A New Theory

[StonedNative]

I recently was thinking about psychedelics causing schizophrenia, and I thought, maybe the drugs themselves don't bring out the disease, but maybe the people bring it out themselves by freaking out during the trip.

Anyone think this is credible?

- Mitchell

 

[joeyjoejoeshabadoo]

exasperation of malfunctioning catecholamine receptors? a lot of schizo is associated with dopamine receptors, some 5ht receptors but i think mostly dopamine. so i suppose not having your brainshit in tip-top shape and using psychedelics may have its drawbacks :/ the body is always in homeostasis.

 

[moe.ron]

I recently was thinking about psychedelics causing schizophrenia, and I thought, maybe the drugs themselves don't bring out the disease, but maybe the people bring it out themselves by freaking out during the trip.

Anyone think this is credible?

- Mitchell

definitely having a bad trip wouldnt help, but the bottom line is some one who is predisposed for schizophrenia should not trip, as I think even just smoking cannabis can bring it out

 

[rollingstoned!]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! LSD can't cause schizophrenia!!!!! ROFL!!! Are you serious? You've never seen it happen? Good for you. I'll let you know;it's not fun. It's different from people who choose to go crazy during/after an LSD sesssion. Schizophrenia may be an excuse for a lot of people and part of psychology a.k.a. psuedoscience a.k.a. fake science, but LSD can activate receptors that would never be activated otherwise. It can cause pathways to be formed that otherwise, wouldn't be formed.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In every case of this I've heard of (that isn't that fabricated "oh this dude tripped acid and then he thought he was a glass of lemonade" bullshit), there was some underlying factors that heavily predisposed the person to schizophrenia, and then adding psychedelic experiences on top of that pushed them over the edge. But, as someone else pointed out, if you're predisposed to it, then even marijuana is a bad idea.

 

[Tunnelfission]

One can only study and ascertain the mental health of an individual from the outside. People that assume they are entirely healthy and happen to be coherent may be entirely schizophrenic and never notice it.

What defines the minimum requirements for schizophrenia? I'm CERTAIN i'm a loose cannon but i'm more intelligent and coherent than MOST of the people I know and associate with.

 

[YellowNikes]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! LSD can't cause schizophrenia!!!!! ROFL!!! Are you serious? You've never seen it happen? Good for you. I'll let you know;it's not fun. It's different from people who choose to go crazy during/after an LSD sesssion. Schizophrenia may be an excuse for a lot of people and part of psychology a.k.a. psuedoscience a.k.a. fake science, but LSD can activate receptors that would never be activated otherwise. It can cause pathways to be formed that otherwise, wouldn't be formed.

your fucking r-tard, psychology is not a pseudoscience, maybe parts of it but in general it is not. Thats like calling chemistry a pseudoscience because of alchemy.
Are you saying schizophrenia doesn't exist lol?
also when you say that lsd can cause pathways to form that wouldn't have formed, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Show me some proof but in till then do not just spread your fabricated knowledge on a subject that you know little about.

 

[any major dude]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! LSD can't cause schizophrenia!!!!! ROFL!!! Are you serious? You've never seen it happen? Good for you. I'll let you know;it's not fun. It's different from people who choose to go crazy during/after an LSD sesssion. Schizophrenia may be an excuse for a lot of people and part of psychology a.k.a. psuedoscience a.k.a. fake science, but LSD can activate receptors that would never be activated otherwise. It can cause pathways to be formed that otherwise, wouldn't be formed.

i think its pretty apparent that you don't really know a lot about the subject. There are no receptors that are only "activated" by LSD. It has an affinity for a number of various receptors, all of which have endogenous ligands.

As for schizophrenia & LSD, any psychedelic can precipitate a psychotic break in individuals who were, in all likelihood, going to be schizophrenic otherwise. Granted, it may happen a bit sooner in this hypothetical case. If LSD actually caused schizophrenia, we'd see fluctuations in schizophrenia rates with psychedelic usage, but schizophrenia rates remain stable.

