[TechDebtDevin]

PSA: My buddy shot himself in the head while we were on shrooms in our twenties. He thought he meant God, took a shower picked up a gun and shot himself in the head.

While I've had trips since then and do get benefits from those experiences. People without experience should be careful, especially if you have a history of mental illness. He did have a history to some degree but not overtly.

[core_dumped]

Similar thing. My good friend and early college roommate took his own life with a gun after having a bad trip. I wasn’t there for it, but the way he described it he felt ridiculed and deserted by his old high school friends during the trip. He was left alone to deal with these feelings.

His mood post trip became increasingly abysmal. He became highly paranoid, and started questioning the loyalty of the people close to him like his family. I now know that this was a sign of possible schizophrenia. I now know that dementia runs in his family. He started creating simplistic yet disturbing paintings. I wish I still had them.

This happened in March of 2020, COVID had just become a national concern. I was dating long distance at the time and she wanted me to come up before the airports closed down. Sometimes I regret going. I wish he had gone somewhere so he wasn’t alone. He ended up shooting himself with his grandfathers rifle.

I guess the lesson here is be cautious with drugs that can accelerate mental illnesses if you have a family history of them. Check up on your friends that have bad trips and seem kinda off.

[aatd86]

Access to weapons is also a problem. That could have been a transient event he would have recovered from.

[elzbardico]

In my life I met two people who survived botched suicide attempts without using firearms. When someone decides to do it, they will try, and there are things worse than dying.

[im3w1l]

> When someone decides to do it, they will try, and there are things worse than dying.

Science disagrees. Many attempts are impulsive and a minor hurdle can be enough to stop them.

[opello]

To have been stopped by a minor hurdle one must necessarily have started. It seems like you mean to disagree with the idea that "there are things worse than dying" and I expect they meant being maimed can be thought of as worse than being successful, due to the long-term personal consequences.

[im3w1l]

This argument makes sense semantically, but not in practice. Consider these two people

"I should kill myself" grabs gun and fires

"I should kill myself. I'll go buy some poison pills tomorrow." feels better the next day and never actually does

[Mystery-Machine]

I cannot believe you actually wrote that. With your comment it seems like you're saying that it's pointless to hide the guns ie not keep them close. But then you also said that those two people survived. Have you heard the saying: Opportunity makes a thief. It's similar here. Except that it's not a theft, it's a suicide. I wouldn't dare to write what you wrote, knowing that someone might read it and take the cue to _not_ do any precautions before their trip.

[renewiltord]

Yes, when I had a bad concussion from a car rollover, I had bouts of suicidal thought. I got rid of my double edge razor blades and kept my knives away. As my brain healed so did my mind. Better not to have terminal condition tools around if you don't need them.

[core_dumped]

Couldn’t agree more. I’m disappointed that I didn’t include this in the original comment because it was definitely in the back of my mind. As far as I know roughly 2/3rds of the firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

If anything this event further radicalized me into the gun control argument. I have shot a few and they’re fun and all, but at the end of the day it’s impossible to detach the form from the function. They are killing machines. Something as powerful as a firearm should absolutely have a regular psychiatric evaluation attached to it if you insist on owning one.

[honkycat]

I am sorry to hear about your friend.

[kjkjadksj]

Part of the lesson of this story is the danger of having a gun in the home at all. He could have been sober and depressed and did the same just as easily thanks to having access to a gun. There's a lot of statistical evidence for how dangerous situations like depression or domestic violence can become once a gun is nearby.

[psunavy03]

Your first statement is not supported by the second. Yes, in a DV situation or a situation where someone has severe mental illness, it's probably not a good idea to have easy access to a firearm.

But if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense, nor is it used to endanger a family member. The vast majority just . . . sit there. They're machines which must be used respectfully and responsibly, not magic evil talismans.

[radlad]

> The vast majority just . . . sit there.

This is irrelevant to the statement that having a gun around is more dangerous than not having a gun around.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-owner...

