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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s pretty clear you have blinders on when it comes to mdma, so I understand why you don’t want to believe in the clinical results of a safer, more effective therapy for PTSD symptoms since that clashes with how you feel about MDMA.
It seems likely Molly will eventually become a less dangerous alternative to even more dangerous medications in dealing with certain symptoms, but I don’t see the point in asking people to wait while we develop a less safe, more complicated therapy when we already have a cost-effective, completely safe and simple therapy available that conclusively treats those symptoms and provides the same benefits more dangerous therapies might provide in the future.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty clear you have blinders on when it comes to mdma, so I understand why you don’t want to believe in the clinical results of a safer, more effective therapy for PTSD symptoms since that clashes with how you feel about MDMA.
It seems likely Molly will eventually become a less dangerous alternative to even more dangerous medications in dealing with certain symptoms, but I don’t see the point in asking people to wait while we develop a less safe, more complicated therapy when we already have a cost-effective, completely safe and simple therapy available that conclusively treats those symptoms and provides the same benefits more dangerous therapies might provide in the future.
deleted by creator