A Non-Hallucinogenic Psychedelic Analog for Treating Mental Illness
chemistry.ucdavis.edu
chemistry.ucdavis.edu
Hoffman would be very interested in this news.
How would they even know it's "non-hallucinogenic"?
Parenthetically, the term "halluciongen" is pejorative, and I wish at least researchers would have more sense than continuing to use it.
One of the reasons it's pejorative is that it demeans what one experiences when using such substances as "just a hallucination", whereas it's highly debatable whether that's in fact the case, or even what a "hallucination" is.
Some have argued that these substances open your eyes to the "true reality", and it's this reality that's illusory or false on some level. This is a view that goes back thousands of years back at least to Plato and Hinduisim before that, but even in contemporary society there are people who believe that these substances get one in touch with really existing spirits, or ancestors, or god.
It also demeans the experience as being valueless in itself. It's far from clear that it is, and many people consider the "hallucinations" by far the most valuable thing about the experience, and argue that it is by the revelations that they have on these substances that the beneficial effects come about. This is, as the existence of this paper shows, still an area of research, but this paper shouldn't be trying to close off that possibility by choosing to use terminology whose very definition presumes the contents of the experience is valueless.
Another reason it's pejorative is that there are people who consider these substances to be sacred or teachers, so to call them substances that merely induce hallucinations is disrespectful to these views as well.
Personally I would like to benefit from this research if it pans out. I don’t have a generally negative association with “hallucinogen” but for personal reasons I’ve been hesitant to try them. If I could benefit from a synthetic of the chemical compounds without undesired (by me) psychoactive effects, I would certainly like to know.
One could strongly argue that government & quite a few special interest would prefer the research was directed toward 'non-hallucinogenic' research paths.
Why? Psychedelic 'hallucinations' aka altered perception have lasting effects on your outlook on reality, and it typically orients folks a little more toward to truth (e.g. concluding "maybe my life of empty materialism & status chasing isn't as deeply satisfying as I've come to believe." or "maybe I don't need daily zoloft if I change my values & life.").
Aside: Non-hallucinogenic psych analogous could be useful for folks with schizophrenia or panic.
There was some early research which reported success in using LSD and psilocybin to treat schizophrenia in children:
Aside: I've seen cannabis contribute to schizo onset.
Where they on said substances when they made that argument?
The most obvious question (apart from why the authors think that head nodding has anything to do with hallucinations) is whether ibogaine made mice twitch their heads, and why they didn't compare ibogaine's head twitching effect on mice to the effect the ibogaine analog had.
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...
1st aspect is: "The visual" such as walls breathing, tracers following hand movements, prismatic offset of vision, the inability to read text and many more but all related to visual perception.
2nd aspect is: What I would call the "Mental" or "Mind F#(k" pardon my language but it is truly the best words for it. This is the part that pushes emotions and inner thoughts, possibly sub conscious thought to the forefront. Bad trips come from this but so do many epiphany(epiphanI?).
There may be benifits to both aspects, I feel being able to isolate each part and produce a drug with none of one or even control the levels of both would be a good thing.
Think of the recent advancements in Cannabis production which BTW is also a hallucinogen depending on THC levels and strain.
I have a prescription for ketamine lozenges for treatment resistant depression. I rarely have hallucinations anymore but the anti-depressant effect is still present. The single biggest threat to my continued treatment are individuals and doctors that want to apply religion where it has no place.
Ive read before psychedelic use goes back to the original silicon valley companies.
Interest in psychedelics (on HN and on many other forums, media outlets, and society in general) was rekindled at the start of the so-called Psychedelic Renaissance, when very positive results of new research in psychedelics was announced.
Michael Pollan's "Trip Treatment" article[1] was one of the first to make mainstream readers aware this was going on.
After that the floodgates opened as more and more positive research results were announced.
HN, like many other news aggregators, discussion forums, and social media outlets followed this trend, and psychedelic users started coming out of the closet... leading to more interest and more coverage.
Then microdosing psychedelics started to become trendy, and it seems a lot of people in tech got in to that as well.
So now it seems we have a situation where quite a few people on HN are interested in this subject. But, no, it wasn't always like this, and HN used to be much more narrowly focused on tech and startups than it is now.
[1] - https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/the-trip-treatmen...