Comment by anythingnonidin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anythingnonidin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

anythingnonidin

Did any of the following apply?

> No current or past history of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, no Bipolar I or II disorder, and no first or second-degree (“A second-degree relative is defined as a blood relative which includes the individual’s grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces or half-siblings.”) relatives with these disorders.3

https://tripsafe.org/how-to-take-lsd/#1-avoid-with-certain-h...

Also this means that it is advisable for you to steer clear of psychedelics.

For what it’s worth:

> “Since the early 1990s, approximately 2000 doses of psilocybin (ranging from low to high doses) have been safely administered to humans in the United States and Europe, in carefully controlled scientific settings, with no reports of any medical or psychiatric serious AEs, including no reported cases of prolonged psychosis or HPPD (Studerus et al., 2011).”1

https://tripsafe.org/shrooms/#2-the-safety-profile-of-shroom...

I really dislike this argument. About 1% of US adults have had schizophrenia in the past year. And 2.6% of the adult population has bipolar. Yet at some point in their life they didn't know they were going to have schizophrenia or bipolar! You're arguing that this only affects people with the condition already but if you can't know if you are predisposed for that, then you have to accept that there's risk. I support studying the risk and benefits, but your argument suggests that the risk only applies to other people. It doesn't and it's destructive to suggest otherwise.

Let me put this another way. Their recommendations include first and second degree relatives. Wikipedia says that the risk of having schizophrenia when you have a first degree relative with it is 6.5% [1] This is the single biggest risk factor for it but it's still pretty small. If it's too dangerous to take based off a 6.5% risk then it's also probably too dangerous to take off the 1%-ish risk that the entire general population faces. At the very least, it's important to acknowledge that there exists these risks instead of replying to every anecdote that hurts your cause with this misleading information while allowing the anecdotes that help.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Genetic

So you're 500% more likely to have schizophrenia when first-degree relatives are more involved.

Another book cited by the wiki page claimed that 13% of people with one parent, and 50% of people with both parents, are likely to have schizophrenia.

These aren't hard and fast rules. People can experiment, but they should know that if they do psychedelics when first-degree relatives have the condition, then they're more likely to have it themselves.

Just like many other health conditions.

It's the classic "this didn't reeealllly happen" comment I was expecting when I posted.

>A second-degree relative is defined as a blood relative which includes the individual’s grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces or half-siblings

You absolutely do not know the medical history of all those people to know if they have a history of schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, or bipolar disorder. People tend to not talk about their mental illness and these disorders can be well managed with medication. I have 17 aunts and uncles half of which I only see every 3-4 years and one I've never met. Do you think I know what their diagnosises are? Apparently one of my uncles had a really bad heart condition since birth but I didn't even know he did until it killed him in his 60s.

Plus if you just keep adding relatives you'll eventually get one with one of those conditions. You're more asking about family size at that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com