• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Okay, you can be personally excited about therapeutic MDMA possibilities without making up a "gold standard’.

      The study I’ve linked to above is specifically for psilocybin treating PTSD with an 80% efficacy rate after one entirely safe dose for 6 to 12 months.

      The link you’ve supplied, as far as I can tell, does not report conclusive results for MDMA treating PTSD.

      MDMA is not a gold standard, it’s one non-standardized psychedelic therapeutic possibility that is physiologically more dangerous with fewer studies, more risks and more time commitment, therapeutic prerequisites and necessary conditions than psilocybin, without the resulting necessary controlled and conclusive clinical trials providing evidence of effective treatment.

      I stand by my original point of seeing little reason to focus on more dangerous, less effective therapies when we already have a completely safe, simpler and so far more effective therapy according to conclusive controlled studies and patient testimony.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’m glad you read that article closely, although they specifically mentioned that the scientists chose terminally ill cancer patients because the symptoms are identical to the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and some of the patients in that study had comorbid PTSD.

          There are studies going on right now with victims of domestic violence and veterans with PTSD.

          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://psyarxiv.com/t6k9b/download%3Fformat%3Dpdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0VZbZqyMM5--6rQP8ZCGMA&scisig=AFWwaebv_6yDRogfHBRZDmA5TMvP&oi=scholarr

          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/13/5/e068884.full.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0VZbZqyMM5--6rQP8ZCGMA&scisig=AFWwaeYIYvNPeVNtPh_PlbCu_YN_&oi=scholarr

          I like all the drugs you’re suggesting, and I think people should be able to choose, although I maintain that the logical therapeutic focus should be on the one completely safe, easily administered and controlled drug proven to be effective in treating depression, anxiety, and especially the traumatic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

          People should do whatever drugs they want, but that doesn’t make whatever drug they want the best choice for therapy right now.

          We have a safe drug for that already. Psilocybin. It has passed every test so far, and it’s completely non-toxic.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Again, I’m all for anecdotal advocacy and the use of any drugs people prefer

              I still don’t see the point of focusing on more dangerous, less effective drugs as therapy when we have a perfectly safe, effective therapy available.

              Maybe I’m missing something from what you’re saying, because I didn’t see any outline for why maps is focusing on Molly specifically for PTSD.

              The proposed benefits you’re talking about using Molly are already known benefits of taking psilocybin, athough psilocybin has a lower physiological risk and simpler therapy scheduling.

              No problem with researching both, this is more a case of diagnosing a problem, having the solution, but making people wait by purposefully diverting our attention elsewhere while there is a more effective, risk-free solution available.

              It seems at best a waste of time and at worst cruel to tell people we might decide to help them soon If they wait for unknown years while we look into different solutions instead of helping them directly at no risk with the safe, effective solution we have.

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Of course you believe there’s a “we”, you are continually asserting your place within this research landscape to legitimize your anecdotes.

                  And again, psilocybin conclusively provides the same possible benefits you’re proposing MDMA may provide without the physiological risk or burdensome therapeutic balancing and time management.

                  As for the “cardiovascular risks” of psilocybin, caffeine also comes with cardiovascular warnings and is twice as “toxic” as psilocybin, similar to the also more toxic MDMA.

                  It’s fine if you personally like MDMA more and cool if you believe it helps you more than other therapies, but it doesn’t make mdma more simple, safe or effective than psilocybin.

                  Maybe more research will come out later that legitimizes MDMA, or makes it as simple or as safe a therapy as psilocybin already is.

                  But not even a therapeutic process, let alone research on mdma is anywhere near conclusively positive yet, so I don’t see the point of experimenting with more complicated unsafe medication when psilocybin is available, simple and safe.