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homi...

[newzisforsukas]

> Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

> Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn't to kill themselves with a gun.

That is specific to handguns and kind of what would be expected?

Also, being more likely than not likely at all is pretty much comparing degrees of impossibility.

Seems like this pops up in arguments often.

Something like:

"We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"

[luqtas]

barely happens but suicides rates among teens are increasing & never were this high [0]

students who take a weapon with them to school, impact welfare & performance of nearby students just because they are aware of that [1]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/

[1] https://apadiv15.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Reducing-Wea...

go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type

[newzisforsukas]

> go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type

I am not saying these aren't issues, but that the risk is often overstated.

Also, I think there are plenty of other things that are greater risks than the likelihood of gun violence toward oneself or others that impact lifetime well-being for individuals on a socioeconomic scale, especially in schools.

[latexr]

> That is specific to handguns

So what? More likely than not that’s the type of gun the person we’re discussing used.

> and kind of what would be expected?

Again, what’s your point? Because it’s expected we shouldn’t discuss it or do anything about it? Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.

> "We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"

It happens in the US significantly more than in other countries. The US is literally at the top of the list, to the surprise of no one. So yes, making it happen fewer times, perhaps by learning from other nations which have demonstrated it’s possible, is a worthwhile goal.

[newzisforsukas]

> Again, what’s your point?

The article states specifically that people who commit suicide with a gun are more likely to do so if they own a handgun. IMO, that follows from the mechanics of the scenario.

It is easier to point a handgun at yourself and pull the trigger than it is to do so with a long gun. So, IMO, it is common sense that it is more likely that someone committing suicide by firearm chooses to do so with a handgun over a long gun, and they are more likely to do that if they own a handgun already.

However, it isn't like a random person who owns a gun is significantly more likely to complete a suicide attempt just because they own a gun. Yet, a person who is already at risk of suicide might have an increased risk if they own guns.

That being said, as a random individual, the risk of completed suicide over a lifetime is incredibly low, and that risk is even lower for suicide by any firearm.

> Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.

I don't see this as being analogous to what I am saying. Maybe I am missing something.

[jrussino]

> if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense

Those aren't really the numbers you'd want to look at, right? If you have a community with 1000 firearms and 499 of them end up being used in a shooting you could still assert that "most firearms are never used".

I think what you'd care about in assessing risk is: what is the likelihood of violent injury and/or death in household with firearms vs households without? Controlled for other relevant factors?

I've never seen this particular assessment presented in the way I've described it, but then again it sounds like there are some political hurdles to studying gun violence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-viole...

[613style]

Yet it remains true that not having magic evil talismans in my house makes it very unlikely that my family or I get cursed by accident.

[luluthefirst]

Most landmines also just sit there.

[hirvi74]

No kidding, mine are still in the box.

[bandyaboot]

Not sure what the point here is. The vast majority of firearms that are used to hurt family members previously just sat there.

[simondw]

> The vast majority just . . . sit there

> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans

I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.

[oceanplexian]

Like the other child comments I don’t agree with the presupposition that guns are an entity that somehow incites people to commit violent (Which is what you are implying).

For example most people have access to cars, statistically much more dangerous than guns, and no one seems to imply that having a car around incites people to violence. People who are mentally ill and dangerous could as easily use any array of common tools or methods to commit acts which are dangerous to themselves and others. That doesn’t make it the tool’s fault.

[sambapa]

Maybe because running over yourself with your own car is a little less convenient than blowing your fscking brain out with a gun.

[core_dumped]

Roughly 2/3rds of firearm deaths in the US are suicides. Do automobiles have the same statistics?

[isatty]

On the other hand, he could’ve very easily found another way without the gun.

[Mystery-Machine]

And you know this based on what? To me it seems the opposite is true. If you have the means, it's more likely you'll do something. If it's too complicated, you might just give up, or not even have a thought that you could do something like that. Opportunity makes a thief.

