Psychedelic drugs can unlock mysteries of brain - David Nutt

You beat me to it! I love the way they banish him but he just keeps coming back!

 

I had so many broken toys, anything electronic lasted about three days. But in the long run, it has indeed proven useful, I can fix things a lot of people would throw in the bucket! Says me clicking away on my renovated mouse.

Pissed my mum and dad off though

 

I think subjectivity has to somehow find an accommodation in the scientific orthodoxy before we can make much formal progress with psychedelics. Either that or we need big steps forward in our understanding of the brain, first.

Good point knock, I think prohibition blocks everything tho. If it was legal people could do research simply for the point of finding out more.

 

Not sure why they're messing around with mushrooms and lsd though when they can't even get funding to do more than a couple of studies a year. They should be prioritising better and only using stuff like MDPV.

 

I wish there was a researcher who actually understood the state before he tried doing research into it.

 

^ Forgive me being a pedantic fuck but I wouldn't say Shulgin researched the psychedelic state as such, i.e. the psychology or neuroscience of it. He documented effects, true, but in no great detail and without much to say about the mind/brain. His work focuses on chemistry, with what amounts to lay commentary about the subjective state.

The reason I mentioned Leary is that he had theories about the mind based on his psychedelic work, and also because he was a lunatic who gave the establishment plenty of excuses for prohibition.

 

^ Forgive me being a pedantic fuck but I wouldn't say Shulgin researched the psychedelic state as such, i.e. the psychology or neuroscience of it. He documented effects, true, but in no great detail and without much to say about the mind/brain. His work focuses on chemistry, with what amounts to lay commentary about the subjective state.

I agree. But that isn't Shulgin in the photograph.

 

thats not shulgin. thats Nicholls innit?

 

Shit I thought he looked a bit smartly dressed.

 

thats not shulgin. thats Nicholls innit?

 

Can't say I've ever seen a picture of Nicholls before. When I see a plump grey bearded chemist I just think Shulgin

 

plump bearded chemists all look the same to me too, don't get me wrong, I'm not being racist or owt...

 

....On a psychedelic you know you've taken a drug, when you have schizophrenia you think it's real. That's a pretty fundamental difference isn't it.....

I can't quite work out why he's changed to decriminalisation...... and legalisation is the only road that he can make any money and keep his name in the papers.

Of course When you have taken a drug you know you are on it. However in drug research and studies I understand that there are protocols and processes followed that include the use of control groups and placebos and blind (where the patients don't know if they are on the drug or the placebo) and double blind (where the researchers and the subjects are not informed of which group (control- placebo or Active - drug) they belong to, in addition to ensuring that they have the right quantity of subjects to test, and that their subjects have the right/appropriate medical/health history. All this helps the fact that the 'required state of mind' for this type of study would need to be synthetically or artificially induced. if they are able to replicate or mimic the effects of or symptoms of an illness, state of mind or situation, it enables valuable research, leanings and discoveries to be undertaken for that issue, I think the focus is on creating an equivalent state in which to investigate and perform research rather than on the manner in which the equivalent state was induced, i would imagine that once there is a way to emulate the state being researched, scientist can work towards understanding the issue better and developing treatments and cures.

There is also a difference between regulation, legalisation and decriminalisation, but the lines between them are fuzzy and differ from drug to drug and change under differing circumstances.
For instance, Even if a drug is legalized, and you are allowed to buy it, own it and take it, in some circumstances it can still be illegal to possess it, such as in Australia, methadone is legalized opiate, but that doesn't mean everyone is allowed to have it or have it prescribed to them, so long as it is prescribed to you and you take it as directed, you can't get in trouble for having it in your possession. As I recently discovered even having methadone which has been prescribed to you can be illegal and result in criminal proceedings if you have not taken it as it was prescribed, and retain possession of the unused doses passed their dosing date.
Decriminalisation of a drug, doesn't necessarily mean you are allowed to have it either, it generally refers to the fact that possessing or using that drug will not result in criminal proceedings, or is not punishable under a criminal code. There may be other diversions in place to deal with people in possession of decriminalized drugs that are still known or recognised to cause harm, this might include being diverted to health or social/community support services such as rehab, Counselling or detox programs as an alternative to be dealt with as a criminal offence.
Legalizing or decriminalisation of a drug also allows a government to regulate quality and usage more easily and also gives them the ability to introduce a tax on the product. This would be very beneficial for the community in reducing the impact of funding requirements for initiatives to help prevent, treat and care for those that require substance use and abuse related services.

