Tripping Out

[eheiney]

Tripping Out: Scientists Study Mystical Effects of Mushrooms

Popular Drug of the 60s Eyed for Its Powerful Emotional Changes

By JOY VICTORY, BHARATHI RADHAKRISHNAN and ANDREA CARTER

July 11, 2006 — This may come as no surprise to the flower children of the 1960s, but in one of the few controlled human studies of a known illegal hallucinogen, the active ingredient in "sacred mushrooms" created what researchers are describing as deep mystical experiences that left many of the study participants with a long lasting sense of well-being.

The controversial study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University of Medicine, looked at whether a pill containing psilocybin, derived from the psilocybe mushroom, would induce mystical experiences among 36 healthy adult study participants. All had religious backgrounds, and all were also given the active drug ingredient in the attention-deficit disorder drug, Ritalin, at a separate time as a comparison.

The results were clear: Sixty percent of the psilocybin group elicited behaviors consistent with a "full mystical experience" as measured by psychological scales. Two months later, about 79 percent of the group reported "moderately to greatly increased" well-being or life satisfaction.

During the experiment, the participants were informed they could be receiving a hallucinogen, and they were closely watched in a comfortable room to make sure they didn't experience what is commonly known as a "bad trip," researchers said.

However, researchers were not releasing much information about what exactly the participants did experience, other than this statement from the study author that was released in a press statement:

"Many of the volunteers in our study reported, in one way or another, a direct, personal experience of the 'Beyond,' " said study leader Roland Griffiths, a professor with Hopkins' departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry and Behavioral Biology.

According to Johns Hopkins, psilocybin is one of a class of serotonin receptors compounds (similar to the chemical used in many antidepressants) whose effects include changes in perception and cognition. Some call them "hallucinogenic," while other researchers are more inclined to call them "spirit-facilitating," the hospital's press release said.

Because it is illegal to possess psilocybin in all states but Florida and New Mexico, the study is attracting the attention of many ethicists and doctors and even the scientists at the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse, one of the funding entities for the study.

Yesterday, NIDA Director Dr. Nora Volkow released this statement critical of the study.

"Although there is no evidence that psilocybin is addictive, its adverse effects are well known. Similar to the more commonly known hallucinogen LSD (acid), psilocybin acts on serotonin receptors in the brain to profoundly distort a person's perceptions of reality," the statement said. "Psilocybin can trigger psychosis in susceptible individuals and cause other deleterious psychological effects, such as paranoia and extreme anxiety.

However, Griffiths, the study author, said extremely rigorous ethical standards were maintained throughout the research process, and that the value of learning the potential medical and psychological benefits of hallucinogens should not be ignored.

"[The study] shows that, under carefully controlled conditions, psilocybin can be administered safely and that it can occasion a mystical-type experience, which scientific measures say are very similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences" Griffiths said in an e-mail to ABC News. "The results suggest that such events may have lastingly beneficial consequences."

Other scientists familiar with hallucinogens and *******euticals also praised the possible benefits of studying such chemicals.

"I was most impressed by the large percentage of individuals reported a much more positive effect afterwards. That to me is very significant. They are thinking of taking this to cancer patients and difficult substance abusers," said James A. Smith, chairman of the Physiology and *******ology Department at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center.

The work is similar to the "Good Friday" experiment conducted in1962 by a minister and doctor said Rick Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. In that study, psilocybin also produced mystical experiences in most of the participants.

"This kind of work should be a top priority of our society. People have some of the most profound experiences of their lives after taking psilocybin. This mystical experience they talk about from the Good Friday experiment is something that tends to have people become more tolerant and compassionate," Doblin said. "We're talking about how psilocybin is a tool that helps people have these remarkable experiences."

Just because the active ingredient is illegal doesn't mean it should not be studied, noted Dr. Jeffrey Kahn, the director of the Center for Bioethics at University of Minnesota.

