Advertisement
Survey Series
For Advertisers
Volume 21 |
Issue 2 |
Page 24
Bookmark & Share
Close Window
'Shroom Science: Safe and Effective?Fifty years after its introduction to science, psilocybin returns to mainstream clinical research.
In the August issue of Psychopharmacology, Johns Hopkins researchers published a study in which some subjects were given psilocybin and then asked to relate their experiences. Francisco Moreno of the University of Arizona published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry his patients' reports that psilocybin helped them with migraine headaches. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center psychiatrist Charles Grob told the Chronicle of Higher Education that he is giving the compound to patients dying of cancer to see whether it eases pain by relieving anxiety. The study of so-called magic mushrooms isn't new; it could be argued that it is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It began, as best anyone can tell, when Wall Street banker R. Gordon Wasson documented his trip to a healer in Oaxaca, Mexico, whose brew, he claimed, enabled him to see the reality of ideas and concepts. His 1957 essay in Life magazine excited the imaginations of scientists around the world. Sandoz patented the two active chemicals in the mushrooms, calling the compounds psilocin and psilocybin. Chaos ensued as researchers struggled to do excellent scientific work using a family of substances whose effects - to put it mildly - were not easily measurable using the tools of the time. The scientists who used psilocybin in their research in the 1960s poked at the nature of consciousness, but this particular compound just refused to be caged by ordinary scientific conventions. Paper after paper stabbed at descriptions of the effects and utility of psilocybin, but scalar measures of transcendence just could not capture its effects, or side effects. A few of the leading scientists engaged in its study, most notoriously Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary, simply abandoned the strictures of scientific research as insufficient to grasp the power of psilocybin. By the time the FDA banned hallucinogenic drugs in 1970, the majority of those experimenting with mushrooms were not in universities. Hallucinogens became part of a counterculture that aged quickly. By the 1980s, the next counterculture devoted to brain modification was moving in a completely different direction, experimenting with highly addictive stimulants, such as cocaine, which assist in thinking faster, concentrating harder, and intensifying ordinary experiences. Time passes, and what's old becomes new again. In 2007 millions of people take legal stimulants and antidepressants. A decades-long quest for endless work capacity, unfettered concentration, and happiness on-demand has perhaps hastened the return of those who wonder whether the touch of transcendence could provide new insights into treating the maladies that have become rampant in our time. And indeed, new studies suggest that psilocybin may offer hope in treating a few of them, ranging from obsessive-compulsive disorder to rampant addiction. With the dramatically enhanced ability of neural imaging to identify changes in brain state, and advances in the genetics of neuroscience, it is no wonder that some of those who researched psilocybin in the 1970s have begun to point again to the potential of that compound. Magic mushrooms are not addictive and have been around more than half a century. So should we really be worried about the potential that new research will lead a new generation to "turn on, tune in, and drop out"? Yes. Ethics committees examining the research programs underway with hallucinogens need to be mindful that what sparked the widespread illegal use of psilocybin in the 1970s was not its mystical power but the reports of its safety and efficacy coming out of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States. Scientists are acting with great care this time around, but let's avoid a bad trip. Hallucinogens have not been scientifically demonstrated to be either safe or effective enough to be used in the treatment of any disease. Studies of them should be undertaken only when investigators avoid sending subtle messages about the safety or delight of chewing on backyard mushrooms. For example, in the Hopkins study subjects were given either Ritalin or psilocybin, sending the terribly premature message that the two substances are in any sense equivalent in terms of effect or safety. It would have been much better to compare psilocybin with, well, anything other than a compound prescribed to tens of millions and often abused by those seeking better cognition. Thankfully that study was all but ignored by the media. When it comes to hallucinogens, if the research sends the wrong message, drop it. Or rather, don't. Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics. Advertisement
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: Psilocin toxicity by Jason P. [Comment posted 2007-03-21 19:30:09] Has there been any evidence to indicate that psilocin physically damages the brain or cognitive function in any way? I suppose one could experience PTSD from a so-called "bad trip", but I don't believe there has ever been any evidence suggesting any negative long-term effects beyond this.
I know there was a recent study suggesting a lack of toxicity presented by mescaline containing Peyote cacti, and that there is extensive research on LSD-25 caused HPPD. But this research seems to be missing in the case of psilocin. Return to Top comment: 'Shrooms and Cosmetic Pharmacology: a matter of communication by Cristiano Chiamulera, Prof of Pharmacology, Univ. of Verona, Italy [Comment posted 2007-03-20 14:26:29] Glenn McGee recently wrote about the danger that data from studies on potential therapeutic applications of hallucinogens may send subtle and wrong messages about the safety of these substances. Up to date, there are not controlled studies that demonstrate that the use of psilocybin ￂﾖ this was the example taken by McGee - is safe and effective for migraine headache or affective pain1. Ethical committees should accurately evaluate safety and efficacy of these trials, and investigators should not send subtle messages, for instance when comparing the hallucinogen with a current treatment.
Research with hallucinogens, but also with cannabinoids and stimulants in the past, suffer of a diffuse prejudice that originates from societyￂﾒs perception of these substances as drugs of abuse. A substance is not a drugs of abuse per se, but in virtue of a complex set of conditions. Therapeutic use of cannabinoids and stimulants is now fairly accepted, even if there are still sensationalistic warns on popular media about the intrinsic addictive nature of these medications, and of their potential danger. Itￂﾒs a matter of correct scientific communication and evidence-based data dissemination. It must be said that time also needs to elapse before popular perceptions ad beliefs change. Hallucinogens research presents the same ethical issues raised for drug-induced cognitive enhancement or forgetting (for instance, propranolol as potential therapy in post-traumatic stress disorders2 ). This has been called ￂﾑcosmetic neurologyￂﾒ3, but labels do not contribute to a better knowledge. Basic and clinical research and evidence-based data generation must progress. Investigators and committees may control research in order to guarantee safety of volunteers/patients and quality of data. Close interrelationship between PIs and ECs should take place at an early stage of study design, during the trials, and, finally, at the final stage for data communication on scientific papers. On peer-reviewed scientific literature there is no risk to send wrong, or subtle, messages. And then, it is not up to PIs nor ECs to disseminate the data. In general, we scientists are not good communicator. Itￂﾒs up to a class of professional, science-educated journalists and writers take the scientific message and make it suitable for a general comprehension. Science and Society are not two separate entities. 1. G McGee, ￂﾓ ￂﾒShroom Science: Safe and Effective?, ￂﾔ The Scientist, 21(2):24, February 2007. 2. C Reist, JG Duffy, K Fujimoto, and L Cahill, ￂﾓbeta-Adrenergic blockade and emotional memory in PTSD,ￂﾔ Int J Neuropsychopharmacol, December 1, 2001; 4(4): 377-83. 3. A Chatterjee, ￂﾓCosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood,ￂﾔ Neurology, Sep 2004; 63:968 - 974. Return to Top comment: The Ritalin issue by Jason P. -economics/philosophy student [Comment posted 2007-02-26 23:36:22] I fail to see how this study suggested that psilocybin mushrooms are safe (although this is a sentiment I would agree with).
