Magic Mushrooms may help alleviate depression

donegaLroad

A hallucinogenic chemical in magic mushrooms shows promise for people with untreatable depression, a short study on just 12 people hints.

Eight patients were no longer depressed after the "mystical and spiritual" experience induced by the drug.

The findings, in the Lancet Psychiatry, showed five of the patients were still depression-free after three months.

Experts cautiously welcomed the findings as "promising, but not completely compelling".

There have now been calls for the drug to be tested in larger trials.

I think it is good news if it is true... big pharma may not be happy though




Full article here

AnonoBoy

Promising but....

Didn't they find in the 1960's that LSD helped cure psychopathic murderers?

But it only worked while they were on LSD so as soon as they were "cured" and released they just went right back on killing?

donegaLroad

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Promising but....

Didn't they find in the 1960's that LSD helped cure psychopathic murderers?

But it only worked while they were on LSD so as soon as they were "cured" and released they just went right back on killing?

yes but mushrooms are organic, LSD is synthesised.

All other prescribed medication for depression is synthesised.

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

drunkmonkey

*May also help you make love to a Luas

smash

Do you have to be depressed to sign up for a trial?

SEPT 23 1989

jump starting the aul synapses

AnonoBoy

donegaLroad wrote: »

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

I dunno. I just like the idea that I can con my way into getting a big heap off magic mushrooms off my GP.

Badly Drunk Boy

donegaLroad wrote: »

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

Is this why mushrooms come into season before the winter? A preemptive strike against Seasonal Affective Disorder?

I hate mushrooms but I try not to let it depress me.

Jayop

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I dunno. I just like the idea that I can con my way into getting a big heap off magic mushrooms off my GP.

Or you could go to the golf course and get a big heap of them without bothering your gp.

What is most positive about this is the fact the effects from two doses lasted up to 5 months. Amazing compared to the pill popping you have to do with conventional anti depressants.

Also striking was the hoops the had to jump through and the cost they had because it's considered illegal. £1500 per patient for something that grows wild. Amazing.

endacl

Hemlock is organic. I wouldn't be adding it to a salad though...

donegaLroad

donegaLroad wrote: »

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Promising but....

Didn't they find in the 1960's that LSD helped cure psychopathic murderers?

But it only worked while they were on LSD so as soon as they were "cured" and released they just went right back on killing?

yes but mushrooms are organic, LSD is synthesised.

All other prescribed medication for depression is synthesised.

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

LSD is organic too, only contains H, C, N and O.

The organic you are referring to is just a marketing term to allow a premium price in supermarkets for nothing in return.

A lot of medicine comes from " mother nature" just not in in a natural state ie either extracted or a synthetic mimic.

Tipperary Fairy

I believe he was using it for its meaning of naturally occurring. Mushrooms grow naturally, lsd does not.

sbsquarepants

jh79 wrote: »

LSD is organic too, only contains H, C, N and O.

The organic you are referring to is just a marketing term to allow a premium price in supermarkets for nothing in return.

A lot of medicine comes from " mother nature" just not in in a natural state ie either extracted or a synthetic mimic.

"100% natural" - if ever there was a term that means precisely nothing, yet millions swear by it like some form of mantra. I have this same row with the missus all the time - it's 100% natural - well big swinging mickeys, so is syphilis, that doesn't mean it's good for you!
Absolutely everything comes from mother nature, everything from organic quinoa to the international space station, mother nature produced every last subatomic particle, even the ones we don't know are there yet - the universe only has one supplier:)

AnonoBoy

Jayop wrote: »

Or you could go to the golf course and get a big heap of them without bothering your gp.

Jaysus - me back would be killed. My picking days are long past me.

Also - the mushies you used to be able to buy in headshops were far superior to the ones that grew naturally in Ireland.

imitation

donegaLroad wrote: »

yes but mushrooms are organic, LSD is synthesised.

All other prescribed medication for depression is synthesised.

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

Technically everything is natural occurring aside from elements created in nuclear reactors.

