[MichaelMoser123]

>So I don't really see your point

here it says that you have a significant chance to develop schizophrenia after a substance induced psychosis event (18,478 cases examined)

https://www.psychiatrist.com/JCP/article/Pages/2013/v74n01/v...

Results: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%–57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%–46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%–5.5%).

let the downvotes start.

[Noseshine]

You have to get a "psychosis event" in the first place. Conditional probability, only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem. You leave out some vital information, without it the percentages and risks you mention are meaningless. As a (university researcher inner medicine) doctor I know used to say: There have been cases of severe side-effects from placebos... meaning just mentioning something can have bad effects is meaningless without more information.

  > let the downvotes start.

Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about. It isn't even clear to me what your point is, if there is one. It's a carefully selected piece of information that just by itself doesn't say anything useful in the context of this discussion.

[MichaelMoser123]

> only a small subset of people taking "substances" ever have that problem

still you can't say there is no problem at all.

Lets count: the population of Finland is 5.5 million; 18000 cases makes 1/3 percent of the general population - a significant number (not known if all cases have been considered by this study, lets assume they have - i would assume that half of the cases would not be reported at all, but lets skip that), lets assume that five percent of the population have taken drugs - then 1/15 users would get one.

>Should you get them it isn't about what you think it is about

No, there is such a thing as collective bias. lets not pretend that it doesn't exist.

[Noseshine]

  > still you can't say there is no problem at all.

Strawman. First, I indeed didn't say it, so what is the reason you bring it up, except to create a distraction?

Second, see what I already wrote. Also to your last sentence - you just yell "bias" before anything even happened. Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/02/finland-tops-european-cou...).

[MichaelMoser123]

>Strawman...

Sorry, i was referring to the parent poster by TheSpiceIsLife.

> Then you add a lot of your own interpretation, without any evidence, to some selected numbers from a single study of a special country: Finland is not exactly the normal case in this context (for example: http://www.euronews.com/2015/07

i didn't make anything up, that's called extrapolation. Actually in many job interviews they ask for that.

Am I always supposed to ask for your permission when interpreting some data points? Thanks Sir; i don't think so.

2 + 2 still makes 4 , that doesn't depend upon your mood. 18.000+ cases in a population of 5.5 million is a significant number, you can't put that away. Just because you got enough penie points here to mod me down doesn't make you automatically right.

> you just yell "bias" before anything even happened

Just enough to look at the parent poster - downvoted to oblivion. Also i wonder how everybody here is so unanimously positive about the subject - every other voice has been purged out (including my contribution) ; wonder why that happened...

[wfo]

You have been downvoted (at least by me) because your argument is poorly constructed and poorly written, not because you disagree. In my experience this is usually the case on HN.

Conspiracy theories and suspecting the rest of the community is 'out to get you' or interested in 'silencing' you is sure incendiary but the truth is usually far more boring. Present a careful reasoned argument and people will appreciate it, even if they disagree. Saying "rarely drugs have bad side effects!!!" (without introducing context and comparing the safety of these drugs to OTC medication and currently legal drugs) is true but it isn't a real argument or piece of information, it's just FUD.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I only mean to support the idea that research of plant / fungus based substances shouldn't be zero.

Everyone getting off-chops on drugs all the time is clearly a bad idea. But evem most drug and alcohol users self-regulate, so there's that.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I think your using the figures here in a non-standard way.

The 18,000 cases were reported over a 16 year period (1987 - 2003).

You should annualise these data so we can talk of cases per year, otherwise you can just expand the reporting period to further suit your narrative.

[slfnflctd]

I think you raise a valid concern. Inducement or exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms is probably the most troubling and widely reported problem with these drugs. The famous case of Syd Barrett comes to mind. There are many such anecdotes, and I myself saw something similar first hand (the individual in question eventually got better, but it took a few months). However, considering the potential upside, to me this makes it even more important to do extensive research on all of it.

Oh, and a quick note-- the only 'psychedelic' drug mentioned in the study you cited is cannabis, which from everything I've read doesn't even begin to compare to the more powerful psychoactives. Funny enough, it is the one we have the strongest link to psychosis for, but this could only be because it's been so much more widely used and studied. It seems obvious that more study is needed, insofar as it can be done ethically.