Ritalin was used because a psychoactive placebo was necessary. Just as the Marsh Chapel experiment used large doses of niacin. It was important that control subjects feel the placebo acting on them in some noticeable way. I hardly think that a placebo substance is meant as an indication on the safety or effects of a substance being tested in any study. Doctor McGee, I doubt you would consider a sugar pill to be an indicator of the effects (good, bad, or neutral) of any trial medication a study might pair it with. I fear you may be looking for dragons where there are none, attempting to find flaws in this recent study so that you can make your point about caution in future research. I would like to commend you, however, on responding to your critics. This isn't a courtesy many authors show their internet readers. Return to Top comment: Value by doug smith [Comment posted 2007-02-26 22:41:51] Many of those who have experienced the effects of mushrooms may agree that the value of the psychedelic experience on humans goes well beyond any possible physical or health benefit. I for one would say that even if there was a physical risk (which of course there is not) associated with ingesting them, knowing what I know now, I would choose to take the risk and have the experience.
This article doesn't even begin to offer anything constructive to the issue at hand. We definitely need more research that will hopefully lead to the decriminilization of mushrooms. Return to Top comment: Words by P. Floyd [Comment posted 2007-02-26 22:09:45] The topics of debate were selected by the author, not by those responding to the story. We did not choose the pull-out sentence written in bold beneath your picture.
Had this article appeared in the Peoria Gazette, you most likely would not have been overwhelmed with responses. It was as much where your opinions were disseminated, as the opinions themselves. I would hope that future misconceptions put forth as fact, will also be challenged. I can assure you that this research IS being conducted as carefully as possible and public perceptions have been taken into account, to avoid those things that you suggest (rightly so in most cases) need to be avoided, if possible. No one doing this work is blind to the mistakes of the past. On the other hand, public perceptions are appearing less important in this debate with each waking day. It is a strong public perception by a majority of the country, that medical marijuana is safe enough, and effective enough, to be made available to the public to treat certain maladies. So possibly, public perception only works one way? There was no rage involved in my responses and I don't believe there was any in the others. I believe you have misperceived our frustration and dismay, as rage. I also believe that your article will some day be presented as an argument, "published in a well respected scientific journal, from a well respected ethicist," that this sort of research should be halted/delayed/denied because of problems with placebo selection and misconceptions to America's youth, thinking psilocybin is as safe as sugar pills. You should be aware that in all likely-hood, the words printed in this journal, and those like it, will play a bigger role during the journey of this research, than any placebo choice. The response to your article should be proof that your words do mean something and your words should be chosen as carefully as the researchers choose their placebo. Yes, you are correct that everyone needs to be involved in these discussions and we need to hear from people such as yourself, on these issues, if we are to make progress. That said, when the response to early critical remarks sounds like "because I said so," whether through silence or avoidance of the issues, you change the tenor of the debate. Words can and do play a role in policy and perceptions. Back in the 60s, maybe the words and research coming out of Harvard and other respected institutions did have an affect on policy. As much credit as they, and you, might like to accept though, they had much less of an impact upon psilocybin and LSD use than any 16 year old kid in the park with a tie-died tee shirt. There is a big difference between policy and reality. Do you really think they needed anything more than Richard Nixon telling them they shouldn't? The policy in New Orleans was that the levies would keep the city safe. The reality was that almost everyone kept an axe in their attic so they could live, in spite of the policy. The only way to bridge the gap, is to tell the truth. P. Floyd BTW, how many letters do we need after our name to have our opinions respected, ethically speaking of course? ;-) Return to Top comment: An Excellent Revision by Dalton Hance - Researcher for Restricted Environmental Stimulation at Penn State University [Comment posted 2007-02-26 17:51:58] I do believe, I owe Glenn McGee an apology. His premises are not as rigid as first appeared. You have done an excellent job of clarifying your intentions. However, I would still argue since I am not convinced that "what sparked the widespread illegal use of psilocybin in the 1970s was not its mystical power but the reports of its safety and efficacy coming out of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States."
This is quite a claim to make without citation or reference. What sparked the widespread illegal use of psilocybin, was among other factors, the scheduling of its' legality. Science did have it's role. Methods for mass production of psilocybin mushrooms were researched here at Penn State. However, the 1960s and 1970s and American use of entheogens are tale of a totality of ensembles. You give perhaps too much credit to the authors of those earlier studies. The government had its own messages and role, as did literary and social figures, not to mention the interpretation of the subjective listener. Additionally, I am unconvinced that widespread illegal use of psilocybin is a bad thing, but even if it is, the scientists responsibility is to a sound methodology, not something as vague and fickle as public perception. That said, there is of course a matter of due discretion when it comes to our conjectures. It is impossible to not carry biases and premises, but one must appear to be and as much as possible inhabit a space of openness to both confirmations and refutations. In this regard, I am with Glenn McGee when he asks the question about "how much good this research will do if it isn't kiboshed by idiotic allegiance to a 'cause' or xenophobia whenever it is questioned." But this also means a scientist should not hamstring him/herself by an aversion to upsetting and challenging the premises of public perception. The scientists merely presents the data and lets the rabble argue out their redefined version of "reality" from it. Return to Top comment: Missing the Point by Press Pass [Comment posted 2007-02-25 19:32:09] I have been overwhelmed by the rage expressed by those who have offered commentary on the article. I want to be clear about something because it seems to have been completely lost in the fray. I wrote:
"And indeed, new studies suggest that psilocybin may offer hope in treating a few of them, ranging from obsessive-compulsive disorder to rampant addiction." and "Ethics committees examining the research programs underway with hallucinogens need to be mindful that what sparked the widespread illegal use of psilocybin in the 1970s was not its mystical power but the reports of its safety and efficacy coming out of the leading institutions of higher learning in the United States. Scientists are acting with great care this time around, but let's avoid a bad trip." My point, which seems to me hardly debatable, is that this is interesting and good science, conducted by good scientists, with great potential, but that history teaches that if we are not very careful about how the studies are designed and constructed, there is the potential for needless risks on the part of the public. That is what happened the last time around, as many who tried LSD for example in the 1960s and 1970s wrote themselves that they believed that those compounds' safety and efficacy as "drugs for transcendence" had been established in the labs of Harvard and elsewhere. I'm not challenging those who believe that the world should have unfettered access to acid and mushrooms. That would be fodder for another column. I'm not arguing that the research area is misbegotten. Or that most scientists working on cluster headaches or even on experiments aimed at identifying the experiences of those who take psilocybin are acting irresponsibly. I am raising an example or two or places where I think being careful with the public is particularly called for. Because - and please get this point - if that doesn't happen, the research will be crushed. So as someone who argued that the research is interesting and important, and only cautioned against the effect of failing to think about public perception, I'm happy to have this debate about what opponents of the research might say. But you're proving my point, and I'm not an