Cannabis is another matter all together. I think it is probably more likely that schizophrenics are attempting to self medicate, as CBD is more than likely an effective & mostly (*unpleasant) side effect free anti-psychotic. However high THC low CBD strains can exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms. Most schizophrenics also chain smoke cigarettes as a form of self medication as well, but no one's saying tobacco causes mental illness. And the same logic about fluctuating rates of cannabis usage vs stable rates of schizophrenia also apply.

 

[rollingstoned!]

i think its pretty apparent that you don't really know a lot about the subject. There are no receptors that are only "activated" by LSD. It has an affinity for a number of various receptors, all of which have endogenous ligands.

As for schizophrenia & LSD, any psychedelic can precipitate a psychotic break in individuals who were, in all likelihood, going to be schizophrenic otherwise. Granted, it may happen a bit sooner in this hypothetical case. If LSD actually caused schizophrenia, we'd see fluctuations in schizophrenia rates with psychedelic usage, but schizophrenia rates remain stable.

Cannabis is another matter all together. I think it is probably more likely that schizophrenics are attempting to self medicate, as CBD is more than likely an effective & mostly (*unpleasant) side effect free anti-psychotic. However high THC low CBD strains can exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms. Most schizophrenics also chain smoke cigarettes as a form of self medication as well, but no one's saying tobacco causes mental illness. And the same logic about fluctuating rates of cannabis usage vs stable rates of schizophrenia also apply.

All I'm saying is you can't deny the experiences of giving someone LSD and the end result is schizophrenia. What at is at stake is whether or not a drug (LSD in this case) can cause schizophrenia. It can bring out predispostions, and it can cause schizophrenia, amongst other "mental diseases". You seem to know the exact effect of LSD. Given that it is neither known as an antangonist or an agonist at various receptors, who is to say it can or cannot cause schizophrenia? Experience can. When you see someone go there, you'll know. And don't say tobacco can't cause mental illnesses either. See it happen friend. See it happen, and how can you deny it causes it?

 

[rollingstoned!]

your fucking r-tard, psychology is not a pseudoscience, maybe parts of it but in general it is not. Thats like calling chemistry a pseudoscience because of alchemy.
Are you saying schizophrenia doesn't exist lol?
also when you say that lsd can cause pathways to form that wouldn't have formed, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Show me some proof but in till then do not just spread your fabricated knowledge on a subject that you know little about.

I know a lot about this subject, not a little. It's simple. LSD is a drug. A synthetic drug (or semi-synthetic, but what is semi-synthetic but synthetic?).

I'm saying schizophrenia exists most definitely. However, do not deny that it is overdiagnosed, especially after psychedelic sessions, when it should not. I have quite an idea what I'm talking about when I say artificial drugs can cause pathways that wouldn't be formed without....artifcial drugs.

Meth causes a 1200% rise in dopamine leading to pathways formed that wouldn't "normally" be formed. Deny this? Nothing in except methamphetamine does this. Therefore, it is not natural. It would not be experienced without injesting meth.

And I will compare meth to LSD, simply on the basis that LSD is not natural. It may have "positive" experiences; it's not natural. Why not use psilocin or DMT. Those are natural. LSD is man made. The brain needs nothing man made. We've survived without man made substances for how long?

 

[interleukin]

I think its crazy that so many people on a drugs forum will not accept the fact that neurotransmitter balance, changes in receptor densities, epigenetic changes, synaptic plasticity etc can cause 'disorders' and that potent psychoactive drugs can trigger these changes. If there is one thing I have learnt from my use of psychoactive drugs it is that brain chemistry / physiological state controls thoughts patterns, emotions and executive function a lot more than the other way around.
LSD can definitely be a strong trigger to set off schizophrenia. Trivializing the condition by saying that people bring it on themselves due to a bad trip is pretty fucked up.

 

[atara]

I recently was thinking about psychedelics causing schizophrenia

There aren't any documented links between psychedelic usage and the appearance of schizophrenia in otherwise healthy individuals. Stimulant psychosis resembles schizophrenia, but even this is temporary.

