I think there is a misunderstanding about the therapeutic effects of psychedelics. The drugs themselves may alter physical structure in your brain a little bit - but what they really do is temporarily give you a different perspective - they change your point of view. That skewing of perspective is (I believe) where the therapeutic effect from these drugs arises.
If you are deeply curious about these types of drugs, you need to remember that they all wear off eventually. Lots of very smart and happy people have taken these drugs and experienced no harm.
This is somewhere between "False" and "So misleading about an astronomically small risk that we should just treat it as False".
Driving or riding in a car is a more likely cause of PTSD - you might be involved in a horrific crash.
Nothing in this world is risk free, but if we dropped the cultural stigma and history, and these were just discovered by Pfizer today and went through regular FDA processes, this class of drugs would have a risk profile lower than SSRIs, benzodiazepines, and most other drugs used for psychiatric purposes.
Have you known at least a few people who have taken psychedelics, then had a chance to see how they are doing in the years afterwards?
The harm is much more apparent to observers than it is to the psychedelic user him or herself.
If I'm wrong about psychedelics, I'm wrong in my claim that they routinely cause PTSD specifically, not about the claim that they routinely cause some kind of long-term harm. I admit that they also often improve people, including people whose psychedelic use was unsupervised. I.e., I'm making a statistical claim, not a categorical one.
I get my PTSD claim from Dr K of the "Healthy Gamer" YT channel, who is a Harvard-train psychiatrist. I can provide a citation if there is interest.
Tales of a person's life and level of functioning steeply declining after taking a psychedelic, then staying that way for years, are common, e.g., on this web site over the years. Here is one example, and yes, I realize that in the same comment section are people who claim to have been helped by psychedelic use.
If we ignore what people say about their own experience with psychedelics and focus only on what people say about people they have known who have taken the drugs, the reports are overwhelming negative unless the reports are by researchers and clinicians reporting on psychedelic use in which the entire experience is supervised by a skilled therapist (which I do not criticize).
P.S., benzos and SSRIs are both bad drugs that do more harm than good, IMHO, so your assertion that psychedelics are better than them is not saying much.
long time lurker but created an account to reply here. i've taken plenty of psychedelics from around 18 y/o on a regular basis (once or twice every other month with frequent breaks of several months and then more intense periods of heavier usage) until i was about 29 and lost interest. i've tried DMT, LSD (my favorite. have done large doses of 800 microgram), different kind of shrooms...
drugs have repeatedly given me profound and connected experiences. it makes you feel connected with people and the world because your ego is reduced and you let everything in your surroundings fill you up instead. your mental barriers and preconcieved notions fall apart and you just accept what is happening around you.
I know several people with hereditary mental health disorders who's ailments have been trigger by drug use but i don't think you can blame the drugs here. a traumatic experience could trigger it too.
while i would not call my self and addict, i was a thrill seeker in my younger years for sure. today i'm a successful SWE, homeowner in a major western city and have a loving partner. plenty of my friends who were with me doing these drugs have similar lives today.
> I know several people with hereditary mental health disorders who's ailments have been trigger by drug use but i don't think you can blame the drugs here. a traumatic experience could trigger it too.
If they had a 50% chance of developing the disorder without taking the drug and an 80% chance of developing it with the drug (for example) of course you can blame it. There has to be some nuance here: these drugs are not nearly as dangerous as many make them out to be, but they are not without risk either. People can be seriously harmed by them, or, more likely, just have a bad time.
> these drugs are not nearly as dangerous as many make them out to be, but they are not without risk either
yes i agree. my girlfriend has never done any drugs except alcohol, weed (handful of times) and prescribed drugs from the dr. i have never recommend her to try psychedelics but I am always honest about what a massive positive impact it had on my life. i would consider myself depressed when i was in my teens. psychedelics (and meditation, philosophy books, and thought provoking conversations) helped me break out of my mental prison. if you treat drugs like a tool, like you would a sharp knife, you can unlock beautiful things -- but the knife might cut you.
just like with most things in life - leaving the safety of your home carries a certain risk. when you're swimming there is a risk you'll drown. bouldering, climbing can cause you to fall and break your neck. driving on the motorway has a relatively high chance of causing you a premature death. i can go on...
the people i know who's mental health issues have been excaberated by drugs are minimal compared to the ones i know who have used drugs and are perfectly normal people. some folks were heavy psychedelic / mdma users but you would never know that if you met them on the street or had a conversation with them...
You are overstating or overgeneralizing the strength of psychedelics as a class of drug. Most people who take them are not taking enough to produce a PTSD-level response.