If these Shrooms proved to be a good cure and the active agent was a straightforward chemical you can bet your bottom dollar it will be made in dirty big tanks at some factory rather than by a 80 year old farmer high up in the Tibetian mountains or whatever.

weisses

sbsquarepants wrote: »

"100% natural" - if ever there was a term that means precisely nothing, yet millions swear by it like some form of mantra. I have this same row with the missus all the time - it's 100% natural - well big swinging mickeys, so is syphilis, that doesn't mean it's good for you!
Absolutely everything comes from mother nature, everything from organic quinoa to the international space station, mother nature produced every last subatomic particle, even the ones we don't know are there yet - the universe only has one supplier:)

WOW didnt know we had an organic space station ...... Or maybe Im trippin

VisibleGorilla

Mushrooms help depression, Marijuana helps cancer patients and whole host of other problems, MDMA helps PTSD.

Yet all are still illegal, absolute madness.

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I believe he was using it for its meaning of naturally occurring. Mushrooms grow naturally, lsd does not.

A distinction that has no relevance.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

A distinction that has no relevance.

I'm afraid it does

Unless you can show me where I can go to forage LSD

runawaybishop

a short study on just 12 people hints

absolutely nothing of worth. A peer reviewed study on 1k people over 5 years maybe.

Also the whole "its natural" argument is stupid and should be taken out the back and shot.

ScumLord

donegaLroad wrote: »

Doesn't it seem logical that mother nature may provide a better solution to the problem?

NO, that's not really logical at all. Nature didn't make mushrooms magic to cure depression in humans. It's merely a coincidence that mushrooms have the effects they do on humans. That often means natural sources of mind altering substances contain many other chemicals that aren't related to getting high at all. It's much better to get an exact amount of the specifica chemicals desired from a doctor who can monitor you.

Jayop wrote: »

What is most positive about this is the fact the effects from two doses lasted up to 5 months. Amazing compared to the pill popping you have to do with conventional anti depressants.

That's because antidepressants are likely working a completely different way. I don't think psychedelics change the brain chemistry in the same way as antidepressants. Antidepressants are trying encourage a normal chemical balance in the brain. Psychedelics are breaking down the brain's normal functions allowing perceptions to be confronted and changed. Antidepressants are classic medication trying to get the body to operate normally. Psychedelics are more like a journey, they're not doing anything to make you better, they're just giving the user the opportunity to see something without prejudice, nothing physically changes, just the person's perception.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I'm afraid it does

Unless you can show me where I can go to forage LSD

The study used a standardised extract, so foraging is out of the question.

So why do you think this distinction is important?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The study used a standardised extract, so foraging is out of the question.

So why do you think this distinction is important?

This could work by just using the Mushroom ... Can we say the same for LSD ? I think not

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lsd2.htm

weisses

weisses wrote: »

This could work by just using the Mushroom ... Can we say the same for LSD ? I think not

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lsd2.htm

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

The article says the extract was similar to lot of mushrooms and the concentration varies by mushroom so might not be as easy as you think and if your not a professional chemist you shouldn't be making LSD. Once synthesised the structure and purity can be verified.

Bottom line is that being "naturally occurring" is not indicative of medicinal properties so therefore isn't relevant.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Bottom line is that being "naturally occurring" is not indicative of medicinal properties so therefore isn't relevant.

No, and doctors just won't ever say the thing you picked in the field is medicine. As far as they're concerned medicine comes from a lab or it's not medicine, and that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I've had both magic mushrooms and LSD and they can be very powerful chemicals.

I'd be very careful about taking either one when depressed to be honest, as they can open up a whole new range of problems.

Jayop

ScumLord wrote: »

.

That's because antidepressants are likely working a completely different way. I don't think psychedelics change the brain chemistry in the same way as antidepressants. Antidepressants are trying encourage a normal chemical balance in the brain. Psychedelics are breaking down the brain's normal functions allowing perceptions to be confronted and changed. Antidepressants are classic medication trying to get the body to operate normally. Psychedelics are more like a journey, they're not doing anything to make you better, they're just giving the user the opportunity to see something without prejudice, nothing physically changes, just the person's perception.

Doesn't change the fact that in this short study 2 doses did more for these particular people than what a dose of 3 zanex tablets a day for 5 months did. (example I pulled from my ass). Just because something works differently doesn't mean it can't be more effective.

