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.
First of all, there’s no we here. MAPS is a non-profit entity that survives mostly off private donations. So, it’s their decision and the decision of people who support them to invest primarily in MDMA research because they believe it fits best with the Western treatment and insurance model for PTSD.
Your links are to a PTSD research proposal with zero results and positive results from small group (medicine circles) therapy. I do believe the medicine circle model is effective for treating PTSD, and mentioned it specifically in my last response.
That said, it’s also a liability nightmare for insurance companies and much different than how talk therapy is usually conducted under the Western modality. Medicine spaces work through shared vulnerability. Allowing someone with trauma to integrate into the community. Raves and Burns and other psychedelic spaces create a similar setting for classical psychedelics to do this. And there’s ‘men’s work’ and many other methods that do something similar without drugs by creating ritual spaces for shared vulnerability.
MDMA helps a person lower their fear response. To be vulnerable without feeling vulnerable. This helps a person open up and feel safe in a more traditional talk therapy environment, which is how MAPS is using it.
I hope that helps clarify some things. And btw, Psilocybin comes with cardiovascular warnings too. Though, the danger of this is mostly in microdosing due to chronic use. But there is a danger there with it. And the cardiovascular distress from MDMA is comparable to many drugs the FDA has approved in the past.
I think the FDA board making a fuss about this is drug war bias and protection of antidepressant cash flows, tbh. And not about the cardiovascular issues at all. Though, the critique of the failed double blinding is valid, I know these aren’t the only two phase 3 clinical trials that have been submitted either.
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.
Nothing you’ve linked has really backed up your assertions about psilocybin being great for PTSD so I’m going to stop replying.
Medicine circles personal exploration end of life anxiety etc.
I’ve explained why MDMA is better at relaxing the amygdala. The pharmacology supports this as does the current research. The papers you have linked don’t really. One study in a small group setting, which I absolutely do believe would be beneficial for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. And I also explained why the Western therapy modality conflicts with that model. And how that would make access difficult because of insurance issues. I. E. good luck getting insurance on guided group psilocybin journeys anytime soon. The U.S. health industry already struggles with access to group therapy and they’re not giving everyone hallucinogens.
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.
The therapy is already developed and has been being worked on since the '80s.
It’s just waiting for approval. I don’t understand why you’re being so dense or pushing this point like it’s one or the other.
They’re both great in their own ways and the research for MDMA and PTSD is way ahead of psilocybin. I showed you in the article I linked above that you just completely dismissed while you continue to post irrelevant articles back.
I get that you think mushrooms are the cure all for everything but man you really don’t understand the lay of the landscape here. Where it’s at, where it’s been, and what works within the context of Western medicine the best. For PTSD treatment.
Anyway I’m really done there’s just too much projection in that last post for me to ignore.
The articles I provided to you are evidence of further ongoing trials specifically for PTSD using psilocybin, since you misread the original provided article. Follow-up and related studies are not irrelevant in therapeutic research, which you may recognize in all of your personally esteemed Molly studies.
The earlier article shows that psilocybin alleviates the PTSD symptoms you hope Molly will and provides the same benefits molly may provide eventually after clinical trials are completed.
Then you insult and make obviously incorrect assumptions about me instead of asking questions to remedy your ignorance.
You know what sam Jackson says about assumptions in the movie basic.
You’re wearing blinders.
You personally like a less safe and less effective therapy. That is totally fine.
It’s also very clear that it makes more sense to focus on a conclusively safe and effective therapy rather than an unsafe and less effective therapy.
I think people should do tons of drugs. That doesn’t make all drugs safer or more effective in all situations.
I don’t see the point of focusing on more dangerous, possibly effective future therapies when a safe, effective therapy is currently available for the same symptoms.
Pretty telling that “projection” is what’s setting you off.
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.
First of all, there’s no we here. MAPS is a non-profit entity that survives mostly off private donations. So, it’s their decision and the decision of people who support them to invest primarily in MDMA research because they believe it fits best with the Western treatment and insurance model for PTSD.
Your links are to a PTSD research proposal with zero results and positive results from small group (medicine circles) therapy. I do believe the medicine circle model is effective for treating PTSD, and mentioned it specifically in my last response.
That said, it’s also a liability nightmare for insurance companies and much different than how talk therapy is usually conducted under the Western modality. Medicine spaces work through shared vulnerability. Allowing someone with trauma to integrate into the community. Raves and Burns and other psychedelic spaces create a similar setting for classical psychedelics to do this. And there’s ‘men’s work’ and many other methods that do something similar without drugs by creating ritual spaces for shared vulnerability.
MDMA helps a person lower their fear response. To be vulnerable without feeling vulnerable. This helps a person open up and feel safe in a more traditional talk therapy environment, which is how MAPS is using it.
I hope that helps clarify some things. And btw, Psilocybin comes with cardiovascular warnings too. Though, the danger of this is mostly in microdosing due to chronic use. But there is a danger there with it. And the cardiovascular distress from MDMA is comparable to many drugs the FDA has approved in the past.
I think the FDA board making a fuss about this is drug war bias and protection of antidepressant cash flows, tbh. And not about the cardiovascular issues at all. Though, the critique of the failed double blinding is valid, I know these aren’t the only two phase 3 clinical trials that have been submitted either.
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.
Nothing you’ve linked has really backed up your assertions about psilocybin being great for PTSD so I’m going to stop replying.
Medicine circles personal exploration end of life anxiety etc.
I’ve explained why MDMA is better at relaxing the amygdala. The pharmacology supports this as does the current research. The papers you have linked don’t really. One study in a small group setting, which I absolutely do believe would be beneficial for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. And I also explained why the Western therapy modality conflicts with that model. And how that would make access difficult because of insurance issues. I. E. good luck getting insurance on guided group psilocybin journeys anytime soon. The U.S. health industry already struggles with access to group therapy and they’re not giving everyone hallucinogens.
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.
The therapy is already developed and has been being worked on since the '80s.
It’s just waiting for approval. I don’t understand why you’re being so dense or pushing this point like it’s one or the other.
They’re both great in their own ways and the research for MDMA and PTSD is way ahead of psilocybin. I showed you in the article I linked above that you just completely dismissed while you continue to post irrelevant articles back.
I get that you think mushrooms are the cure all for everything but man you really don’t understand the lay of the landscape here. Where it’s at, where it’s been, and what works within the context of Western medicine the best. For PTSD treatment.
Anyway I’m really done there’s just too much projection in that last post for me to ignore.
The articles I provided to you are evidence of further ongoing trials specifically for PTSD using psilocybin, since you misread the original provided article. Follow-up and related studies are not irrelevant in therapeutic research, which you may recognize in all of your personally esteemed Molly studies.
The earlier article shows that psilocybin alleviates the PTSD symptoms you hope Molly will and provides the same benefits molly may provide eventually after clinical trials are completed.
Then you insult and make obviously incorrect assumptions about me instead of asking questions to remedy your ignorance.
You know what sam Jackson says about assumptions in the movie basic.
You’re wearing blinders.
You personally like a less safe and less effective therapy. That is totally fine.
It’s also very clear that it makes more sense to focus on a conclusively safe and effective therapy rather than an unsafe and less effective therapy.
I think people should do tons of drugs. That doesn’t make all drugs safer or more effective in all situations.
I don’t see the point of focusing on more dangerous, possibly effective future therapies when a safe, effective therapy is currently available for the same symptoms.
Pretty telling that “projection” is what’s setting you off.