[47282847]

Anecdotal evidence: I was close to suicide a couple of times in my life, and believe I would have done it if I had had a weapon just lying around or within easy access. Thankfully I did not. (Non-US, access to guns highly restricted.)

[ddingus]

Thanks for that PSA. And here's to your lost friend!

I have a lost one too, but due to a different cause. He took hard drugs he was dealing to pay off a house after a legislative decision basically eliminated his well paying job. We grew up very much do what it fucking takes kind of people. And we were tested in life more than once. I still draw from that time today, sometimes remembering and finding that which will get me through. I miss him terribly.

Had he not used, he would have made it! We talked about that, and he used "a little" to know better what he was dealing. Now we all make choices and he made his. At the time, financially, it was understandable, though I would have chosen differently myself.

Anyhow... hard lessons!

Lost him in my very early 30's and I think of him regularly, as I am sure you do yours. What got him was the loss of autonomous breathing! Yes, right out of Greek mythos, he suddenly had to breathe consciously after a particularly nasty interaction with some of the product and his physiology.

It truly was a curse. Bit by bit, he lost the fight. Was cruel and hard to watch.

Sidebar: I am angered and lament the timing because I very strongly feel some form of electrical stimulation could have helped. I lacked means at the time. We both really wanted to try. Doctors had nothing.

End sidebar.

These drugs have awesome potential, but they also come with considerably greater risks than many of us know too.

Good PSA. Seconded.

Be careful peeps. We think we understand. Fact is we just don't yet.

And that will improve with proper study using the scientific method.

If you ask me, cutting those risks is the single most powerful argument for permitting ongoing research and study of the powerful things left for us in Mother Natures kitchen.

[voisin]

> And that will improve with proper study using the scientific method.

How about just having supervised sites with trained trip sitters so that people don’t have the ability (under the influence) to do irreversible things? Perhaps in a therapist’s/doctor’s office.

[ddingus]

Did you read what I shared?

Yes, that would be better than a free for all. Of course.

The guy I lost had unique physiology that meant he was unable to use a substance most can with far fewer worries.

We have that data point now, and I hope it made it into the literature too.

But getting it was expensive! Cost one good person, and left a family without a father and many other souls, myself included, hurting.

More is needed.

And I am not saying your suggestion is bad. I sure do not see it that way.

It is just inadequate in light of the real problem space, that's all.

And remember, just taking it IS an irreversible thing. For most, that is not a big deal.

For some, it is a HUGE deal and the hard fact is we do not understand who is who in all that.

Peace, live well, play safe.

[bamboozled]

Sorry about your friend.

When you say "hard drugs" are you referring to mushrooms? Where I'm from mushrooms aren't considered a hard drug, heroin and cocaine would be.

[worik]

> Where I'm from mushrooms aren't considered a hard drug, heroin and cocaine would be.

Yes

But it is hard to understand when herion, and LSD are in the same legal category

The law is an ass

[ddingus]

It sure is.

[defgeneric]

Why didn't they use a respirator?

[ddingus]

They did. But things slip, machines fail, etc.. it is quite insidious.

[devwastaken]

People discover powerful drug -> Powerful drug causes negative reactions in some people -> Drug is banned and knowledge is lost -> People discover powerful drug.

Pharma is responsible for suppressing knowledge and proper medical treatments. They're letting people die so the fear sets their patented drugs in stone. It has worked very well for them.

There is a plethora of information on the net on how to start safely, if at all, and why most people should not use psychedelics at all. Set and setting are just as important as the dosage.

[INTPenis]

Everyone who has tripped hard and come out unscathed can consider themselves lucky to have such a strong constitution. I am a firm believer in that psychdelics are wonderful, but powerful. And not everyone can handle the experience. At one end might be a slightly anxious trip, but at the other end is a complete breakdown of your reality.