I'm slightly skeptical in general about alternative medicines and would prefer to go to my doctor should one of my kids be I'll, but I do feel that there's been a deliberate lack of studies into the positive effects of illegal drugs and the reason is they'd prefer to continue with the ridiculous scare mongering.

Personally I don't like tripping, tried it when I was young a few times and never had a good time but I'd love to see a full study commissioned now to see if these results can be repeated on a bigger scale. The problem lies in who will pay for the study. Can't see Pfizer or Lilly stumping for this survey or any on cannabis.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

The article says the extract was similar to lot of mushrooms and the concentration varies by mushroom so might not be as easy as you think and if your not a professional chemist you shouldn't be making LSD. Once synthesised the structure and purity can be verified.

Bottom line is that being "naturally occurring" is not indicative of medicinal properties so therefore isn't relevant.

To be fair, the only reason it was done like that was because of regulations and licensing. Read what Nutt said about it.

Jayop

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've had both magic mushrooms and LSD and they can be very powerful chemicals.

I'd be very careful about taking either one when depressed to be honest, as they can open up a whole new range of problems.

I'm not a fan either. The big control here wasn't the fact it was in capsule form, it was the environment they created when the patient was taking the drug.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

To be fair, the only reason it was done like that was because of regulations and licensing. Read what Nutt said about it.

The link in the OP doesn't say that.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

The link in the OP doesn't say that.

Take from it what you want. How else could it be done for £30 per patient?

ScumLord

Jayop wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that in this short study 2 doses did more for these particular people than what a dose of 3 zanex tablets a day for 5 months did. (example I pulled from my ass). Just because something works differently doesn't mean it can't be more effective.

It might work for these two people and send the next two into a delusional state they find it hard to recover from. Although I think under medical supervision negative reactions could be limited. That's the real problem with using a drug like this in medicine, the reactions could be wildly different from one person to another. Unlike a drug like penicillin where the drug does something specific, the doctors would be depending on how the patient reacts to the drug. I'd see psychedelics as somewhere in between counseling and real medication.

I'm slightly skeptical in general about alternative medicines and would prefer to go to my doctor should one of my kids be I'll, but I do feel that there's been a deliberate lack of studies into the positive effects of illegal drugs and the reason is they'd prefer to continue with the ridiculous scare mongering.

There definitely is. They're illegal drugs, no one wants to be associated with them and there's going to be problems copyrighting them too.

Jayop

ScumLord wrote: »

It might work for these two people and send the next two into a delusional state they find it hard to recover from. Although I think under medical supervision negative reactions could be limited. That's the real problem with using a drug like this in medicine, the reactions could be wildly different from one person to another. Unlike a drug like penicillin where the drug does something specific, the doctors would be depending on how the patient reacts to the drug. I'd see psychedelics as somewhere in between counseling and real medication.

There definitely is. They're illegal drugs, no one wants to be associated with them and there's going to be problems copyrighting them too.

Like I said I'm not a fan of psychedelics.

Also, wasn't ecstasy originally created to help with marriage counseling?

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

Take from it what you want. How else could it be done for £30 per patient?

Wouldn't make sense to give uncontrolled doses so doubt that what they are referring to.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Wouldn't make sense to give uncontrolled doses so doubt that what they are referring to.

Please explain to me how else you could do this for the quoted 30 per patient?

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

To be fair, the only reason it was done like that was because of regulations and licensing. Read what Nutt said about it.

to be fair, the only reason it was done like that is so the patients get a known dose of whatever the active ingredient is. which is important if you want to draw any conclusions from the study.

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

It might work for these two people and send the next two into a delusional state they find it hard to recover from. Although I think under medical supervision negative reactions could be limited. That's the real problem with using a drug like this in medicine, the reactions could be wildly different from one person to another. Unlike a drug like penicillin where the drug does something specific, the doctors would be depending on how the patient reacts to the drug. I'd see psychedelics as somewhere in between counseling and real medication.

There definitely is. They're illegal drugs, no one wants to be associated with them and there's going to be problems copyrighting them too.

Yeah because taking prescription drugs to tackle the side effects of another prescription drug is the proper way

sbsquarepants

Aren't they also a supposed cure for cluster headaches?

