
markosheehan said:
And as it says It was in a concentration of 100 mics so within the human dosage.
Click to expand...

Actually, what it says is a concentration of 100 micromoles, not 100 micrograms. Given that the molar mass of LSD is 323.44 g•(mol^-1), it should actually be a concentration of around 32 micrograms.

Nonetheless, that doesn't prove that there's any negative consequences to this.

Going back a bit....

markosheehan said:
This says how there is damage done from 2000-10000 micrograms and how LSD is a weak mutagen. Why could i not say than (i will take the average) the damage done from taking LSD 150/6000 of severe damage for a 150 microgram trip. It could be more dangerous if taken regularly. No one will agree with what i just said so please explain why
Click to expand...

Your body works with thresholds more than incremental reactions. If a certain threshold isn't reached then nothing will happen. For example, this is how these drugs work in general.... LSD must be present at a certain concentration, let's guess around 5 micrograms, to activate the 5-HT2A receptor, and at a high enough concentration cause psychedelic effects. Taking 1 microgram of LSD will not produce 1/5th of this activity, it will simply not produce any at all because it did not reach the 5 microgram threshold. It's only above a value of 5 micrograms that the concentration has any meaning in this context whatsoever.

The exact same thing can be true with the kind of toxicity you speak of. The threshold may be lower than a recreational dose, but it may not be, and you shouldn't just assume it is without good reason.

markosheehan said:
i am trying to determine the safety of LSD and all possible negative consequences should be considered i feel.
Click to expand...

What I think you are failing to take into account is that LSD is not just some relatively unknown chemical like the majority of available psychedelics. It reached widespread use and has been used regularly since then even if underground, with many people having taken it thousands of times over the course of sixty years or more. Despite this there have been no obvious signs of physical health consequences in these users and LSD is still widely considered a physically safe drug even by the people who use bad trip stories to try to keep it illegal, that's why they have to use those stories in the first place.

Ultimately, the point is, even if there actually is some theoretical risk that can be seen by looking at the microscopic level, the actual consequences seem to be so insignificant that it barely even seems worth discussing, and definitely isn't worth letting yourself worry over.
 
I know it does not prove it. thats why i used the word "could". Its definately not a good sign though even though it could be insignificant due to high concentrations of LSD not being present in your body for long as its broken down like the study mentions.

How do you know mutations and genetic damage works like this? any sources?

Im well aware of how long LSD has been around and I do take this into account however drugs before have caused toxicity but It can be hard to detect due to integration into other things aswell as a load of other factors.
I do have to say though its safety profile is quite amazing. However it is still interesting ( for me at least) to look at theoretical risk

I have been thinking about drugs and the immune system and even if a drug does harm your immune system its usual only temporary so unless you are taking it a lot it would not put you at much risk to being prone to disease.
 
markosheehan said:
i am sorry solipsis i do not understand what you are saying here?
Click to expand...

It's time that we discuss both the relevance / significance of the issues you want information on and not just the theoretical issues themselves. It's pointless to focus on something like theoretical toxicity if you don't also consider and calculate significance, which will tell you something about actual risks and roughly what kind of odds you would be talking about.

It is pointless to discuss what a compound does when you take an extremely massive overdose because it doesn't say anything about safety when taking a normal reasonable dose.

Focussing too much on such things and completely failing to reply to people pointing out this significance / relevance, people who point out how relative things are... that is what prompts people to be concerned about hypochondria.

In the NSP forum you can talk all you want about theoretical data of studies, but if it applies to consideration of risks for your own use, not theory but reality discussed here in PD, you should confront the fact that no drug use is 100% without risk and it is pointless looking for it. If you cannot accept this, don't use drugs. If you can accept it, be satisfied with the facts you have already gathered on things like LSD and psilocin/mushrooms.

It's fine collecting information, but it's not healthy to do it in the way you conduct it. So, the choice I give you is: address these issues or we have to stop this. It's not right to just go on and on.

Sorry.


----

100 µM is micromolar, not micrograms. it's a concentration not a dose - so your question or concern is not applicable.

Oh, kaleida already mentioned this.

So again: let's discuss the obsessive aspect a bit, the small significance of the issues you are looking for. Again and again they suggest how relatively safe things like LSD are considered to be, yet you are on a witchhunt to find damning evidence that somehow slipped through the cracks and goes unnoticed.

Why don't you just start a thread in NSP asking about the worst risks of LSD and psilocin known, and see what knowledgeable people have to say? Seems way better than trying to interpret scientific articles as a layman. It's a waste of time for your fellow PDers. :\

We're open to talking about real and relevant risks but there is another way to go about that than your current approach.

No offense.
 
"These results demonstrate that LSD may have a direct effect on components of the immune system at concentrations that may be reached upon human exposure."
 
What I will say is:

Some psychedelics like certain 2C-X have been observed to apparently act on the immune system, for example causing production of mucus. As far as I know it is unknown whether there is anything lasting about it but it doesn't seem to be and there is no reason to assume that it is serious either. The effects seem to be in the realm of activation of the immune system rather than suppressing it.

Similarly some drugs other than psychedelics (think opioids and I believe benzos for example, but iirc also alcohol) are known to suppress the immune system. Both activation and suppression aren't ideal of course, activation is at the very least potentially inconvenient, but suppression seems worse since you neither want your immune sytem to get lazy (seen in children raised in an environment that is too clean so the immune system gets little exercise) nor do you want pathogens to get a foot in the door and make you ill.

Other than that, not sure if much at all is known about immunomodulation, just search the internet and bluelight.

I think we have established that a normal dose of LSD is not mutagenic.

So /thread

P.S.
to avoid this in the future, don't ignore the posts of others, this is a discussion forum, not quora.

Also: resort to the neuroscience & pharm forum for examination of studies and theoretical implications. It's just not suitable for PD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top