Why not use psilocin or DMT.

DMT, as a monoamine releaser, is much more dangerous in sensitive individuals than LSD, which is effectively harmless in almost all individuals.

I know a lot about this subject, not a little. It's simple.

It's not even remotely simple.

I think its crazy that so many people on a drugs forum will not accept the fact that neurotransmitter balance, changes in receptor densities, epigenetic changes, synaptic plasticity etc can cause 'disorders' and that potent psychoactive drugs can trigger these changes.

That's stupid.

I don't accept anything without evidence. That's the point of science. There is a thing called HPPD. It is not schizophrenia. It is not even remotely close to schizophrenia.

 

[any major dude]

I'm sorry about your friend's disease, and i'm sure that you probably feel a bit responsible for giving them LSD. I'm sure that's a considerable load to bear.

However, LSD does not simply cause schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is caused by numerous genetic & environmental factors. Sure, LSD can be an environmental factor, but without the presence of other environmental factors combined with some (possibly more important) genetic factors, schizophrenia would not occur.

And LSD is known as a partial agonist at various 5-HT receptors, a couple dopamine receptors, an adrenergic receptor or two, some histaminergic receptors, and a smattering of other receptors that i can't recall at the moment. I'm unsure of whether its an antagonist at any notable receptors, but that is of little consequence, as a lot of the minor receptor affinities are insignificant unless extremely high doses are taken.

I know it may seem like you saw your friend take LSD then become schizophrenic, but that perception does not imply or necessitate reality. Are you taking into account every drug he'd taken in his life before being diagnosed? One particularly apt quote on the subject comes from an early LSD researcher, Sidney Cohen:

The hallucinogenic experience is so striking that many subsequent disturbances may be attributed to it without further justification. The highly suggestible or hysterical individual would tend to focus on his LSD experience to explain subsequent illness. Patients have complained to Abramson that their LSD exposure produced migraine headaches and attacks of influenza up to a year later. One Chinese girl became paraplegic and ascribed that catastrophe to LSD. It so happened that these people were all in the control group and had received nothing but tap water."

I'm unaware of any differences in progression of symptoms, severity, etc in schizophrenics who's illness has been attributed to psychedelic usage versus those not claiming a specific trigger type event. But there really isn't even any reliable medical evidence to suggest a causal link exists. It isn't even mentioned on the NIH page regarding schizophrenia.

Nonetheless, if you have a family history of mental illness, its always best to err on the side of caution

Meth causes a 1200% rise in dopamine leading to pathways formed that wouldn't "normally" be formed. Deny this? Nothing in except methamphetamine does this. Therefore, it is not natural. It would not be experienced without injesting meth.

methamphetamine has been found in Acacia rigidula, according to one (possibly flawed) study. Also, the effect of this increase in dopamine does form some reinforcing pathways regarding drug seeking behavior, but it has a more notable effect of damaging pleasure centers, among other things. Not comparable to LSD by any means.

And I will compare meth to LSD, simply on the basis that LSD is not natural. It may have "positive" experiences; it's not natural. Why not use psilocin or DMT. Those are natural. LSD is man made. The brain needs nothing man made. We've survived without man made substances for how long?

Natural vs Synthetic has been a fairly common debate here in PD for some time. I'll summarize it for you to save us all some frustrated and potentially angry posts:

Natural Proponent:Natural things are better because they exist in nature
scientifically minded person: that makes no sense, plenty of things exist in nature that are horribly toxic, unpleasant, etc. I'd much rather take LSD than a tropane alkaloid contained in datura, mandrake, etc. Or what about hemlock? that's natural, who wants a glass of hemlock tea?
Natural Proponent: But shamans and indigenous people have been using natural drugs for thousands of years, they have a connection with the earth, they're much more spiritual
scientifically minded person: booze has been being distilled for about as long, and technically i guess it is also semi-synthetic. Also, members of a south african indigenous group adopted 2c-b as their sacrament and found it superior to their previous plant based entheogens.
Natural Proponent: but when i take plant teachers i feel much more connected to spiritual things and nature and whatnot
scientifically minded person: well you expected to feel that going into the experience, its called expectation bias.
Natural Proponent: something from a lab can't be as good as something from nature
scientifically minded person: man is one of nature & evolution's penultimate products, millions if not billions of years of natural selection brought about humans, thus everything we do is technically natural. where can you draw a distinction? its always going to be a grey area. other primates use tools, as do some other lower mammals, even birds can use sticks, or a *gasp* man-made metal rod, to eat insects.
Natural Proponent: obviously you're just too far out of touch with your natural self to understand, but i'm right and you can fuck off
scientifically minded person: go fuck off in a drum circle you hippie