opponent of the research. I can see that there are scientific issues I edge up against when I complain only of one particular issue in the Hopkins study, which I suggest may be "sending the terribly premature message that the two substances are in any sense equivalent in terms of effect or safety." My point was not about the question of whether the control group received the best control from a scientific point of view. And that was obvious. I made no claim *whatsoever* that the scientists were *trying* to equate methylphenidate and psilocybin. I know that the label alongside the article reads: "Are Ritalin and psilocybin equivalent in terms of effect and safety?" but I did not write the "pull quote," nor am I qualified nor did I try to answer that question. The point was that unless you have been asleep the last ten years, you know that there is a huge literature about enhancement uses of Ritalin and other similar drugs, whose use by the way - in that way - I have actually written in favor of, and that the comparison of psilocybin to a compound that is oft utilized in that way was undesirable if it is important to the researchers at Hopkins not to become fodder for lengthy articles about "researchers pushing a new form of enhancement." The fact that those articles haven't been written yet, no matter what my critics helpfully uncovered in finding story after story about the fact that there was a study at Hopkins, is indeed a blessing. And I hope that those who share my view that this research is important will try to not only read my column for what I actually said, but also to see the debate on this page for what it actually is - a dangerous desire to mow over anyone, even those who share the basic view that the research is interesting (as I said), in the name of keeping the ball rolling. Notice that among those who jumped on that bandwagon were those who wrote, among other things: "actually wasson's research in the field began with his discovery, in 1927, that some people, himself, first of all, approach this subject of mushrooms with a bias so deep they think it is real. he was appalled and terrified when his wife was delighted to find mushrooms, and it wasn't until he had personal experience that he realized how stupid he was without it. (that's right, women are smarter) seems mr mcgee has that problem too, only he hasn't taken the mushroom yet to know what he is missing. one of wasson's brilliant discoveries was when he said, "we are divided into two camps, those who have taken the mushroom and are disqualified for their subjective experience, and thos who haven't, who are disqualified by their total ignorance of the subject." [quote continues] i surveyed the psychiatric profession many years ago and found that they onlyn people dismissive of the importance if psychedelic drugs research were people who admitted they knew relatively little of which they spoke." This is the worry I have. Let's let this attitude loose on the public. Anybody who is critical of experimentation in this field should be quiet unless they've had some. That comment by the way was titled, "dose McGee." My personal favorite reads as follows: "Until you eat the equivalent of about 250 micro grams of psilocin and psilocibin, do not lecture anywhere. Its like listening to bush speak on experiencing war and battle." The enemy of my enemy, it was famously written, is my friend. Not always. And that is what this debate exposes. Hammer away as you please at my failure to try mushrooms, but don't miss the point - someone who supports this research is cautioning against making the "Dolly" mistake of failing to think about the public and how much good this research will do if it isn't kiboshed by idiotic allegiance to a "cause" or xenophobia whenever it is questioned. Glenn McGee Return to Top comment: Unduly Offensive by P. Floyd [Comment posted 2007-02-25 07:21:54] unￂﾷduￂﾷly ofￂﾷfenￂﾷsive
"Thankfully that study was all but ignored by the media. When it comes to hallucinogens, if the research sends the wrong message, drop it. Or rather, don't." Return to Top comment: Message from the Web Editor at The Scientist by Simon Frantz [Comment posted 2007-02-22 20:30:27] Just to clarify the editing issue mentioned by Dalton Hance. A sentence in the original comment was inappropriate, but rather than taking the draconian action of rejecting the entire comment on the basis of a single sentence, we invited Dalton to resubmit the comment without the offending sentence, which Dalton kindly agreed to do. I hope our encouragement of open discussion in the comments section is evident from this and other threads on our website, though we will have to remove any comment that is libelous or unduly offensive.
Thanks, Simon Return to Top comment: "Vocal Minority" Overwhelms Confirmation Bias of Author by Abandoning Assumptions, Determined to Understand [Comment posted 2007-02-22 20:23:23] Many good points have been already made to rebuff Glenn's selective authorship. Still, it is a mistake to presume, either, total safety or zero utility. We study to learn, not to validate presuppositions. Glenn's 'we don't want to open these doors again' polemic seems to ignore the purpose of science: to replace superstition with functional representations of the world 'as-is.'
Let us continue to research the efficacy and safety of seemingly experientially based treatments to compare to that of conventional treatments. "This is safe" is something assumed even of pharmaceutical products, and allowed to treat a variety of 'maladies' prior to their safety being validated. Remember, our FDA linked Viagra to blindness (irony!) only after approving it to treat erectile dysfunction. Medicating is not without risk. It is best to study medications to understand risks, define ranges of benefit, and eradicate faulty assumptions. We can do better than to conclude by merely abstaining from further thought; cease investigations for fear of what may be discovered. Return to Top comment: Glenn McGee: Protecting Consensus Reality from the dangers of a Vocal Minority - The agreeability edited repost by Dalton Hance - Researcher for Restricted Environmental Stimulation at Penn State University [Comment posted 2007-02-22 18:46:30] I will not engage the actual content of the article or reiterate the valid and as yet unaddressed counter-arguments offered by the rabble of a Vocal Minority. Instead, I'd like to point out that McGee has revealed his blatantly biased ideological premise-lock in his comment about "a crowd like this one - the vocal minority - waving the flag and proclaiming the wonders..." Mr. McGee has gone the pundit route, no longer discussing the merits of an argument based on the facts, but instead trying to hack at the credibility of his detractors because of their subjectivity. Where lies your subjective frame of reference, oh pontiff of Objectivity? All those who advocate psychedelic drugs are rabble rousers, no good peace-niks, a dangerously out of consensus group of "pseudoscientists." You might as well do your best Cheney impression, scoff and call them "dirty hippies" and move on to arguments which fall more conveniently within the rigid geometry of your own reality tunnel. You have not addressed any argument, you have merely rehashed old biases. You have revealed that what you're really arguing isn't the finer points of ethics, but the old party line that altering ones consciousness is fundamentally a bad thing. And so we only lob grenades from under the radar, because you've got the radar array - and anything that doesn't blip must not exist. These rhetorical UFOs are merely the swamp gas of a depraved minority - not to be taken seriously.
**My former post was edited here because of certain inarticulate accusations against either Glenn McGee or the State, I have decided to expand upon my intention in that controversial rhetoric** This serves to demonstrate the veracity of certain political imprints. These premises overlay themselves on a masquerade of "ethical objectivity." Glenn McGee is clearly, though maybe unawarely, influenced by the bait-and-switch show of FDA clinical trials - the same FDA which continually edits and discredits solid science relating to less-easily controlled substances such as medical marijuana. In a sense what McGee is arguing is that because Ritalin is FDA-approved it comes with a stamp of "safety and efficacy" more valid than that of the scientist working with open conjectures. Cart before horse, verdict before trial, McGee claims that the FDA is the authority on what is safe for human consumption - not the scientists merely exploring a hypothesis, and most certainly not non-State, non-Western peoples who have used such substances safely and effectively for millennia. Return to Top comment: Balanced follow-up, please! by Neuroscience Graduate Student [Comment posted 2007-02-22 04:09:06] The editors of The Scientist should strongly consider publishing an article on the ethics and politics of contemporary psychedelic research, perhaps interviewing some of the researchers mentioned in Mr. McGee's column. There is clearly lots of interest.
