[bluedanieru]

It's really irritating when scientists "rediscover" what people have known for years. Yes of course psilocybin can give people intense, potentially life-changing experiences. Did you think we were making all that shit up?

And it's not even that there is now empirical evidence to make it "true." These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments.

[spot]

This is (good) news for two reasons. 1) The evidence is now much better. The old studies weren't double blind and were otherwise flawed procedurally. 2) The government (many agencies) approved of the studies after decades of denials. EDIT: plus reason 3) demonstrating lack of negative side-effects.

The scientists who are behind them have made significant (to put it mildly) sacrifices to advance a cause that you will benefit from. "Irritation" is an ungracious reaction (to put it mildly).

[FluidDjango]

"...what people have >>known<< for years"

Well: some people. And "known" from their own uncontrolled (in the scientific sense) trials.

Seems to me that the important thing in this report is the systematic research using controlled studies.

Perhaps most helpful was the evidence that side-effects or negative reactions were quite infrequent and were manageable by attendants (aka "guides" in the 60s). Those types of findings might eventually open the door for public funding of research (note that most studies were funded by psychedelic-sympathetic agencies).

[Alex3917]

"These guys aren't the first to do these sorts of experiments."

Actually they are the first to do most of them. Back in the 60s they used to use LSD, which they no longer use because it's too long lasting and also because of its bad reputation. We also now have an empirically derived mysticism scale which wasn't available in the 60s, as well as a bunch of new methodologies that are much tighter than what they were using for the good friday experiments.

Not to mention that in the 60s the studies they were doing weren't on end-of-life anxiety, and it wasn't even known that ego death was the key mediating variable.

edit: And, most importantly, the reason they're doing these experiments is to get psilocybin approved as a drug by the FDA. And I somehow doubt the argument that because LSD had some similar benefits in minimally controlled trials 50 years ago, that psilocybin should now be moved to schedule 3 without safety or efficacy testing.

[philwelch]

"empirically derived mysticism scale"

I want to hear more about this.

[Alex3917]

I'm not an expert on this, but here is a link to one of the studies:

http://csp.org/experience/docs/hood_dimensions.html

If you went and searched Google Scholar or JSTOR I'm sure you could find the rest of the papers based on that. I'm pretty sure that Roland Griffiths also mentions it here:

http://premium.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/entry/2009-01-11T2...

[moron4hire]

Well, what's irritating to me is the reason they've had to "rediscover" it: the prohibitions our government imposes on what private individuals do to their own bodies.

[NEPatriot]

As far as drugs go... Our bodies belong to Pfizer/Merc. Commercialization of drugs.

[NEPatriot]

You need a piece of paper (degree) from an educational institution to make these claims. Otherwise you get arrested/have serious problems. Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery".

[wdewind]

"Shaman/Medicine men have been having visions for years and using substances to get closer to nature since humankind started - agree with your point about "rediscovery"."

So have completely insane people. If only we had some way to tell when people were full of shit...oh wait, thanks science!

[rosser]

In the case of most pharmaceuticals, the best science can tell us is that this chemical correlates with that effect. We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake -- just that it does it. The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials. (Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works, however anathema it may be to the traditional Western mindset.)

[nollidge]

> We still don't know how aspirin does what it does for chrissake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin

> The only difference between that and a shaman is clinical trials.

Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions, toxicity profile, half-life, chemical formula, side-effects...

> Except, of course, that the shaman actually has an explanation for how his medicine works

This merely proves that anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story.

[rosser]

re: the MoA of aspirin, I stand corrected; thank you.

Yeah, man, totally. Well, that and safe dosage, drug interactions...

I only have direct experience with ayahuasca shamanism, but for that case, they do have most of those things, as well as demonstrable, and reproducible, curative effects, and have reportedly had them for thousands of years. (Obviously, that last isn't a claim I can very well verify.)

...anyone anywhere can invent a just-so story.

Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't.

Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.

[wdewind]

'1) Just so, and I didn't mean to imply that I personally believe the shamans' version of how their medicine works. Regardless of their beliefs, mine, or anyone else's, however, it does; there's no way people would continue to come back, over millennia, to what can be one of the most harrowing experiences I can conceive, if it didn't.

2) Moreover, there are documented studies, done by genuine lab-coat-wearing scientist types, with measured doses and control groups and everything, that detail its effects, and its unambiguous efficacy. It's only the prevailing sentiment towards psychedelic compounds, and the restrictions on their study that engenders, that have prevented the kind of exploration I think we'd both like to see -- which is the point TFA was making in the first place.'

1) You're talking about a very small number of people, relatively speaking, over a very long period of time, compounded with a lot of mostly second hand, passed down knowledge that has absolutely no recorded data, ie: at best a ton of correlation without causation (correct me if I'm wrong). Humans have been wrong many times before like this, and for just as long, under similar circumstances.

2) You're talking about something very specific, reproducible, and testable. I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but there is a very real and demonstrably greater value to this kind of information.

[MichaelGG]

Shamans also use things like ayahuasca, which is a MAOI and thus can have lethal interactions with other things. That might be somewhat related to the whole need for "legitimate" study.

[rosser]

The shamans who lead ayahuasca ceremonies are usually rather strict about who they'll let participate -- particularly if they're dealing with people from the first world, and the panoply of chemicals we put in our bodies. When I went to Peru to drink aya, we were specifically disallowed to take any Western medicines, except an anti-malarial, without consulting the shaman first (and had to discontinue use of them weeks before going down there), leaving completely aside the strict dietary and other restrictions during and for some time after the trip.

They've been doing this for thousands of years; I'm pretty sure they have far a better idea of the risks than your comment seems to me to intimate. (Assuming, of course, that they aren't just brujos, there primarily to take the gringo's money. That's not a problem with the medicine as much as it is with the practitioner, however. Even then, they likely know the risks very well; they simply ignore them. As with everything else, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies.)

[nollidge]

Caveat emptor, indeed. If only there were some sort of rational method of inquiry involving painstaking scrutiny and freely published libraries of results were available to help consumers decide.

[r0s]

The slight change in political climate that justifies empirical observation is very hypocritical to be sure. I think the motives behind prohibition of these substances is interesting, and is quite telling in regard to our society. One under appreciated aspect is the overwhelming religiousness of psychedelic experiences, with history as long as society itself. Such that it presents a problem to any religious philosophy that will not accept "drugs" as genuine supernatural tools, because psychedelic effects can therefore be understood through science or objective observation. And therefore all human spiritual phenomena is subject to that same scrutiny. I think this creates an unconscious dichotomy in the mind of the average person. In my personal experience this was a profound disillusionment, and well worth the perceived risk 'recreational' use implies.