If you find this appealing, make sure to do it with a medical professional. If you still want to try it by yourself, read Felix Hill's suicide note first.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-jBoSEVlryiX1IaSzV4vKuih...
("sure, it's your choice what you put in your body, but a really enlightened person wouldn't be so frightened and closed-minded that they don't want to see what psychedelics can show them...")
of course ketamine for depression has this giant downside risk of adverse effects and psychosis, and we should talk about it more, not just sell it as a safe miracle drug.
however... safe, neutral, bland, boring well-tolerated SSRIs, also have a massive downside risk, in that they can trigger a manic episode, which in severe cases also involves psychosis.
so i find myself in the position of being glad there are different depression treatments for different people, including psychedelics and dissociatives, and hopefully we can find a way to make sure people get sorted to the treatments where they are least exposed to the tail risk side effects.
I'm sorry WHAT? I've been to many open airs and other events where MOST of the people around have been under the effect of psychedelic and in other drug-friendly places, and I have never hear manipulative shit like that ever. On the contrary, if I heard people talk about this drugs it was always "it worked for me but might be a bad experience for you", "be safe, don't take it if you're not sure" and "you can always have a great time here completely sober".
when i talk about psychedelic advocates, i mean the people who think that widespread use of psychedelic drugs would massively improve mental health, make people more productive and happier, etc.
As a point of comparison: "social drinking advocates" vs. those who like to get blackout drunk every night.
The idea that everyone should be pressured into taking psychedelics is an absurd extreme. Psychedelics can be a powerful catalyst to growing as a person, but they're not a magic potion that makes you grow emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually.
They're likely going to bring your unprocessed ideas and personal issues to the forefront which can be very productive if you want to face them. But those who carry around demons that they've repressed and absolutely don't want to face would probably have a terrible time on psychedelics.
There are countless heartbreaking stories of people who were prescribed these drugs not knowing what they were subscribing to. In many cases, the effects of those drugs are worse than the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. With "I Don't Wanna Be Me" there's even a song by Type O Negative (from Peter Steele's own experience with Prozac) about the devastating effects SSRIs can have on a person's life.
These drugs are handed out like candy while the physicians prescribing them often point-blank deny any side effects or even attribute those to the illness they are meant to treat.
Psychedelics, on the other hand, have actually been proven to be effective for many syndromes SSRIs are commonly used for and by comparison are very safe when used with proper preparation, medical surveillance, and in the right setting.
The only reason psychedelics are still widely shunned is a Puritan attitude to human well-being: You're not supposed to feel better than the common neutral base level. Any drugs achieving that (alongside with other, more specific and intended medical effects) are maligned and ostracized.
However, the prevalence of side effects with psychedelics is in the single-digit range, whereas with SSRIs you're almost certain to be experiencing some sort of - often severe - side effects for the rest of your life.
so it's good we have all options, but ideally we'd have a better way of judging who is safest with which treatment.
- sexual dysfunction
- loss of emotion and creativity
- drowsiness
- insomnia (including real fun stuff like night terrors)
- fatigue
- nausea
- tremors
I'd hardly call that safe or manageable.
With even the most potent psychedelics such as LSD, on the other hand, there's merely a one in thousand chance for severe side effects.
I'd go as far as prohibiting the prescription of SSRIs for all but the most severe cases (such as a severe depression where the patient is actually suicidal). For everything else these drugs are commonly used for, e.g., mild depression, OCD, or IBS, there are other - in many cases better - options with far less devastating (if any) adverse effects.
Almost none of these would be permanent, and you certainly don't have a 1 in 3 chance of them being permanent. Where did you get that number?
> With even the most potent psychedelics such as LSD, on the other hand, there's merely a one in thousand chance for severe side effects.
This is fucking nuts. We're in a thread about how taking too much can clearly cause weeks of psychosis, and how easy it is to do that. There's nothing wrong with warning about the risks of SSRIs, but to claim you have a 1 in 3 chance of having permanent nausea while, in the same breath, claiming psychedelics are 100x safer, is beyond irresponsible.
Sexual dysfunction caused by SSRIs in many cases persists for the rest of the patient's life.
> and you certainly don't have a 1 in 3 chance of them being permanent. Where did you get that number?
Those are actual numbers from scientific studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719451/
> in the same breath, claiming psychedelics are 100x safer, is beyond irresponsible.
Stating mere facts isn't irresponsible and those are the facts:
When taking SSRIs you have a one in three chance to permanently and severely change your life for the worse.
When taking LSD you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of suffering a psychotic break.
What's irresponsible - and unethical - is twisting and misrepresenting these facts - to the extent of outright lying about the purported innocuousness of SSRI, as is wont in the psychiatric community.
You said most symptoms were permanent, don't back down now. Sexual Dysfunction is a pretty broad term, how would you even link it to being affected by an SSRI?
> Those are actual numbers from scientific studies: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719451/
Literally says NOTHING about being permanent, this is about symptoms experienced while on SSRIs. Did you read your own source?
> When taking LSD you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of suffering a psychotic break
Where are you getting this number? It lacks so much context. What dosage gives you a 1/1000 chances of a psychotic break? Are you aware people are just taking whatever amount of Ketamine they feel like?
You seem to be arguing that Ketamine is somehow 300+ times safer than SSRIs as if you can compare the two 1:1. That is now how medication works.
There you go: https://www.tga.gov.au/news/safety-updates/updated-warnings-...
https://annals-general-psychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8061302/
https://rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-pssd/
> Where are you getting this number?
There you go (for instance): "Cohen suggests a low rate of prolonged psychotic reactions in LSD users (1.8 per 1000) [19]"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02800-5#Sec35
> Are you aware people are just taking whatever amount of Ketamine they feel like?
Ketamine is a totally different type of drug. Deriving anything about psychedelics from the amount of Ketamine people take is entirely nonsensical.
With regards to Ketamine.
> There you go (for instance): "Cohen suggests a low rate of prolonged psychotic reactions in LSD users (1.8 per 1000) [19]"
That is a description of one of the many studies included in this meta-analysis. This is from the same article.
> Taken together, the effective risk of psychedelic-induced psychosis or worsening of pre-existing psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia -as well as in the early stages of the psychosis spectrum- remains incompletely understood
Also
> Overall quality of studies was low and only few studies (n = 9) could be included in the meta-analysis, hence the presented findings should be interpreted with caution.
You're doing something called "Moving the goalposts" by first asking for sources and then complaining because those sources don't support the very narrow construal you seem to be applying to my argument.
Those sources are scientific studies, which by the very nature of the scientific processes of course are open-ended.
no, more complicated than that..
Drugs that affect the serotonine system can do this. Burnout from (repeated) overload sort of situation IIUC.
I’m no doctor, but I suspect it’s extra dangerous if you’re already suffering depression.
I couldn’t read the whole note. What a tragedy :'(
Of course, many people still do it. But they are fully aware of what road they're taking.
I suspect even 15 years on I haven’t fully regained my ability to experience joy, but this is impossible to know for sure. I can’t run the counter factual and there are many other variables at play. I was a teenager when I got too deep into MDMA.