Two points to add to this discussion: 1. A unique feature of the Johns Hopkins study was that they interviewed friends and family of participants before and after the drug session. This provided semi-objective confirmation that the reported positive effects of psilocybin had lasting real-world impact. Hopefully this will motivate larger-scale scientific studies on psilocybin. 2. Suppression of psychedelics is a genuine everyday threat to the religious freedom of millions of Americans. Over 200,000 members of the Native American Church use peyote (a psychedelic hallucinogen similar in effect to psilocybin) in legal religious ceremonies, but they still face discrimination (for instance in federal employment), and US citizens without tribal affiliation are in most states not allowed to take part in peyote ceremonies. Ayahuasca is another traditional psychedelic, it is used by several recognized Brazilian religions, church members are now fighting through the US court system for the right to practice their religion in this country. Psilocybin mushrooms have been used in North and South America for religious purposes for thousands of years, missionaries reported how they brutally persecuted mushroom users. Thousands of psychedelic users are currently serving lengthy sentences in US prisons, most would claim religious or spiritual motivations. This is a issue for the scientific community because anti-drug authorities point to faulty, outdated research to justify jailing psychedelic users. In the Netherlands, where mushrooms are openly sold and tolerated, a health ministry report from 2000 on psilocybin mushrooms concluded that mushrooms had very low risk for users and general society and that only political concerns kept them illegal in most countries, see a translation here: www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_health1.pdf Similar reports have been published by the UK and EU. I would be happy to provide The Scientist with other interesting current references on psychedelic hallucinogens and assistance on a balanced story on this topic. Return to Top comment: mr by martin naylor [Comment posted 2007-02-21 22:18:30] What is also failed to be mentioned is the fact that 700,000 people die from the effects of prescription drugs, so do we stop going to the doctors,
magic mushy's have been researched for at least 50,000 years not 50 Return to Top comment: A Repost by Dalton Hance - Researcher for Restricted Environmental Stimulation at Penn State University [Comment posted 2007-02-21 18:58:15] My previous comment seems to have up and disappeared. It accused Mr. McGee of incurable premise-lock. I will not reprint it here. There are several explanations for what happened to that comment, the least likely being one of a conspiracy to prevent discourse. I'm open to any explanation, just as I'm open to any conjecture on complex and unpredictable changes following ingestion of compounds like psilocybin. But shucks I was expecting another exhilarating response from McGee's reality tunnel - not disappearance of commentary. Return to Top comment: It takes one to know one by Dan Healy [Comment posted 2007-02-21 05:32:53] This article is written from a singular perspective of
ignorance. Truly, these are powerful substances, used for, perhaps, thousands of years by some cultures as religious sacraments in tribal rituals. Interestingly enough, the author doesn't even touch ground there, and it is clear why- he is one of those who has no experience first hand. Those who have will nod their heads collectively, and those who have not will guess, bluster fraudulently and wonder deep inside. Uniformly, the overwhelming majority of patients who have received the drugs describe the same experience of meeting god with vivid detail, and not some old guy with robes and a beard. Until you eat the equivalent of about 250 micro grams of psilocin and psilocibin, do not lecture anywhere. Its like listening to bush speak on experiencing war and battle. Return to Top comment: Common sense by Ian Grant [Comment posted 2007-02-16 12:03:12] One way to stop the arrant rubbish about the drugs issue is to make all so-called illegal drugs available free on demand from the corner shop.
Everyone knows these drugs are fun or at least produce interesting changes in your perception of the world. Also, that some have lethal consequences. Enforcing free distribution and sale destroys the economic incentitve for anyone to make and supply them, so who will? If they can find or make the drugs, a (small) percentage of the population might abuse them and we shall have to deal with that. A few more might use them for a while and grow out of the them. Most people might try one or two out of curiosity and avoid them thereafter. The immediate pay-off will be a massive decrease in the prison population, the loss of a massive and lucrative market for criminals - and a consequent loss of their incentive and power to corrupt our political leaders - and an end to the corrupt morality that licenses proven killers like tobacco and alcohol (a point Mr McGee may care to address at some point). I suspect the cost to the taxpayer of such a change will be a fraction of the cost of "the war on drugs", of destroying the livelihoods of mainly impoverished farmers, to say nothing of the intrusion of the state into the governance of our private affairs. Stop giving the state an excuse to nanny you. Grow up. Be a responsible adult. Or at least let others be. Return to Top comment: The deadly fruit of reductionism by Alessandro Giuliani [Comment posted 2007-02-16 09:12:46] Mysthicism is a mushroom, efficiency is a plant, a generation of children is being destroyed by the use of Ritalin simply because being children (and then very active) is probably a neurotransmitter.
This pseudo science is continuing to go against human dignity refusing to admit what any one knows in his/her soul: the unicity and complexity of each human being. We are probably at the very end of this simplistic science, something new is appearing, but we must still fight with the corpse of deterministic and violent science, the mother of eugenetics and racism, is still stinking. Why call counterculture what is simply 'fighting against the freedom' of human beings ? How many times we must listen to these things ? If a mushroom can alleviate the pains of a person with a cancer it is a good thing, stop speaking of 'consciouness' and 'mysthicism' that are much more complex and serious things. Sincerely Alessandro Giuliani Istituto Superiore di sanitￃﾠ, Roma, Italy Return to Top comment: An ethical position? by MTC [Comment posted 2007-02-16 08:09:32] Horror of horrors a posibility that these drugs could be safely used without serious side effects or the risk of addiction. A drug that is beneficial, pleasant and harmless now here is a situation likely to give the moral majority a collective heart attack. Return to Top comment: dose mcgee by Robert Forte [Comment posted 2007-02-16 07:15:50] actually wasson's research in the field began with his discovery, in 1927, that some people, himself, first of all, approach this subject of mushrooms with a bias so deep they think it is real. he was appalled and terrified when his wife was delighted to find mushrooms, and it wasn't until he had personal experience that he realized how stupid he was without it. (that's right, women are smarter) seems mr mcgee has that problem too, only he hasn't taken the mushroom yet to know what he is missing.
one of wasson's brilliant discoveries was when he said, "we are divided into two camps, those who have taken the mushroom and are disqualified for their subjective experience, and thos who haven't, who are disqualified by their total ignorance of the subject." i surveyed the psychiatric profession many years ago and found that they onlyn people dismissive of the importance if psychedelic drugs research were people who admitted they knew relatively little of which they spoke. thank god for the courageous researchers who aren't imprisoned by such idiots. Return to Top comment: Ethical Placebo by P. Floyd [Comment posted 2007-02-16 06:49:57] I believe Mr. McGee has produced the literary equivalent of the medical research placebo. Something that looks, tastes and acts like an ethical argument, but has no real active compound.
