[sva_]

> n=1

> pay to publish journal

> no clear Alzheimers diagnosis ("[...] were considered clinically most compatible with advanced Alzheimer’s disease")

> administration of a heroic dose of street-quality drugs vs. a controlled sample

> no university or hospital affiliation?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, hence I remain skeptical

[bitmasher9]

I think it’s funny to describe a drug as “street-quality” while using a slang term “heroic dose” in the same sentence.

[sva_]

I don't really see it, those things fit perfectly together? 5g dry mushrooms -> heroic dose.

[40four]

It’s a single case study so obviously take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field. A field mind you, that has made a little to no progress in decades. Arguments could be made they’ve made some errors and went down the wrong path. It’s a field that could probably use some new ideas.

[Aurornis]

> On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field

I responded to your other comment with this exact text, but to repeat:

This paper is not illuminating to people in the field. This is 3 unaffiliated people who paid to publish an anecdote without any supporting evidence. Paid medical journals are full of these.

Medical professionals know how to spot these claims because they’ve seen a hundred of them over the years that went nowhere. This was published not for the medical establishment, but for news media and social media and maybe to boost the author’s visibility to get funding for something they want to do.

[Cthulhu_]

That's fair, but research into psychoactive substances remains difficult due to legal constraints; N=1 but it will have piqued interest by others, they may want to repeat the tests on a larger scale.

That, or individuals will science on the ones they care for. I for one would write something like that down if I were to start developing dementia/alzheimers.

[fred_is_fred]

Not only that but the author has appeared on Joe Rogan - that tells me all I need to know.

[boxed]

That's a silly statement. There's been plenty of people who went on there to try to talk sense into him.

[pengaru]

Rogan is obviously pro psychedelics, and was even featured in the oval office during the recent Ibogaine approval signing. I think it's worth noting if this N=1 "study" has any association with such an obviously biased and influential individual.

[boxed]

I mean.. I've seen the preliminary studies on treatment resistent PTSD so I'm also pro psychedelics, because I'm anti suicide.

Dismissing this "study" (really a case file) because of the N=1 and the shady journal seems like a stronger position than bringing in Rogan. Talking about Rogan just looks like partisan posturing.

[ekianjo]

Good criticism but be aware that acreditated authors and institutions are a bunch of crooks on the whole who cook their results, do p-hacking to the death, badly document their protocols, don't release their datasets not their analysis, and have no problems getting paid by big pharma and not disclosing it fully. The field is more joke than science at this stage.

[bogwog]

Yeah, and a cure for cancer exists, but big pharma keeps it in a secret vault because treatments are more profitable than cures /s

I recently lost a family member to cancer, and had to go through this conspiracy bullshit from evil pieces of shit peddling snake oil to desprate people. Whatever rabbit holes your social media algorithms have led you down aren't healthy, friend. Clear your cookies and go touch grass.