foundationx4
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 310
Ismene said:
NO WAY!. i know so many people that have told me this exact same thing.. on ex , lsd and shrooms.
Cold and runny nose on shrooms?
- Thread starter The THC Ranger
- Start date
NO WAY!. i know so many people that have told me this exact same thing.. on ex , lsd and shrooms.
Not to bump this old af post but it literally makes me cry this is one of the first things that comes up in a google search. Whoever tells you that your nose is running because it's "in your head" and "placebo" has no clue what they're saying lmao. Shrooms are a poison, your trip is your body working the poison out of you...it just so happens that is done by hallucinating among other things. Everybody is bound to react to it slightly different. Plus while your immune system is running at half speed, your enviorment is also going to come into play. The best way to find out how you react to something and what you can handle is with your own experiments, no one knows your body and it's limits as well as you do
Oddball_paul
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2016
- Messages
- 42
i always get a cold nose while on any psychedelic and i love it
LazyTheGreat
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2016
- Messages
- 72
Dude my last shroom experience I swear messed up my sinus from then to now
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
FWIW, I hade none of that with synthetic psilocin but I only took it once - would be nice to hear from others who took that to compare... also for things like 4-HO-MET, I don't think it's typical? Some things maybe like jelly legs or lethargy during come-up...
So I guess it's not impossible or unlikely that it is something other than the psilocin?
I really don't think it is strain related though... many traits from mushrooms are genetically shuffled every generation and Cubensis strains are varieties but the same in many respects, same species... only some mutants are different. But yes there is still the off chance that some varieties have different levels of some compounds just like some human races have high rates of particular enzyme deficiencies. Still, even on that very off chance it is just a matter of probability: you would find likely find a higher or lower incidence, but the trait being unique to some strains would be extraordinary.
No plenty of physical effects, some pretty damn weird, are real and not in your head you are right. But shrooms are not poisonous, the alkaloids are physically very safe. That you might react "bodily distressed" on top of the inherent physical pharmacological effects, would be mostly triggered mentally [psychosomatically] from the idea of taking something so strange, there is no reason why your body would react as if reacting to a poison, because it is simply not poisonous. The mushroom tissue which is pretty fibrous and can be hard to digest especially if you take it in a manner that does not pre-digest / break up the tissue as a headstart for your guts. But indigestion is not a toxic reaction.
Psychedelics can indeed affect the immune system though, you're right about that. I don't know if that is the full explanation for the runny nose or if that is rather from an effect on secreting glands (could also make your mouth watery, or give you the sweats)... since sweating is also reported that might be a better explanation. OTOH the histaminergic effect is immune system related so could be that.
So I guess it's not impossible or unlikely that it is something other than the psilocin?
I really don't think it is strain related though... many traits from mushrooms are genetically shuffled every generation and Cubensis strains are varieties but the same in many respects, same species... only some mutants are different. But yes there is still the off chance that some varieties have different levels of some compounds just like some human races have high rates of particular enzyme deficiencies. Still, even on that very off chance it is just a matter of probability: you would find likely find a higher or lower incidence, but the trait being unique to some strains would be extraordinary.
No plenty of physical effects, some pretty damn weird, are real and not in your head you are right. But shrooms are not poisonous, the alkaloids are physically very safe. That you might react "bodily distressed" on top of the inherent physical pharmacological effects, would be mostly triggered mentally [psychosomatically] from the idea of taking something so strange, there is no reason why your body would react as if reacting to a poison, because it is simply not poisonous. The mushroom tissue which is pretty fibrous and can be hard to digest especially if you take it in a manner that does not pre-digest / break up the tissue as a headstart for your guts. But indigestion is not a toxic reaction.
Psychedelics can indeed affect the immune system though, you're right about that. I don't know if that is the full explanation for the runny nose or if that is rather from an effect on secreting glands (could also make your mouth watery, or give you the sweats)... since sweating is also reported that might be a better explanation. OTOH the histaminergic effect is immune system related so could be that.
Last edited:
Nah shrooms are a poison your trip is your body getting rid of it. It's just instead of having a high fever and vomitting, you hallucinate and trip sack. Just because something's a poison it doesn't mean it's lethal.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
No mushrooms have been studied and have not found to be toxic (poisonous) at anywhere close to reasonable doses. Why don't you have a google?
[and for example find this: https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 "among the safest drugs known to man" or "remarkably non-toxic to the body's organ systems" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Effects]
You have a very limited view of what a psychedelic drug does, the body does not think intuitively "oh I am tripping, what has been done to me!", of course people can vomit as a result of anxiety from the trip, but other than that many physically safe psychedelics like mushrooms can be taken without any sign of being poisoned... and most nausea can be explained by the drug pushing certain buttons in your guts that produce nausea... it is not an intuitive reaction from the body.
After you have an actual google and if you still haven't changed your mind, what actual argument do you have that makes you think it's toxic?
Just because you trip doesn't mean it's toxic.
[and for example find this: https://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=1606 "among the safest drugs known to man" or "remarkably non-toxic to the body's organ systems" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Effects]
You have a very limited view of what a psychedelic drug does, the body does not think intuitively "oh I am tripping, what has been done to me!", of course people can vomit as a result of anxiety from the trip, but other than that many physically safe psychedelics like mushrooms can be taken without any sign of being poisoned... and most nausea can be explained by the drug pushing certain buttons in your guts that produce nausea... it is not an intuitive reaction from the body.
After you have an actual google and if you still haven't changed your mind, what actual argument do you have that makes you think it's toxic?