Back to the topic, I have not had a lot to do with LSD or similar, but I have undergone an ibogaine detox from heroin and am very keen to see more research undertaken on this particular drug, I only hope that the voices of respected drugs of dependency experts, advocates and users are loud enough for our governments to hear our cry for help and deliver on their policies of implementing strategies that are backed up by research and are recognised as successful options for harm reduction, treatment and recovery.

If only more legislators, practitioners and politicians were to open their eyes and ears and look at the statistics, research and actual outcomes that other countries have acheived by enacting programs that work, that are focused on actual recovery rather than limited long term maintenace or abstinence based treatment that is proven not to work for everyone. I admire Dr Nutt and his desire and determination to publish and provide commentary based on fact, and demonstrated experience

 

Of course When you have taken a drug you know you are on it. However in drug research and studies I understand that there are protocols and processes followed (where the patients don't know if they are on the drug or the placebo)

Perhaps, but psychedelics are the kind of drug where placebos don't really work - it's pretty obvious soon enough whether you are on a psychedelic drug or not.

 

The lsd group will know they not placebo group when the drug kicks in but some of the placebo group will no doubt think they are seeing things out the corner of their eye etc.. Not that that really matters anyway. The placebo group is there to be tested as if they were the experimental group in order to give you a set of data for each group. The experimental data are then divided by the placebo data (divided may sound like a funny term but its actually not that far off) to determine effect size and significance. Most importantly this method also functions to subtract out the non drug components of the behaviour of the drug group. The subjects given the drug will also be highly effected by the situation - so obvious yet surprisingly easy to overlook.

 

But what "effects" are you hoping the placebos will model?

Placebos work with drugs that have long-term or no effects, for a drug that has the universe exploding around you within 45 minutes I'm not sure what their value is.

 

I'm not sure what similarity this has to the psilocybin state. Has Nutt ever actually taken mushrooms or is he just going on strories he heard? I think this is where the "research" into psychedelics has always turned to shit. People who've never taken it are convinced it's like "being mad".

I wish there was a researcher who actually understood the state before he tried doing research into it.

Watch the DOC "the medicine, Science and Psychedelics".

Theres plenty of researchers out there that realize the whole psychotomimmetic theory about psychedelics is unvalidated by the facts. That doesn't mean its not possible, just to claim it does so, requires evidence. Just like claims about unlocking the mystery of the brain, medicinal uses for anxiety, depression, etc. require the same burden of proof for those kind of claims.

 

But what "effects" are you hoping the placebos will model?

Placebos work with drugs that have long-term or no effects, for a drug that has the universe exploding around you within 45 minutes I'm not sure what their value is.

Say i get funding to do a study and i my lsd group has an average anxiety increase of 30%. Was this the lsd? Without a control group i can't tell. Maybe lsd caused these peoples anxiety to increase or maybe it was being taken down to the dimly lit basement of a psychiatric ward and being stuck with a needle by someone who looks like nurse ratchett. If its the latter then your placebo group will go up 30% too since you did the same to them. Neat innit.

 

But LSD isn't an anti-anxiety medication is it?

If its the latter then your placebo group will go up 30% too since you did the same to them.

No they wouldn't because they'd all know they havn't had LSD. Placebos are useful when you don't know that you've had the drug or not. That's the key to the whole theory. If you're absolutely certain you havn't had LSD - which you would be - then there's no placebo effect to examine. Y'follow?

 

That's the key to the whole theory. If you're absolutely certain you havn't had LSD - which you would be - then there's no placebo effect to examine. Y'follow?

Ok whats going on is we are confusing the placebo effect with the placebo group. Placebo group is actually better referred to as the control group for this reason. The placebo effect that you are thinking of constitutes a very small fraction of the total amount of "experimental error" inherent in every experimental set up.

 

In what sense are you applying the term "placebo" to LSD tho? How can you have a placebo group when it's blatantly obvious whether or not you've taken the drug? What value does it serve?