I am sure Mr. McGee, that you knew full well that you would get some responses from those people that support this type of research. I imagine it was to this very group that you were addressing many of your remarks. I'm sure you don't just go around preaching to "the choir." Maybe you weren't expecting the bombardment though. Only you can decide whether you reaped the benefits which you sowed. You certainly got the attention of people you should enjoy trying to convince of what you feel is the truth. Please hit us with some facts to support your theory. We all like to learn new things. Had you been on the IRB for this project, and wanted to stop the use of the Ritalin, what would you have preferred, as you put it, as equally effective and safe? Maybe use LSD as the placebo? I'm not sure of your point and you haven't answered any of the questions so I still wonder. Should they have used something seemingly safer? Such as aspirin or other NSAIDs...which kill about 20,000 people a year in the US? Should they have used something more harmful? Such as 5 shots of Jack Daniels vs 5 shots of something that tasted like JD, but had psilocybin in it? Please don't answer with "just about anything would have been better." If you don't know, you should at least ask someone to help you on this one. You stated in your fourth paragraph, that scientists could not "cage" this compound by ordinary conventions, but then just had to toss in the required Leary dig for his agreeing that the strictures were insufficient. I'm not sure who you were agreeing with, or what your point was other than to try and relate this research with the "notorious" Timothy Leary. A rather sad attempt in my opinion. So far, your arguments sound hollow and all that remains are comments very similar to the government stance that, there isn't any research showing safety or efficacy of psychedelics, so we can not approve any research that might show safety or efficacy. I think you should question yourself on the ethics of writing an article that might help your career with your stance, but hurt many others in the long run. I am quite astonished that you zeroed in on the placebo used in this research as the only ethical problem. Is that all you could find? Were you given the task of finding something, anything, wrong? Do you really think that the choice of placebo in this study changed one person's mind about using or not using psilocybin? Maybe you don't get out much. Please do some research of your own on this subject. Should you decide to comment similarly on future research in this area, on the same grounds, I suspect we will be having this conversation again. Please come more prepared. Return to Top comment: We Didn't Ignore It by David Biello [Comment posted 2007-02-15 22:19:42] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00057DC8-20C7-14B4-A0C783414B7F0000
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa011&articleID=00050884-69F1-152E-A9F183414B7F0000 That said, Dr. McGee raises an excellent point when he notes that the safety and efficacy of these powerful substances have not been proven. A substantial portion of subjects in each of these experiments experienced what would be classified anecdotally as "bad trips." However, using Ritalin as an active control does not seem to me to create a false equivalence between the two drugs in terms of safety or use. Ritalin inspires some of the same physical symptoms as psilocybin and therefore plays a useful role in potentially assessing--in the most rigorous, controlled, scientific kind of way--the effect and safety of this type of drug. Given its potential to provide insights into how the brain constructs consciousness, if it can be proven safe then there should be no objection to using it as one of many tools to explore this fundamental phenomena. Return to Top comment: Blatantly Incorrect and Biased by Lee Billings [Comment posted 2007-02-15 21:41:13] The point-by-point dismantling of the author's so-called "reporting" and his conclusions has been handled well by previous posters, and this column will likely continue to draw well-deserved ire, but besides Mr. McGee's ill-considered and frankly insulting response in the comments, no further "official" reaction has taken place.
I have to agree with essentially all the other commenters -- this column is an embarrassment, and the publication of a retraction or a lengthy list of corrections is justified. Having failed to check the facts, The Scientist should check itself, and act accordingly. Return to Top comment: Reponse to McGee's Non-response by Lux [Comment posted 2007-02-15 21:04:50] Good heavens! I suppose it should come as no surprise that the author of this piece should respond with ad hominem attacks that utterly ignore the substantial criticisms of his argument. While he claims that his critics are motivated by ideology, I notice that that several of us marshall factual evidence, while he argues with insulting charicatures.
McGee has yet to even acknowledge the clear factual error of his statement that Griffiths et al. was ignored by the press, and his unwillingness to do is symptomatic of a general intolerance of criticism and an unwillingness to re-evaluate his claims in the light of new information. But more troubling is his refusal to reconsider his specious insinuation that Griffiths et al. compared psilocybin with Ritalin in any way whatsoever. This continued assertion raises the question of whether or not McGee has even read the study he criticizes, or if he simply does not understand its design. McGee's dismissal of the findings of the study is baffling. More than two thirds of the subjects reported an experience of profound importance, and he finds this an inconsequential result? I would be interested to see Mr. McGee point to a comparable finding in the literature using any other method - especially in a study conducted at Johns Hopkins by a well-respected researcher, and widely-praised for its excellent methodology. Mr. McGee would do well to consider the unjust harm he does his colleagues by criticizing their results with half-baked slander. Dr. Roland Griffiths is a highly respected researcher working at a first-tier research facility, and McGee's readiness to dismiss his findings is transparently defensive. Return to Top comment: It's annoying dealing with the public isn't it? by Jeffrey Ustaath [Comment posted 2007-02-15 20:28:21] Sorry that the rabble had to pull you down from your ivory tower.
The key point has been made and not refuted by McGee - that over 2/3 of the Hopkins study subjects found the psilocybin experience to have been one of the most significant and transformative experiences of their entire lives. Their. . . entire . . . lives. McGee cites no facts to support his insinuation of risk, either. In fact I will repeat that thousands die every year of alcohol overdoses, but I am not aware of any deaths due to psilocybin mushrooms. We don't use our birthnames, most of us, because McGee is on the Safe Side of the Prohibition and those of us who disagree with him are at risk. We are not tenured professors and heads of prestigious policy organizations whose job it is to rephrase Prohibition cliches and recast, as new, Drug War shibboleths. We are ordinary people with jobs, whose employment is not guaranteed; who can easily be googled by employers and potentially lose their jobs, and risk other opportunities because we are in the avant garde of this social policy revolution. Until I become independently wealthy, the Prohibition is over, or I become a tenured professor then anonymity is unfortunately necessary. Return to Top comment: truly remarkable love of mushrooms by Press Pass [Comment posted 2007-02-15 06:52:36] Unsurprisingly, an enormous number of those who would embrace the return of psilocybin to the world of experimentation, particularly those whom one of my critics (cited by two others) refer to the incredible successes in the Hopkins study (66%! Experience as intense as giving birth!), are unhappy with the conclusions drawn in this piece. I can't think of a better demonstration of the thesis in the piece than to be bombarded by pseudoscience, bad interpretation of the studies, deliberate ignorance concerning the ethical implications, and mind-boggling lists of media coverage that all or almost all refer to the brief run of a wire service piece (and its byproducts) that didn't come close to inducing a real response from critics. What the FDA did before, it will likely soon do again, particularly with a crowd like this one - the vocal minority - waving the flag and proclaiming the wonders of a barely tested set of potential therapeutic modalities for a highly intense psychoactive substance. Now, perhaps if you'd like to put your name and reputation behind your critique, we'd have something to talk about. But from under the radar, lobbing grenades and half-truths, I'd say a halfway organized mob of protesters on behalf of psilocybin does not a truth squad make.
Glenn McGee Return to Top comment: Personal bias mucks up science by frances freeman [Comment posted 2007-02-14 22:46:37] Bad science and biases oh my! Wasson "discovered" mushrooms? Right away i know this author knows nothing of religion, art, culture and history, only the official American rules and biases about "drugs".