"If you step back and ask: Have we ever used illegal drugs in other medical research? There is probably a long list of drugs that started off illegal but had very useful purposes in medicine, such as marijuana," Kahn said. "This study seems less unusual now than in the 1960s since many more people take medications or drugs now compared to the 60s."

However, the study raises important safety questions, said Laurie Zoloth, a professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities at Northwestern University in Chicago.

"There is no known antagonist for this drug, unlike others — if someone's peak moment turns out to be… being eaten by a terrifying sea creature, there is no way to rescue them from the thing we used to call 'a bad trip,'" Zoloth said. "The long-term side effects are not known."

She also wasn't that impressed by the drug's effects on mood.

"If such an experience meant that you suddenly became aware of injustice, poverty and inequality in the world, and became devoted to caring for the vulnerable in a selfless manner, I might be more impressed," she said.

Dr. Rosamond Rhodes, a professor of Medical Education at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and director of Bioethics Education, questioned some elements of the study's design. Not only was the study limited to people with religious backgrounds, but religious experiences could have been subtly or unduly promoted by the research administrators.

"After each administration of the drug, they gave people the same set of questionnaires. As you ask people these questions each time, you are also directing them to focus that way… so it is suggesting," Rhodes said. "You are encouraging people to close their eyes, to concentrate, and you are not just doing this to regular people but to people who are religiously inclined. They are suggesting that this is what you are going to get from the drug, so they find a great deal of that sort of response, particularly to the drug psilocybin."

However, these things shouldn't necessarily limit the further study of previously shunned illegal drugs, said Dr. Scott Basinger, a drug researcher, and associate dean of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

"I am in a city where Andrea Yates is being retried. … All of the [psychiatric] testimony says that she has been in a profound depression for many years that she could not get out of," he said. "I am not saying that psilocybin would have helped Andrea Yates and she would not have killed her kids… I am saying that it is sad that in an age where we have so much *******ological advancement we still have people that we cannot help."

Studies and stories such as this make me want to really consider trying said drug.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by denkensiefursich
deep mystical experiences that left many of the study participants with a long lasting sense of well-being.

[swingdjted]

deep mystical experiences?

Is this a technical term?

What does this mean?




The liklihood of a 'bad trip' is probably just as high as the liklihood of a good one, and since the effects are said to be long lasting, I wouldn't suggest it.

Addressing a mental/emotional/cognitive issue with this kind of drug doesn't really solve anything - it only covers it up. To me, it's like saying "oh, you don't like reality? that's ok - we'll let you lose your perception of reality and go through life not knowing what it really is".

This, by definition, is making someone live in a state of psychosis (loss or lack of perception of reality), because of an issue involving neurosis (understanding but not appropriately dealing with reality), which is much less severe of a problem.

There's going to have to be much better research to convince me. Seems like the criticisms/limitations outweigh the noteworthy findings.

[Mattress]

perhaps the drug could be useful in smaller, less trippy, doses?

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by swingdjted
Addressing a mental/emotional/cognitive issue with this kind of drug doesn't really solve anything - it only covers it up. To me, it's like saying "oh, you don't like reality? that's ok - we'll let you lose your perception of reality and go through life not knowing what it really is".

There is no definite perception of what reality 'really is.'

They should stop administering heart medicine because it just 'covers it up' too.

Originally posted by swingdjted
This, by definition, is making someone live in a state of psychosis (loss or lack of perception of reality), because of an issue involving neurosis (understanding but not appropriately dealing with reality), which is much less severe of a problem.

Everyone is in a state of psychosis through their entire life (in theory.) You can lose 'perception of reality' while taking a dump.

[eheiney]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
There is no definite perception of what reality 'really is.'

They should stop administering heart medicine because it just 'covers it up' too.



Everyone is in a state of psychosis through their entire life (in theory.) You can lose 'perception of reality' while taking a dump.

That philosophy class is really getting to you, huh?

[skryingbreath]

You have no idea man

[swingdjted]

When I say "perception of reality" I am basically refering to the mind's ability to accurately identify what the senses sense.

