> They’re absolutely zero studies that show that these compounds are either safe or dangerous. Anyone saying that they’re either has a bias.

Your ignorance does not indicate lack of research in the real world.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt>

In 2007 Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[17] Eventually, this led to his dismissal from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, which was later re-named Drug Science.[18]

(read: the uk government didn't like what he had to say, that drugs weren't totally appalling meritless things, so they sacked him)

from that wiki page

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.sv...>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Development_of_a_rational...>

But the next time drugs comes up you'll doubtless post the same thing.

> there are absolutely zero studies that show that these compounds are either safe or dangerous.

there are many studies about these medicines - curious where this statement that there are none is coming from?

here's a tip of the iceberg, a good place to start --

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00952990.2016.11...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/hallucin...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/magic_mu...

For what it's worth I agree with you both: you, green new shoot on HN, and also the other commenters disagreeing with you. Because I think there are studies that shows psychedelics are safe you but they're safe within a certain context of analysis done in the study. I think you're right we don't know if there's any cause between taking psychedelics and cancers. Glioblastoma is a connective tissue cancer of the brain I think and I think it's not inconceivable to consider that psychedelics in that they induce a proliferation of new neurons and connections and so they could somehow effect an overgrowth of connective tissue (btw I know connective tissue is different to neuronal connections...heh :) but still it may be connected ;) in various ways). Whether it's conceivable or not doesn't really matter cuz there's plenty of things that occur in the body which aren't conceivable at some point in time. So I think the best we can say is they're probably safe but we don't really know...and that's just the way it is. Even so the risk albeit a personal thing is low for causing something as disastrous as that aggressive tumor and the fact that we don't know doesn't make it in any different to the infinite number of other possible causes of glioblastoma or whatever severe acute illness that we don't know are causes either. I think your point is valid and correct and people have maybe taking it in a way that may have abandoned the nuance with which it was delivered.

Also I was interested by your other comment suggesting I think that B6 could increase indogenous production of HT-something in the body... Did I get that right? Could you maybe point me to the direction of more of that type of information?