The terrible danger of sacred mushrooms is beyond pharmacology or some other physical level of "safety". The experience gained with the mushrooms very often reorients priorities away from upholding social status quo ideals. Once you've had a profoundly religious experience, keeping up with the Joneses by working long hours for more stuff is seen in a new light. And THAT is the real reason why mushrooms are illegal. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen God? ( which/who cannot ever be proven or disproven with materials or methods currently available )? And as far as opinions, judgements, and personal conclusions about the effacy or validity of the experience (for headaches or questions of Spirit), if you haven't seen the movie, you're not qualified to write a review. :) Return to Top comment: Try another topic by Dick Tater [Comment posted 2007-02-14 20:48:35] Mr. McGee,
I'm sure there are subjects that you actually know something about--you should try writing about one of those instead of this one, in which you are not only out of your depth but out of the water entirely. But, authoritarianism being what it is, it's hard for some people to refrain from commenting on certain subjects even though they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. It's nice to see that the War on (some) Drugs still has warriors who are unafraid to put their reputations on the line in this way even though they wouldn't know a "magic mushroom" from a Destroying Angel, or a mushroom-sporting cowpie from, well, shinola. Return to Top comment: Embarrassing by Nodrog [Comment posted 2007-02-14 18:47:15] I've been a long-time reader of the Scientist, and count it among my favorite magazines of any kind. I'll refrain from pointing out the glaring faults of this article, except to reiterate what one other commenter said: "I notice that the author lets pass without comment the stunning findings of the study, in which 66% of the subjects in a two-month follow up reported their experience with psilocybin as one of the most important experiences of their lives, on the same scale as the birth of a child. Perhaps these remarkable findings warrant a reassessment of the author's concerns regarding the dangers of the use of serotonergic hallucinogens."
How in the world can McGee even think he wrote an objective piece without acknowledging one of the primary results of the study? This is derelict reporting by someone who clearly has never had (and really could use) the experience of taking a large dose of mushrooms in quiet darkness with a trusted guide. In all the years I've been reading The Scientist, this is the first time I've read something that was, well, embarrassing for The Scientist to publish. This is a highly respected magazine with extremely high editorial standards. To publish an inaccurate, highly biased story on a study that doesn't even mention one of the primary results should be, as I said, *embarrassing* to this publication's editors. A retraction is in order. Return to Top comment: A few more points by doug [Comment posted 2007-02-04 22:25:47] I would like to make some more precise points:
1) Safety: I seem to recall some studies showing that Ritalin is more potent than cocaine in some respects (I forget the details). Given that American society practically seems to be force feeding its children Ritalin (IMO) His idea that the public will be influenced by the implication that mushrooms are "as safe" as Ritalin when the two are used in studies together falls apart when you consider that in the 60s, all sorts of "scientific" research came out in the popular press about how dangerous psychedelics were (chromosome damage and the like). All this alarmist research (refuted later by more precise unpublicized research) failed to prevent the use/abuse of psychedelics by the public. So I think Mr McGee is overestimating the social impact of scientific studies - it's is there but it's heavily modulated by the popular press' --interpretation-- of the research. So I would argue that it's imperative that the press' interpretation of research be scrutinized as much as possible to ensure there are no misleading ideas promulgated. 2) Which brings me to the next point which I think is very important - I remember reading that studies have shown that if an individual has not ingested any sort of (illegal) drug by the age of 23 or 25 or so, it becomes unlikely that they ever will. So, looking at this issue in a practical sense, we need only worry about what the 13-25 age group might conclude from scientific studies that (on the surface) might imply Ritalin is as safe as psychedelic mushrooms (no, I didn't get that in the wrong order :) The idea that the average 13-25 year old is going to base their behavior on their interpretation of scientific studies is horribly simplistic. Perhaps their interpretation of articles in the mainstream media... But this idea ignores the fact that the drive to alter one's psychological state is a fundamental one (lower primates have it as well as other mammals) and that there are more important psychological forces at work (than higher level cognitive decision making) that determines whether someone is going to ingest a psychoactive substance Again, given teenagers' known ... blindness? to thinking about the possible consequences of their actions, I doubt very much they're going to worry about the possible abstract safety factors in taking psychedelics (if they're compelled by stronger forces), especially considering the general knowledge of and preponderance of evidence that, in the whole, not that many people have been harmed by taking psychedelics. The general principle, I think, is that people most always say "Yeah, but it's not going to happen to me...." All this leads into a discussion of risk and how people perceive it and make decisions based on it - the subject is complex and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. In short, I think Mr McGee's argument is merely a surface one because he does ignore all these other aspects. Return to Top comment: everything else aside this statement alone shows how misguided the author is. by sambo [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:21:08] "It would have been much better to compare psilocybin with, well, anything other than a compound prescribed to tens of millions and often abused by those seeking better cognition"
I have only one question. How does one "seek better cognition" and or what does that exactly entail. I personally suffer from cluster headaches and ADHD and I think using ritalin in these placebos is a great call on the part of the doctors for many reasons. Return to Top comment: glaring errors by Lux [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:20:43] Of the many substantively misinformed claims in this opinion piece, two errors are so glaring that I can't let them pass without comment.
1) As explained in the Psychopharmacology article, the use of methylphenidate as an active placebo was a deliberate decision made for sound methodological reasons. The issue was one of preserving the integrity of the double-blind in the study in order to control for expectancy effects. If the author of this piece had bothered to read any of the four commentaries simultaneously published with the Psychopharmacology article, he would have seen that several distinguished researchers praised the wisdom and effectiveness of using methylphenidate as a control substance. Its mild physical symptoms were so effective and effects that could be mistaken for the influence of psilocybin that a full 22% of the double-blind placebo sessions were mistaken by the trained session monitors for psilocybin sessions. This is one of the conspicuous triumphs of the study. Beyond this, the suggestion that drug research in any way explicitly or implicitly implies an equivalence of safety and efficacy between the test compound and comparison substance is so absurd that I wonder if the author has a basic understanding of research methodology. If this contention is accurate, then pharmaceutical companies are sending a dangerous message that experimental drugs are as safe and effective as sugar pills. 2) The author's contention that this study did not receive much media attention is simply false. This study was not only covered in a detailed piece by the AP, but independently covered by dozens of media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the Japan Times, the LA Times, Forbes, and New Scientist magazine. In addition, this story was the headline entry on the CNN Science page for days after it was written. In addition to these glaring faults, I notice that the author lets pass without comment the stunning findings of the study, in which 66% of the subjects in a two-month follow up reported their experience with psilocybin as one of the most important experiences of their lives, on the same scale as the birth of a child. Perhaps these remarkable findings warrant a reassessment of the author's concerns regarding the dangers of the use of serotonergic hallucinogens. Return to Top comment: Shroom Science by Bruce Sewick [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:20:05] One way to consider safety is to look at the ratio of effective dose to lethal dose
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=yes#50979 Psilocybin has an effective dose to lethal dose of 1 to 1000! Certainly safer than many other substances like alcohol for example. LSD, Psilocybin and Marijuana are three of the safest substances listed in the chart! Return to Top comment: He still doesn't know what he writes by One who knows that facts are more imporant than pseudo-ethics [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:19:46] Gleeful McGee can't admit a mistake.