[TaylorAlexander]

Thanks for sharing. Not sure if the guidance to do shrooms in an appropriate setting and with an appropriate mindset ("set and setting") would have helped, but certainly that guidance is no joke!

And we should absolutely continue research to learn more about the adverse effects. Obviously they help a lot of people, but must be done with care and seem not to be helpful for every person. We must learn more about these conditions.

[bamboozled]

Whenever I read about shroom usage in ancient times, it almost always has some type of guidance and ceremony associated with it.

The laws have turned it into something taboo and then people often start consuming psychedelics in a weird and suspicious way to begin with...because it's not legal potentially leading to more and more bad trips.

Meditation is similar, often seemed to be associated with guidance from someone who know how to do it and had experience dealing with some of the potential negatives associated with it. I just read a book by Mingyur Rinpoche and I ended up having a severe existential crisis, that book shocked my being to it's core at the time.

[TaylorAlexander]

I agree, we’ve forced consumption to the margins which encourages unsafe use.

California is looking at legalizing psychedelic therapy without full legalization which is an interesting approach. I think ultimately adults should be allowed to make their own choices, as I’ve had very meaningful trips in a friends living room for a few dollars and a fully regulated therapeutic setting will probably cost $1000 (based on costs in Oregon). But maybe a therapy-first based approach will help underscore the need for appropriate ritual around these materials. Ultimately though adults are allowed to take risks with alcohol and other substances, and I think we should be free to do so with psychedelics too.

https://apnews.com/article/psychedelic-mushrooms-mental-heal...

[saladdays]

What is the name of the book?

[bamboozled]

The Joy of Living by Mingyur Rinpoche. I was like "what's this nice innocent book, how wonderful sounding"...

It was a great book, but the way I thought about myself was let's say, very incompatible with the Buddhist ideas about self. The words I read in that book were undeniably true, and it shocked me.

[chiefalchemist]

Set and setting matter. The concept is discussed in Pollan's "How to Change Your Mind."

Book and the Netflix series.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80229847?preventIntent=true

[jeremiahbuckley]

A user named observationist made a response to this post, but they responded to a troll, whose comment was nuked which removed their very valuable comment (I was responding to them at the time so I happened to have both in cache).

observationist https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=observationist original comment:

Around 1% of people have schizophrenia. This holds over a lifetime - there's a structural, unavoidable component to the person's neural wiring or physiology that will result in a schizophrenic break. Prior to the break, they may seem more or less normal, but after, they will experience deficits in cognition and perception, and may have significant barriers to living a normal life. Schizophrenics, as a rule, will have a psychotic break before they turn 45. Psychoactive substances, and high doses of psychedelics, will trigger breaks from reality earlier than they might otherwise happen. Stress, caffeine, trauma, or significant excitement can also be triggers, but psychedelic drug trips are a reliable trigger, and in conjunction with other effects, can spiral a "bad trip" into a much worse trauma.

Another 3 to 4% of the population have significant mental disorders, ranging from those we know, to those we can observe but don't have a good diagnostic criteria for. In these cases, it can be very detrimental to use psychoactive substances generally, and psychedelics in particular.

It's crucial to visit with a doctor to rule out the likelihood that you're in the roughly one in twenty people that might have a significant negative reaction to psychedelics. Some of the people in that camp might be safe from harm later in life. I know a person with significant family history of schizophrenia and earlier life indicators he was at risk, who then started using mushrooms in his 50s and seems very stable. He talked things over with his doctors before deciding to take the risk - apparently after you turn 45 it's incredibly rare, even with significant trauma and stressors, for schizophrenic breaks to occur, so if that's your main threat, it might be safe to engage in psychedelics when you're older.