Just because you trip doesn't mean it's toxic.
Last edited:
Lmao the funny thing is the people who told me shrooms were a poison were a couple I met at camp bisco who I had earlier spoke with at a dead co. show. Psilocybin was most likely evolved as a defense mechanism against slugs, so evolutionarily speaking, yes it is a poison. Just because it doesn't pose a lethal threat to us it doesn't mean it isn't. Secondly I said that your body working out the poison is your trip, OPPOSED to usual poison which your body tries to fight with other things such as vomiting and a high fever. Why don't YOU take a second to read my friend. And the funny thing is upon a google search just to prove you wrong, the only immediate thing I found that WASN'T a forum with a bunch of people getting absurdly angry over the fact someone could dare call mush a poison, was this...
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/817848-overview#a3
Just because something is less toxic to us humans doesn't make it not a poison. Smh i've been tripping for years not like I took shrooms one time had a bad trip and started bugging, i've actually even yet to experience a bad trip on shrooms. Anyone can react in any different way and just because it isn't lethal once again it doesn't mean it's not a poison and can't have your body react in minor ways (once again opposed to a LETHAL poison being death)
Also that article only says "it's certainly not a deadly poison" LMAO
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
perpetualdawn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,920
Calling psilocybe mushrooms poisonous/toxic is a very common misconception, even amongst pretty experienced users, but it's inaccurate.
That quote you used is also a page focused on LSD as well which is also irrelevant af. Just because something is a lethal poison to animals and not to us doesn't make it not a poison. That's also the same page that said "it's certainly not a deadly poison" which is a nice lil hint that it could be a poison. Once again just because it's safe for a human doesn't mean it's not a poison. Poisons of non-lethal dosages tend to also NOT leave chronic effects once the toxin leaves your body.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
Maybe you don't know but John's Hopkins is a very reputable hospital in the US and they conducted trials there with psilocybin in terminal patients, so if this particular page talks more about LSD, I really couldn't care less. It does not discredit what that man says.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html
From the actual hospital. Enough of a reference for you?
Read more about that previous post of mine about why the effects you are talking about are not reasonable to call poisonous because that would make every drug and medication a poison and it simply fucks up the whole relevance of using the word 'poison'.
Here is a quote from a study, but again you must remember what I said about using the word toxicity in this different technical context:
You would like to use the last sentence about children to completely validate your ideas, but actually
this kind sentence rather demonstrates why "intoxication" for the experience is appropriate, but calling it a poison is unreasonable, again yes in the technical way in which you claim it is that is correct, but context and relevance make the use of the word incorrect.
There are plenty of ways (which I won't go into because I really don't feel like putting energy in it for you) to use words in a way that may in some technical way be correct, but is actually misleading as opposed to wrong in every fucking way.
It means, or at least in this case, that you focus on the wrong things and that manipulates us to draw the wrong conclusions.
Clearly, because you have ideas about the body producing a trip in a way to expel the poison which has zero basis in science. In reality, like I said, that has nothing to do with each other and good luck finding scientific evidence (it's your turn) that it does.
What is a reality though, is that mushrooms are not known for putting people in the hospital (unless it is because of their behavior - which hardly counts and especially not if you consider what this thread was initially about), and also not for producing diseases of any kind, although the only one would be rather a syndrome namely HPPD - that occurs after either abuse or in people who are unusually sensitive... they don't do anything that matters enough to make calling it a poison reasonable.
No it doesn't, you can read that into it if you like and be wrong, but it can just as easily refer to misconceptions about the drug which are not true, on the contrary. Hence the "certainly" because of the "contrary".
I don't intend on making this off-topic tangent much longer, not in the last place because matters of semantics and understanding of context, relevance and significance do not really benefit from any number of extra references for me to provide.
Last edited:
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
I don't assume that - I've mentioned animal toxicity, but I repeat:
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".
We are not talking about snails or dogs here, here we are talking about a human with a cold and a runny nose. Numerous chemicals that are effectively a toxin to humans are not to animals and vice versa, so why would it be relevant to say something is a toxin / deterrant to certain animals?
Man is not the only creature on the planet, but I dare assume he is the only creature on this forum. Have you ever heard of relevance, significance or context?
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".
We are not talking about snails or dogs here, here we are talking about a human with a cold and a runny nose. Numerous chemicals that are effectively a toxin to humans are not to animals and vice versa, so why would it be relevant to say something is a toxin / deterrant to certain animals?
Man is not the only creature on the planet, but I dare assume he is the only creature on this forum. Have you ever heard of relevance, significance or context?
LMAO you really finna bring up chocolate? Look up poison on fucking google. It's a poison fact it's just not evolved to harm us we're not it's natural predator lmaooo
perpetualdawn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,920
It's not a poison as a matter of fact, and you're being rude, please mind your tone.
Solipsis
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15,509
I guess you haven't, since you keep hammering on the same thing, but missing the point about those things and when a word should or shouldn't be used.
Which makes continuing this debate pointless, wouldn't you say?
OK so if the thread has been derailed enough - sorry about that - I'm eager to hear more about possible immune system involvement with runny noses from shrooms.
technofairy
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1
Can someone help me? I've got a really bad itchiness on my skin since the last experience with shrooms and it's been 2 weeks now and the itchiness doesnt go away! It's mainly on my hands, arms, stomach and elbows. My hand and elbows are full of small bumps and sometimes the itchiness is really intense. I dont know what caused this reaction since i'm not allergic to mushrooms at all..