1.He fails to acknowledge that he wrote, completely in error, that the "FDA banned hallucinogenic drugs in 1970." They never did. 2. Mr. McGee is a Ph.D. and not weighted down by the heavy burden of being a physician or clinical medicine researcher. That is why he wastes his breath waxing on and on about the choice of ritalin and its impact on greater society. Hogwash. This is about clinical research Mr. McGee and not about further messages you wish to extrude from the study that are extraneous to the needs of the study. You don't like the choice of ritalin? fine... you can do your study... but, oh, wait... that's right, you just prefer to be a backseat driver with your complaints... you don't have the skillset to do any of this work... Correct? Or are you planning to go to medical school now, too? These researchers have an obligation to do the very best study possible and your issues of impact on society are not directly relevant. They are made up by you for an opinion column. 3. McGee thinks that the social upheaval of the 60's on forward occured because LSD and other hallucinogens escaped the lab and were promoted as well by unscrupulous researchers. This is a simplistic history and a flawed one at best. Back then, btw, people blamed these drugs for the loss of conformity and resultant problems of the environmental movement, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, and the women's liberation movement. Ah, if only we could have put this genie back in the bottle because what happened was all so bad, bad, bad... Has this guy even heard of MKUltra? Who did those experiments? Who paid for them? He just doesn't know what he writes. Read the Church Commission. 4. In July, when the Hopkins study came out, and before this present stupid piece got published, articles appeared in the: L.A. Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Independent (England), the Times (London), the Daily Record (England), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Hobart Mercury (Australia), Canberra Times (Australia), Sydney MX (Australia), The Age (Australia), the Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia), Manila Times, the Hindustan Times (India), the Houston Chronicle, the Boston Globe, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Sun, the Edmonton Journal (Canada), the South China Morning Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Irish Times, the Belfast Telegraph, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, New York Newsday, the Hartford Courant and 100's of other local papers because an article was written for and posted by the AP Wire... Then there is an article appearing in the July 15th edition of the Economist (The God Pill; Psychedelic Drugs) - but maybe an article in the Economist printed all over the world isn't major enough press... Well, how about an article in December in the Chronicle for Higher Education? McGee might read that... articles also appeared in professional magazines/newsletters including: Pharma Investments, Ventures & Law; Medical Imaging Week; Life Science Weekly; Drug Week; Mental Health Business Week; Hospital & Nursing Home Week; Physician Law Weekly; World Disease Weekly; Mental Health Weekly Digest; Pain & Central Nervous System Week; Health & Medicine Week; Telemedicine Law Weekly; Medical Imaging Business Week; State & Local Health Law Weekly; Telemedicine Business Week; Medical Imaging Law Weekly; Pharma Law Weekly; Telemedicine Week; Biotech Business Week and Science Letter. Other news wire services in addition to the AP Wire include: the AP Worldstream; the AP State & Local Wire; the AP Online; University Wire (resulting in articles in college newspapers everywhere); The Religion News Service (an important article written by religion scholar Huston Smith); Press Association; oh the ever so small UPI; US States News; and Ascribe Newswire. TV coverage included news programs on CTV (Canada), CBS, and ABC. Countless major websites also posted articles - Forbes.com; sciencenews.org; wikipedia.org; answers.com; FoxNews.com; and many, many more. Above isn't meant to be comprehensive but I did find all this within 10 minutes of searching and it proves that the Hopkins article got a tremendous amount of news coverage... maybe you need to adjust your aerial antenna up in Albany Mr. McGee. 5. "I am not the only one to notice" - I say notice how Mr. McGee runs from fact to hide behind his circle of friends who didn't notice the piece either. Totally weak to offer that up as some sort of defense of your lack of homework for this column. 6. It is crucially important that readers understand that Mr. McGee is without any clinical medical credentials. He has no direct experience prescribing medications or in the practice of medicine, in general. He refers to me as an "annonymous flame comment" and very much am I glad to pierce this hot air balloon annonymously. Look how McGee uses libel to go after Jeffrey Ustaah! I mean if McGee can't defend his facts, let's watch him obfuscate his failures by going on the offensive and distort what others do. Hardly becoming of one trained in philosophy but there you have it. 7. It remains obvious to careful readers that McGee does not know of what he speaks in this particular column. How dare he continue to hold up his litmus test of restricting free speech on the backs of suffering cluster patients. Moreover, he clearly states that none of the current crop of researchers are committing these offenses he speaks of so his warnings are perhaps more for himself. Maybe he wants to generate more attention for himself so that a few more of his books might sell. The Scientist would do well to either hire a new columnist or a better editor to keep the excesses of this man in check. You failed here Mr. McGee... teach your mistakes to your students as well please. Return to Top comment: Ethnocentrism Alert! by Bruce Gould [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:11:01] There's a very subtle touch of ethnocentrism in this article -
"The study of so-called magic mushrooms isn't new; it could be argued that it is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It began, as best anyone can tell, when Wall Street banker R. Gordon Wasson documented his trip to a healer in Oaxaca, Mexico, whose brew, he claimed, enabled him to see the reality of ideas and concepts." Didn't the natives in Mexico study mushrooms? Things don't _really_ exist until we westerners notice! Now, of course they mean _scientific_ study, but even in that light - Wasson wasn't a psychologist or biochemist, he was an amateur mycologist - why would his experience count any more than that of the Oaxacan healers? Return to Top comment: Response to Dr. McGee from Ustaath by Jeffrey Ustaath [Comment posted 2007-02-04 15:10:25] Dr. McGee writes:
"Mr. Ustaah, who promotes the recreational use of mushrooms on his blog," My blog www.consciousnesscafe.org only promotes the dissemination of information regarding consciousness and its study in all its forms. I offer information related to psychedelic culture and its history. I have never advocated "recreational use" of mushrooms and personally find this characterization of the psychedelic community as a whole a misrepresentation. The psychedelic community often regards psilocybin mushrooms as a sacred sacrament and a means of communication with divinity. I regard the consumption of psilocybin mushrooms within a clearly established system of religious faith to be a religious practice and covered as such by the First Amendment within the United States. I have never advocated consumption of psilocybin mushrooms as a recreation, and would regard that as a desecration to those for whom psilocybin mushrooms comprise a vehicle for the Divine. Ustaath Return to Top comment: Replies to the First Volley of Comments [From Glenn McGee] by Press Pass [Comment posted 2007-02-03 14:42:11] Reply to Tom DiStefano: There is no question that cluster headaches warrant research including the surveillance of the use of psilocybin by sufferers that was conducted, and additional clinical research using the same compound. The point was that "Studies of [the substance] should be undertaken only when investigators avoid sending subtle messages about the safety or delight of chewing on backyard mushrooms." I didn't make a claim about the etymology of the term magic mushroom. And the point about Ritalin was not that it was an inappropriate placebo or inappropriate for use in any form of comparative research from a scientific standpoint. The point was sociological, that the choice of this particularl substance sent the "terribly premature message that the two substances are in any sense equivalent in terms of effect or safety. It would have been much better to compare psilocybin with, well, anything other than a compound prescribed to tens of millions and often abused by those seeking better cognition." I stand by the comment.
