[yieldcrv]

So, I think that is too dismissive, while I think the psychedelic proponents are too exuberant

Basically, I don't think the categorization matters. Like are these entities things always here and perceived if we access a certain plane, or are these mere configurations and figments of our brain that can be repeated. To me, thats not important. Its important if the reconfiguration of the brain is useful, therapeutic, repeatable, what side effects are there, whats going on with people predisposed to schizophrenia that psychedelics seem to exacerbate permanently. What’s going on with floaters/HPPD.

Can LSD be refined for the parts that are useful for us, or do we simply slap fine print about potential side effects for those with a family history of schizophrenia on it like …. every other FDA approved drug.

I think fawning over something in the 1950s is juvenile, when there probably are advances possible since then to that substance.

But I would like it to at least reach parity with Big Pharma’s designer drugs with clinical trials and listed side effects, instead of just anecdotes percolating rave communities.

[s4mw1se]

Rave communities? This is from research and patient panel interview that was hosted after the publication. Minus the hoffman stuff.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37897244/

https://www.youtube.com/live/Myq_Hc_39aI?si=qnJ8UhOztRjshEkf

[yieldcrv]

I was replying to r2 about the path they had taken the discussion, which was no longer about the article

but you knew that. consider reading it again with that interpretation if you didn’t know that.