This usually can be measured with non-organic (non living, unbiased) instruments to test whether what one senses is really there. (of course one could argue that the instruments hold the bias of their creators)

For example, if someone "hears voices", this could be proven if those sounds were recorded and analyzed on a spectrum analyzer. The measuring tool would show that the frequencies of the voice either did nor did not exist.

This is an extremely basic description and example of "perception of reality", used in the interest of brevity, but, a state of psychosis, in my opinion, exists when someone is completely consious yet is either experiencing a construct that does not exist or is experiencing a construct that is very different than that which exists in reality.

Philosophy and Psychology can often disagree on a lot of things. Both will fuck with people that study them if not treated carefully though.

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by swingdjted
When I say "perception of reality" I am basically refering to the mind's ability to accurately identify what the senses sense.

Ah, but what is accurate? Alot of people can't see certain colours, does this mean that they are unable to perceive reality?

Originally posted by swingdjted
For example, if someone "hears voices", this could be proven if those sounds were recorded and analyzed on a spectrum analyzer. The measuring tool would show that the frequencies of the voice either did nor did not exist.

Technically you can't identify if a person is actually hearing something that isn't there. You can only go on what they are telling you.

Saying something doesn't exist is very narrow minded. Have you ever held, smelled, saw, heard, and tasted 100 million dollars? No? How does it exist?

Originally posted by swingdjted
This is an extremely basic description and example of "perception of reality", used in the interest of brevity, but, a state of psychosis, in my opinion, exists when someone is completely consious yet is either experiencing a construct that does not exist or is experiencing a construct that is very different than that which exists in reality.

Perception of reality is just that, a perception. I perceive things different than you do, vise versa. There is no default perception. If there was, I'm sure we'd have a better understanding of the human mind.

Have you ever had a weird tingling feeling that isn't caused by anything relevant? Wouldn't that be a state of psychosis (by your definition)?

Originally posted by swingdjted

Philosophy and Psychology can often disagree on a lot of things. Both will fuck with people that study them if not treated carefully though.

Truth. That's why I love it so much

[swingdjted]

Alot of people can't see certain colours, does this mean that they are unable to perceive reality?

Yes. They can not perceive that small aspect of reality, because they don't have the working tool to sense it. However this wouldn't be enough to label someone as suffering from psychosis, because they are still able to accurately describe what they actually can see within the limits of their sense of sight.

Psychosis lies more in the interpretation of the sense rather than the sense itself, or in the creation of something that the senses shouldn't be sensing.

Technically you can't identify if a person is actually hearing something that isn't there. You can only go on what they are telling you.

Exactly. If they really believe they are hearing something(and they believe they are hearing it with their ears, not just simple memory/imagination) that clearly isn't there, there exists a problem not with their ears, but with their mind. Whether or not they are being honest is a tough judgement call.

Have you ever held, smelled, saw, heard, and tasted 100 million dollars? No? How does it exist?

It doesn't; at least not where I can sense it. I can still say it exists somewhere, because it's reasonable to say that it exists based on deductive reasoning facts. (e.g. GM has sold more than 10,000 vehicles at over 10,000 dollars each, therefore, at least $100,000,000 had to exist to allow this to happen). There's not much problem with saying that, however if I were to say that $100 million existed in my attic, and you replied, "does that provide good insulation?", there would most certainly be a problem.

This isn't direct sensing; it is a more abstract assimilation of facts. I originally didn't get in to this because it had the potential to make an overly long post. I guess the next question would be: 'how far can you go with reasonable assimilation of information before getting to psychosis?'

The answer isn't nearly as important as the way it all affects themselves and their environment. If one can live a healthy productive life while avoiding harm (or risk of harm) to his/her surroundings, it really doesn't matter what mental perceptions are in the mind.

Having said all that, and to bring this discussion back to the original article, I feel that the drug described can cause psychosis that includes a very high risk of unhealthy, dangerous behavior. "Bad trips" can cause people to murder someone they never even saw as a threat when sober. Intense flashbacks of such a trip can distract someone to the point of wrecking while driving.