Reply to "One who knows..." [anonymous flame comment]: 1) "proof to support claim..." - I didn't make this claim. The point was that the research conducted on these substances morphed into a kind of pseudoscience that then very obviously and by all accounts became a social phenomenon. 2) FDA did in fact issue statements on the use of halucinogens in research. Wrong again. I said nothing about Schedule I or the DEA because it isn't germaine. Whether the world is flat or not. 3) I can't find a claim in this sophistry. If the point is that there is some sort of inappropriate precaution inherent in my claim that investigators should be careful (mindful of history) with regard to how the public will understand research involving hallucinogens, then there's no support for that claim in the comment. 4) There was no comment in the piece about the purpose of use of ritalin as control to the effect that the idea of the study was to compare them. The point was sociological and you don't need to be an ethicist to see the reason it is of concern. There were dozens of other available controls and the message sent in the work is obvious and I am not the only one who has noticed it. 5) It is true that after I authored the column, Discover ranked the study #49. It is also the case that one can find 30,000 entries if one uses Hopkins and psilocybin into Google. But again I am not the only one who has noticed - in fact study of the phenomenon has been conducted - that the Hopkins study did not receive much media attention. Which remains true unless you think that this notation in Discover pushes it into the real limelight. Reply to Jeffrey Ustaah: Mr. Ustaah, who promotes the recreational use of mushrooms on his blog, offers up the same claim concerning that ritalin was a good choice (dealt with above) and that there was loads of coverage of the Hopkins study (run a Lexis comparison between this study and any major piece from the past year; the point at any rate was that there has not been a public backlash grounded in irrational fears of the Hopkins research, not that Hopkins' research was somehow irrelevant. I am surprised that Mr. Ustaah believes that it is as safe to use psilocybin mushrooms as to eat the "edible culinary variety," because not only is this false it is rejected by the most ardent advocates of mushroom experimentation as a comparator. And finally claim that Mr. Ustaah makes to the effect that people who consume psychoactives in a social vacuum is preposterous and there is no citation to a study to ground the claim. Return to Top comment: psilocybin mushrooms: no evidence of substantial risk by Jeffrey Ustaath [Comment posted 2007-02-02 21:36:19] McGee writes, "For example, in the Hopkins study subjects were given either Ritalin or psilocybin, sending the terribly premature message that the two substances are in any sense equivalent in terms of effect or safety."
The study sent no such message. Some control substance had to be chosen, and I believe ritalin was a good choice. What would you have proposed as an alternative? The Hopkins experiment received a great deal of positive publicity, and reports about it have appeared in the Economist, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and ABC News. Our society has established a baseline of acceptable risk by legalizing nicotine and alcohol. Thousands of people die every year by consuming both substances. I have yet to hear of a single psilocybin related death. Review of causes of death alone shows, in my opinion, that consumption of psilocybin mushrooms poses no more risk than consuming the edible culinary variety. The idea that people consumed psychoactives in the seventies because scientists gave it the green light is absurd. Study after study show that people consume psychoactives regardless of what authority figures, be they politicians, academicians, or police, say about it. You appear to be advocating that scientific studies that show psychedelics to be relatively safe should be kept from the public view. Return to Top comment: Mistakes abound in this piece by One who knows that facts are more imporant than pseudo-ethics [Comment posted 2007-02-02 21:33:49] What we find above has some useful advice but mostly it strays far and wide from the author's stated work as an ethicist into a mere piece of opinion and one that is not based on the principles of medical ethics and research.
To wit: 1. There is zero factual proof to support the goofy claim that it was research results claiming safety that drove vast uncontrolled illicit use of hallucinogens in the 1970's or in any decade. Is this ethicist also claiming that we have a rampant abuse of cocaine or methamphetamine in the United States because both of these drugs also remain Schedule II prescription medications? This is a shameful failure of fact checking on the author's part. 2. The FDA has NEVER banned hallucinogens. Should the author have any expert credentials in medical research of drugs of abuse he would be aware that it is the DEA that places substances in the Scheduling system of the Controlled Substances Act and NOT the FDA. Moreover, placement in Schedule I is not a ban. The law specifically states that drugs in Schedule I are "approved for research use only." The world is not flat, Mr. McGee, though you apparently wish to foist your opinion on us in place of fact. 3. He writes, as well that "Studies of them [hallucinogens] should be undertaken only when investigators avoid sending subtle messages about the safety or delight of chewing on backyard mushrooms." This statement alone should make us all marvel how someone so esteemed as to sit as Chair of Medical Ethics for an American medical school could stray so far from the actual debate of potential risks and benefits that are used to deduce whether a study is in the public interest and should proceed. The behavior that is cautioned against - the promotion of a drug - any drug - before empirical evidence has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals is without doubt unethical and could open up a researcher to censure if not worse. However this swipe taken in this piece is even more unethical as it hides from the reader the true issues that are weighed on moving forward or not with research. We should not subject credible medical research to some litmus test to be vetted by pointy heads like this guy. We need medical research to rise or fall on the methodology. Methodology that can be read and replicated by even skeptics like Mr. McGee because the truth is in the facts as found by the science. These polemics are harmful to the ongoing protection of sound medical research. 4. the comments about psilocybin and ritalin reveal a person who comments before either reading the primary text or who doesn't understand the reseach conducted. it is Mr. McGee who distorts what methylphenidate (ritalin) was used for and it was used for research and not trying to equate ritalin and psilocybin. This is Mr. McGee's thoughts and not the authors of that study! He promotes then exactly what he complains about - because it is his creation to begin with. 5. Finally, the media will ignore this column of ignorance but the media DEFINITELY covered the Hopkins study he writes as "thankfully" not covered. That paper has been publicized all over the world in thousands of papers. Had Mr. McGee bothered to google, he would see 30,000 plus distinct entries. Or just take a peak at the competing Discover Magazine. Their January 2007 issue list "The Top 100 Science Stories of 2006" with the Hopkins psilocybin study ranked #49: http://www.discover.com/issues/jan-07/cover/?page=2 So... I agree with the conclusion: "Drop it" Mr. McGee as you don't know what you write. Or don't drop it and still be irrelevant to what is in fact important in the discovery process for medical reseach. Return to Top comment: Shrooms and science, pain and ethics by Tom DiStefano [Comment posted 2007-02-02 15:06:37] You want a bad trip? Try a headache syndrome so severe sufferers sometimes commit suicide to escape the recurring pain... THATￂﾒs a bad trip.
Cluster headache sufferers have found psilocybin and other tryptamine hallucinogens to be extradordinarily effective at relieveing cluster headache attacks and cycles, and a case review study by John Halpern and Andrew Sewell at McLean determined more research is warranted. Not yet proven, but thatￂﾒs just a matter of time and money. I am personally sure tryptamines have saved me from a life of misery. Should your speculative fears prevent the millions of cluster headache sufferers around the world from finding relief from one of the worst pain sysndromes known to medicine? Wrap your ethics around that one. By they way, ￂﾓmagic mushroomￂﾔ have been around for much longer than half a century, I would assume, and some anthopologists say humans have been using them since pre-history, for spirtual exploration as well as, yes, headache relief. They seem to work on migraines, too, and at subhallucinogenic dosages. Iￂﾒm not sure what you mean in your criticism of using Ritalin as the placebo. If you meant that psilocybin is much safer than Ritalin, you would probably be right. And what would you use as a placebo for a hallucinogen? Tom DiStefano Clarion, PA |