I developed PTSD after my finding my 3yo son floating in a pool face down (I luckily saved and revived him - he's fine now) and it would take a very intense psychedelic experience to come anywhere close to that kind of emotional content.
Claiming the entire class of drugs are a potent cause of PTSD rings of reefer madness propaganda to me.
>the entire class of drugs are a potent cause of PTSD
That is indeed my claim. More precisely, it is my secondary claim that (like I say in a cousin comment) I am less confident of than my primary claim that psychedelics are a potent cause of some sort of long-term severe harm.
A person's having had PTSD does not automatically make the person an expert on what sorts of experiences can be traumatizing. There is more to it than the just the intensity of the emotions. PTSD is very complicated and difficult to understand (which is why many with PTSD have no clue that they even have it).
Dr K says BTW that it is the loss of the sense of self that can be traumatizing in psychedelic use.
Ehh. I've done mushrooms, lsd, etc. about once to three times a year pretty much my whole adult life (decades). I find it fun. I have a relaxed good time with like minded friends and that's it. I think the whole "mind awakening" nonsense is just as much nonsense as the PTSD or worse folks. Perhaps someone with underlying severe mental health issues might experience things differently. But for folks in a pretty healthy headspace, it's just a recreational drug with extremely low addiction potential and zero hang over. What's not to like?
PTSD is not usually what happens when taken without supervision either. I think there's a large chasm of experiences between lifelong healing and lifelong damage with regard to psychedelics.
I have pretty limited experience with it and came to the conclusion that it's not for me. But of the people I know who do them or have at one time, I don't think I know anyone whose life has been changed by them.
All of the nay-sayers in the comments here are thinking about this from the POV of a person who reached intellectual maturity without LLMs and now use it as a force multiplier, and rightly so.
However, I think that take is too short-sighted and doesn't take into account the effect that these products have on minds that have not yet reached maturity. What happens when you've been using ChatGPT since grade school and have effectively offloaded all the hard stuff to AI through college? Those people won't be using it as a force multiplier - they will be using it to perform basic tasks. Ray-Ban sells glasses now with LLMs built in with a camera and microphone so you can constantly interact with it all day. What happens when everyone has one of these devices and use it for everything?
I think you are looking at this from a too-narrow lens. What happens when people have ChatGPT built into their eyeglasses and they use it for literally everything. Ray-Ban is already selling this as a product.
Boot-camp grads are not self-taught, they went to a boot-camp. Boot-camp people are career opportunists. Nothing wrong with career opportunists, just saying that they are different than a self-taught dev.
Those kinds of thought processes are the kinds that produce value.
Deciding what to build and how to build it is often harder than building.
What LLMs of today do is basically super-autocomplete. It's a continuation of the history of programming automation: compilers, more advanced compilers, IDEs, code generators, LINTers, autocomplete, codeinsight, etc.
Note that we see a lot of complex polyaromatic hydrocarbons in interstellar dust across the galaxy. And we know these can sometimes have quite long alkane chains attached or "inside". I don't think we can rule out stuff like that decomposing at those GC/MS conditions and giving the same signal. And that's even before the leap to fatty acids which may or may not have a biological origin.
There is sufficient circumstantial evidence for bacterial life on Mars.
The (perhaps religiously) conservative science establishment refuses to conclusively accept it.
When a robotic mission is sent to Mars with the express purpose of finding current life, then it will become obvious that hardened bacteria spores not only survive in our solar system's space, but thrive in the most difficult environments. And what about that stuff growing outside the international space station?
The question about why certain bacteria on earth are very resistant to the sun's harmful radiation is waiting to be solved.
The threat to some of the world's religions is the hypothesis that the simplest life did not originate on this planet first. So what?
Eh, religions have to dispel a dozen graver epistemic threats than that before breakfast every morning. If and when evidence of extraterrestrial life is found, religious people will adapt their beliefs to accommodate it and retcon it, just like they always have.
It's what they've done, very successfully, ever since they had to stop burning heretics at the stake.
>adapt their beliefs to accommodate it and retcon it
I believe this is called “learning” in common nomenclature. They do the same thing in science very regularly, and it’s a pretty obvious part of discovering the world around you.
setting up your own local mirror is pretty easy. You set your docker to pull from your local network registry and you configure the registry to pull from the public repo if the requested image isn't found.
If you are deeply curious about these types of drugs, you need to remember that they all wear off eventually. Lots of very smart and happy people have taken these drugs and experienced no harm.