[EDIT] Want this to be really messed up? Throw in the 'third P' - psychiatry to our philosophy and psychology. [/EDIT]

[skryingbreath]

Hahah, this rocks!

Yes. They can not perceive that small aspect of reality, because they don't have the working tool to sense it.

One could argue that the brain is a working tool, in correlation with the mind it operates and dictates our lives. If you diagnose a person with psychosis does this mean their tool for interpreting their mind is broken or is their mind (being it's own entity) broken?

because they are still able to accurately describe what they actually can see within the limits of their sense of sight.

I personally know people that you might consider 'psychotic.' They can describe things that they perceive within the limits of their psychosis and things outside of it as well. They are well aware of their surroundings (without medication) and if you didn't know better, you might call them sane.

(I'm getting too tired to quote at this point)
Very good points in the second half, and I agree with alot of them. Onto the third half ( )

"Bad trips" can cause people to murder someone they never even saw as a threat when sober. Intense flashbacks of such a trip can distract someone to the point of wrecking while driving.

This is very true and I agree with it, but...The same effects can be experienced during drinking alcohol. I'm sure you've been around the pissed off drunk that wants to fight anything that doesn't think The Dave Matthew's Band 'rocks'. While alcohol isn't being used as a direct 'medicine', some people do use it as a supressant (depression and shit( which only makes it worse)) Although for the most part it's involuntary and not a conscious decision as a remedy.

Oh man don't get me started on psychiatry. It's been cool hearing a different viewpoint on this though, alot of the stuff you've said is very logical (Man this got off track)

[siebe83]

from the article...

However, these things shouldn't necessarily limit the further study of previously shunned illegal drugs, said Dr. Scott Basinger, a drug researcher, and associate dean of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

"I am in a city where Andrea Yates is being retried. … All of the [psychiatric] testimony says that she has been in a profound depression for many years that she could not get out of," he said. "I am not saying that psilocybin would have helped Andrea Yates and she would not have killed her kids… I am saying that it is sad that in an age where we have so much *******ological advancement we still have people that we cannot help."

In the experiment reported on only healthy persons participated. It is known that the risk of a bad trip is much higher when the taker is not feeling well (mentally or physically), so I don't quite see how this could be a safe drug in such situations.

As entertainment drug, however


The risk of a bad trip is always there of course. Just read up on the stuff first so you know what (risks) you're taking and take precautions (safe environment, don't use when in a bad mood, blahdiblah, etc...; but that goes for any drug, really).
I don't think I will ever use it myself, don't feel the need for it (and it tastes awful, they say... ).


re: discussion above...
Why would anything beyond reality be inherently wrong?

[swingdjted]

One could argue that the brain is a working tool... broken?

(shortened for brevity)

Yes, that would be the psychiatrist.

I personally know people ... if you didn't know better, you might call them sane.

The psychosis may have been under control at the moment or in some sort of remission at the time. An example of this is schizophrenia, where the psychosis only shows up in episodes.

...alcohol...

Alchohol, in my experience is more of a neurosis inducing drug. Drunk people have weakened senses, but still understand what they experience; they just can't handle it. They often loose their inhibitions, whether good ones or bad.

@ siebe -

Good points about the ability to help minimize the risks of drugs.

Why would anything beyond reality be inherently wrong?

I don't think it's as important to evaluate it as 'right/wrong', but more importantly "healthy/unhealthy", or "safe/risky", or "helpful/harmful", which I guess might lead one to go back to right/wrong based on our values.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by siebe83
Why would anything beyond reality be inherently wrong? [/B]

Well...

If it's beyond reality, literally, then it is false. By definition.

[swingdjted]

@ phyltre - if you had the choice between the 3 aformentioned "P's" you'd probably choose psychiatry.

Psychiatrists/Neurologists will often study the chemical and physical structure (hard evidence) of human thought.

They also get paid the best too.