If you're not in the high risk camp, you should still have at least one frank discussion with your doctor about pitfalls, and do a metric ton of personal research about any substance you intend to use. It can be a profound and wonderful departure from the norm, or a mildly unpleasant experience, or a stressful confrontation with your inner demons, depending on the dose and preparation.

my response:

Thank you for this. I thought this was a very informative comment; I am worried about schizophrenia as a disease that might impact my kids. I wanted to ask you for more information, but that is a burden, so I asked ChatGPT instead so at least you wouldn't have to go find links. If you have Other reading besides what is below I would be happy to hear about it.

Here is it's response from ChatGPT (Claude couldn't provide links). My contribution is that I checked the links and skimmed them to see if they supported the statement. They are repetitive (there are only 7 articles linked actually), but they generally support your comment. Of note the PLOS article does not support your comment, and it seems that it doesn't support what ChatGPT says (maybe I misunderstood when skimming it). The stuff in parens below (Looks Like This), was a link in ChatGPT, but the links didn't copy-paste, so I'm going to put all the articles at the top here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-023-02138-4

https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12...

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/schizophren...

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/schizophrenia

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/drug-psychosis-may-pul...

https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/qa/understanding-your-risk...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

The comment you saw online contains some accurate points but also could benefit from additional context and nuance based on available research.

1. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Schizophrenia:

- The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is approximately 0.3% to 0.7% globally, which supports the 1% figure as an upper bound (Nature) (BioMed Central) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .

- Schizophrenia typically emerges in late adolescence to early thirties, with men often experiencing onset earlier than women (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .

- Factors such as genetic predisposition, prenatal exposures, and psychosocial stressors contribute to the risk of developing schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) .

2. Triggers for Psychotic Breaks:

- The statement that high doses of psychedelics can trigger psychotic breaks in predisposed individuals is supported by evidence. Drug-induced psychosis, particularly from hallucinogens and cannabis, can lead to schizophrenia in some cases (Psychiatric Times) .

- Other triggers include stress, trauma, and significant life changes, which can exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities (Berkeley Psychedelics) .

3. Impact of Psychedelics on Mental Health:

- Psychedelics can pose significant risks for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia or other major mental health disorders. It is crucial for these individuals to consult healthcare professionals before considering psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .

- Research has shown that about 25% of those with substance-induced psychosis may transition to schizophrenia, with the type of substance being a significant predictor of this transition (Psychiatric Times) .

4. General Mental Health Considerations:

- Around 3-4% of the population may experience significant mental disorders other than schizophrenia. For these individuals, the use of psychoactive substances, including psychedelics, can be particularly detrimental (PLOS) . [NOTE: This seems to be an error from ChatGPT, this PLOS article doesn't seem to support this conclusion. As I haven't done personal work on this yet, I don't know whether the statement is supported by other research.]

- Mental health evaluation and professional consultation are recommended before the use of psychedelics to identify potential risks and ensure safety (Berkeley Psychedelics) .

5. Later-Life Considerations:

- The risk of new-onset schizophrenia after the age of 45 is indeed rare, which suggests that older individuals may have a lower risk of experiencing a first psychotic episode triggered by psychedelics (Berkeley Psychedelics) .

For further reading and to deepen your understanding, you may refer to sources like the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the World Health Organization (WHO), and recent research studies on the global burden and risk factors of schizophrenia (National Institute of Mental Health) (World Health Organization (WHO)) (Nature) . Additionally, the Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) provides detailed information on the safety and risks associated with psychedelic use (Berkeley Psychedelics) .

[newzisforsukas]

Isn't asking an LLM to find links that support an assertion equivalent to cherry picking sources? Also, just from a quick scan of some of these, it is apparent that the citations are not completely accurate.

IMO, this is kind of asymmetric lazy commenting that wastes other peoples' time. If you want to share something, just link to a article, and leave the LLM bullshit out of it.

[jeremiahbuckley]

I appreciate the pushback on this process, it made me think.

I actually asked the LLM for supporting or refuting sources. I didn’t think I was cherry picking. Looking at its response… maybe CharGPT didn’t pick up on the “refuting” detail, or maybe observationist was correct. So maybe next time a prompt “find supporting” and another prompt “find refuting” would be useful to ensure coverage of both sides.