repeat ad nauseam

 

[AfterGlow]

All you're arguing about is whether or not LSD causes schizophrenia by direct means of chemical process or indirect means of mental process. SOME PEOPLE have become psychotic and schizophrenic as a result of their LSD experience.

LSD is a very powerful psychoactive substance that is heaven for some people and hell for others. It is best used in a responsible manner by mentally stable people. We should all agree on that.

 

[Solipsis]

Exactly, any major dude is right - there seems to be some major ignorance about the natural vs. synthetic debate.

One thing that seems to be confused is that a long time history of use for some is an indication that it can't make you go totally batshit crazy because surely we would have noticed by now. :D
Well that's not entirely true because medicine men and shamans have been around for VERY long and they are marginalized socially and can show some very strange abnormalities in practices and behavior from what we can tell - which should say something about being a-neurotypical perhaps.

I do think it's true on the other hand that it's not stupid at all to put more confidence into something we have studied a lot already than a molecule we have dreamed up that should work by some vague logic. That is more of a gamble indeed.
But LSD has in fact been studied a lot, it is one of the best studied psychedelics. How can you dismiss that?

Other than that... the notion that LSD is not natural but psilocin or DMT are is ludicrous, what about synthetic psilocin and synthetic DMT? Are they natural or artificial?
Where do you think the ingredients for something like LSD come from? Do you think matter is created in laboratories? It is all nature-derived if you go back far enough.

Therefore there is no real dividing line between natural and artificial.

Why are a good number of synthetic drugs so powerful, potent or selective then?

They are designed to be that way, their action is often very pure - like NBOMe's are pretty purely selective for serotonin receptors. LSD does not have a pure action per se, but has a high potency. Natural compounds like those in kratom, kava and a lot more plants and animals have not been designed like that and another thing is that they can exist in complex mixtures which yield an averaged balanced action like the cannabinoids in cannabis do compared to synthetic cannabinoids. But DMT and salvinorin also exists in plants and are pretty much the most fucking potent psychedelics there are.
Nature has NOT designed compounds to be necessarily safe or better. The compounds are designed by much much more arbitrary processes of combined evolution and things like defense mechanisms. You know what is also found a lot that works well as a defense mechanism? Poison.


Back to the original question: no I don't think the theory has any specific validity. What seems to be a response to extremely intense experiences is PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

And I think the OP has made a mistake in the formulation of his hypothesis or question. Drugs in people together as a combined action bring out certain sides of that person, at least if we are talking psychedelic action. The experiences reflect tendencies of drug action but in the end what we see is content coming out of the user.
If it is schizophrenic symptoms that come out that is because that side of that person was there, only latent. The reason it is brought out is in a way because of intensity, but I'd rather say that it is because of the intensity of the psychological tendencies of the person that are expressed by catalysis of psychedelic action. It catalyzes those tendencies to shape and form into a more recognizable shape that can be characterized better, and not only that but also diagnosed better because it is stronger and more typical.

I myself in the course of trips have felt more and more like myself, more typical. Every side there is to be becomes more pronounced and exaggerated - both good and bad. And I wanted to express the good so much because I have a certain drive for achievement and to push myself beyond boundaries.... but at the same time that has made tendencies that are ADHD and OCD like in nature also more pronounced. They are two parts of the same coin. If I can manage it the word is 'passion', if I cannot manage myself well the word becomes 'obsession'.
Just as an illustration to my point.