And I can say with 100% certainty, that from my own personal research they are very effective at transforming a monologue on your sofa into a dialogue with your sofa. Not sure of the medical benefits of sofa conversations but they do pass a Friday night.
Long story short - is there anything they can't do!:p

Maximus Alexander

sbsquarepants wrote: »

"100% natural" - if ever there was a term that means precisely nothing, yet millions swear by it like some form of mantra. I have this same row with the missus all the time - it's 100% natural - well big swinging mickeys, so is syphilis, that doesn't mean it's good for you!
Absolutely everything comes from mother nature, everything from organic quinoa to the international space station, mother nature produced every last subatomic particle, even the ones we don't know are there yet - the universe only has one supplier:)

Finally someone who won't look at me cross-eyed when I say things like "Everything we manufacture and build is 'natural'".

ScumLord

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Finally someone who won't look at me cross-eyed when I say things like "Everything we manufacture and build is 'natural'".

Yes, and pretty much everything you eat is processed to some degree.

Ruu

Didn't do so well for Mary Moran.

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to be fair, the only reason it was done like that is so the patients get a known dose of whatever the active ingredient is. which is important if you want to draw any conclusions from the study.

Please tell me how you would extract or manufacture the drug to an exact known dose for 30 quid?

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

Please tell me how you would extract or manufacture the drug to an exact known dose for 30 quid?

well manufacturing a drug to an exact known dose is kinda what chemical engineering is all about. and they didnt say it cost £30. They said it "might have cost £30" without the red tape. you are obsessed with this figure of £30 though. what relevance do you think it has?

"it cost £1,500 to dose each patient, when in any sane world it might have cost £30".

the evasion_kid

They only ever made me feel like jelly.. Didn't like the buzz off them at all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40FiMy-ak0k

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well manufacturing a drug to an exact known dose is kinda what chemical engineering is all about. and they didnt say it cost £30. They said it "might have cost £30" without the red tape. you are obsessed with this figure of £30 though. what relevance do you think it has?

I'm not obsessed at all. I. Made a point and two people argued it so I was discussing the point. Hardly obsessed.

Without the red tape they could have taken the mushrooms as they are without need for chemical engineering. That's the only logical way Nutt could arrive at such a low figure even if it was off the cuff.

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

I'm not obsessed at all. I. Made a point and two people argued it so I was discussing the point. Hardly obsessed.

Without the red tape they could have taken the mushrooms as they are without need for chemical engineering. That's the only logical way Nutt could arrive at such a low figure even if it was off the cuff.

are you trying to say that they gave them mushrooms instead of just the active ingredient? the article is quite clear

The study, at Imperial College London, initially gave patients a low dose of psilocybin, the hallucinogenic chemical in magic mushrooms, to test for safety.

i think it is quite clear that they did not give them magic mushrooms. how else would they know how much of the active ingredient was in each dose?

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you trying to say that they gave them mushrooms instead of just the active ingredient? the article is quite clear



i think it is quite clear that they did not give them magic mushrooms. how else would they know how much of the active ingredient was in each dose?

If you were half as good at reading as you are at being critical and calling people obsessed it would be a start.

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

If you were half as good at reading as you are at being critical and calling people obsessed it would be a start.

i think its pretty clear where the reading comprehension problem is.

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think its pretty clear where the reading comprehension problem is.

I said...

"Without the red tape they could have taken the mushrooms as they are"

... And somehow you took it to mean me saying they did take the mushrooms as they were.

Seriously it's not a difficult sentence.

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

I said...

"Without the red tape they could have taken the mushrooms as they are"

... And somehow you took it to mean me saying they did take the mushrooms as they were.

Seriously it's not a difficult sentence.

and has already been explained to you taking the mushrooms as they are was never a possibility as they would have no idea how much of the active ingredient each subject was getting. how do you not understand that? Its not a difficult concept.

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and has already been explained to you taking the mushrooms as they are was never a possibility as they would have no idea how much of the active ingredient each subject was getting. how do you not understand that? Its not a difficult concept.

Explained to me? By whom? Someone on a forum who decided they know everything about it despite the limited information. How do you know the researchers wouldn't have liked to use the natural mushroom but weren't allowed?

Someone guessing isn't solid information that I base my knowledge on.