My value add in the human+AI workflow was to check the links. They seem high quality and directly applicable to statements made. I took pressure off observationist to go find directly applicable links (and I saved time by not googling for each separate fact). That being said, I probably didn’t need to requote ChatGPT in full. I liked the full answer because it assured me ChatGPT was responding on each claim but the important thing was the links. So, more efficiency was possible in my yc comment.

[xpe]

> Across studies that use household-based survey samples, clinical diagnostic interviews, and medical records, estimates of the prevalence of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in the U.S. range between 0.25% and 0.64%

From https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/schizophrenia

The NIH page sources these studies:

Kessler RC, Birnbaum H, Demler O, Falloon IR, Gagnon E, Guyer M, Howes MJ, Kendler KS, Shi L, Walters E, Wu EQ. The prevalence and correlates of nonaffective psychosis in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Oct 15;58(8):668-76. PMID: 16023620

Wu EQ, Shi L, Birnbaum H, Hudson T, Kessler R. Annual prevalence of diagnosed schizophrenia in the USA: a claims data analysis approach. Psychol Med. 2006 Nov;36(11):1535-40. PMID: 16907994

Desai, PR, Lawson, KA, Barner, JC, Rascati, KL. Estimating the direct and indirect costs for community-dwelling patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 2013 Jul;4(4):187-194. doi/10.1111/jphs.12027/epdf

[jojobas]

I have a better idea: not even once.

[dyauspitr]

I’ll back you up but having done shrooms about a dozen times decades ago, you’re really missing out on a truly out of this world experience.

[jojobas]

Betting your life to get a hallucination is not worth it even at 1:10000 odds.

Guess what - you're missing out on a fentanyl high, so awesome that people sell all they have to get more!

[nulld3v]

Then you should never step in a vehicle again for the rest of your life, after all, the odds of the average American dying in a vehicle accident every year is 1 in 5000[1]. That doesn't take into account drivers/non-drivers, but I think it's reasonable to assume drivers are at higher risk than pedestrians considering pedestrians make up only a small portion of vehicle-related fatalities [2][3].

I do wonder what the actual odds are of getting injured by psilocybin though.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/planecrash/risky.html

[2] https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians23

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

[kordlessagain]

This is a false equivalency. Evaluating risks to some individuals reaction based on incomparable research material is irrational and irrelevant. Consider, mathematically, there are infinities that are not the same as other infinities.

Most people who are licensed to drive are unlikely to have a negative reaction from the act of driving for 2 hours under controlled conditions. The same can not be said (at all) about use of mind altering substances, given the mind cannot necessarily be controlled. Set and setting.

[nulld3v]

I don't think it's entirely incomparable. You can't control the other drivers on the road either.

Also, you can control your own dose. I've never heard of anyone encountering any long term side effects from trying a single low dose of psilocybin. Especially since some studies show that very low doses aren't any different than placebo.

Then again most people don't start with a very low dose and ramp up slowly because people are human and do dumb things.

[jojobas]

Where I live it's more palatable 1/22k/year, and a lot of that are thrill seekers on motorcycles, drunk drivers etc.

More importantly, driving a car gets me where I want to be, not just triggers an unexpected condition bug in my brain.

[nulld3v]

There are just a lot of similar risks like these in life. Camp in the wrong place for example and you might lose the ability to eat red meat [1].

I think it's irresponsible to tell people to take this or that drug since we still don't have good numbers on the risks. But I also think telling people to completely abstain is dumb, and the government trying to enforce complete abstinence even more dumb.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/health/alpha-gal-ticks-me...

[sjm]

Mushrooms have saved more people than they have harmed, I guarantee you. I believe you have a very warped or misguided understanding of what exactly psilocybin is and I'd encourage you to learn.

[jojobas]

Hofmann was a mistake, and so was Leary.