 

[alantis360]

I don't accept anything without evidence. That's the point of science. There is a thing called HPPD. It is not schizophrenia. It is not even remotely close to schizophrenia.

Have you ever had issues with hppd or depersonalization? It has a lot of similarities to negative schizophrenic symptoms.

"Negative symptoms are deficits of normal emotional responses or of other thought processes, and respond less well to medication.[6] They commonly include flat or blunted affect and emotion, poverty of speech (alogia), inability to experience pleasure (anhedonia), lack of desire to form relationships (asociality), and lack of motivation (avolition). Research suggests that negative symptoms contribute more to poor quality of life, functional disability, and the burden on others than do positive symptoms."

 

[mrdocat]

Natural Proponent:Natural things are better because they exist in nature
scientifically minded person: that makes no sense, plenty of things exist in nature that are horribly toxic, unpleasant, etc. I'd much rather take LSD than a tropane alkaloid contained in datura, mandrake, etc. Or what about hemlock? that's natural, who wants a glass of hemlock tea?
Natural Proponent: But shamans and indigenous people have been using natural drugs for thousands of years, they have a connection with the earth, they're much more spiritual
scientifically minded person: booze has been being distilled for about as long, and technically i guess it is also semi-synthetic. Also, members of a south african indigenous group adopted 2c-b as their sacrament and found it superior to their previous plant based entheogens.
Natural Proponent: but when i take plant teachers i feel much more connected to spiritual things and nature and whatnot
scientifically minded person: well you expected to feel that going into the experience, its called expectation bias.
Natural Proponent: something from a lab can't be as good as something from nature
scientifically minded person: man is one of nature & evolution's penultimate products, millions if not billions of years of natural selection brought about humans, thus everything we do is technically natural. where can you draw a distinction? its always going to be a grey area. other primates use tools, as do some other lower mammals, even birds can use sticks, or a *gasp* man-made metal rod, to eat insects.
Natural Proponent: obviously you're just too far out of touch with your natural self to understand, but i'm right and you can fuck off
scientifically minded person: go fuck off in a drum circle you hippie

repeat ad nauseam

Another scientifically minded person: Though millions of years of evolution human had to live with natural substances. It means that those who were vulnerable to natural substances died and those who could use natural substances to their own favor lived. A selection ran though our evolutions making our body each time more adapted to natural substances. So, yes, scientifically speaking, natural stuff ARE safest than lab stuff. Not in an absolute and specific way, but in a generalized way.

 

[allium]

^ Remember, that evolution isn't one-sided process: plants and fungi have been evolving too, hehe.
There are still so many toxic compounds in the nature, which are in no way safe. Well, maybe they are safer than specifically designed toxins.

But when it comes to mind-altering substances, I can't agree to you. Ever heared about Mescal Beans? They were used by shamans and they were here for millions years. But can you say that they are safer than novel synthetic psychedelic compounds?

 

[any major dude]

Another scientifically minded person: Though millions of years of evolution human had to live with natural substances. It means that those who were vulnerable to natural substances died and those who could use natural substances to their own favor lived. A selection ran though our evolutions making our body each time more adapted to natural substances. So, yes, scientifically speaking, natural stuff ARE safest than lab stuff. Not in an absolute and specific way, but in a generalized way.

Don't think that's really an accurate view there. Given the facts that most tryptamines and mescaline are fairly non-toxic to mammals (that i'm aware of, if i'm off base here, do tell) and that there is no biological imperative to ingest such substances, there really isn't any way, that i can see, selection pressure to such an end could occur.

 

[joeyjoejoeshabadoo]

^ Remember, that evolution isn't one-sided process: plants and fungi have been evolving too

its been theorized and even favored nowadays, that evolution occurs in spontaneous giant leaps in reproduction, rather than a gradual change. evolve vs evolving.

that would answer the question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
seemingly a dead end answer, yet can be answered using the giant leap theory, i.e.: the egg came first, for what laid the egg was not a chicken. what hatched from the egg was.