Is there any evidence for the benefits of psychedelic drugs that

Drugs will mess up your brain. Your parents should have told you this, faggot.

>everyone should do them
Of course not. Only people that could benefit from them should use them, just like any other treatment or medication. There is plenty of evidence that certain illicit substances are effective in treating certain illnesses and disorders.

>>8389100
But anon something something Joe Rogan something something PTSD something something altered states of consciousness something meme something Terrence McKenna

Psilocybin (mushrooms)

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210962&maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Charle%20S.%20Grob&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

In one recent study, 36 healthy volunteers received a high dose (30 mg/70 kg) of psilocybin with no sustained deleterious physiological or psychological effects. The investigators corroborated previous findings that psilocybin could reliably catalyze mystical experiences leading to significant and lasting improvements in quality of life.21 In another study, the effects of psilocybin were examined in patients with severe, refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Researchers concluded that psilocybin is safe and well tolerated in subjects with obsessive-compulsive disorder and may be associated with “robust acute reductions” in core obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, although there was no clear dose-response relationship.22

>>8389108
>Only people that could benefit from them should use them

What I'm asking is if theres any proof that everybody benefits from them like some advocates claim.

>>8389126
>Everyone benefits
No. Are you stupid?

>>8389130
Are you? Everyone benefits from eating healthy, exercising, et cetera why is it so inconceivable that everyone could stand to benefit from a psychedelic experience? The study posted in this thread seems to suggest that's the case.

>>8389126
Define "benefits" please.

I think a good analogy would be exercise. Everybody should do it, but they don't. And too much of it, or exercise that is too extreme can be bad for your health.

>>8389142
>Everyone benefits from exercising and eating "healthy"
So you are retarded. Okay. Here's the thing with "everyone:" if even one person doesn't benefit from a given treatment or lifestyle, then you can't say everyone benefits from it. People with anxiety issues or paranoia/delusions or any number of other issues shouldn't experiment with psychedelic drugs because there is plenty of evidence it will exacerbate the issues. In some individuals it may even precipitate diseases that wouldn't have manifested otherwise.

>>8389151
>being autistic and focusing on semantics

Wew.

>>8389151
Oh I guess I am stupid. I understand you now and you're correct.

File: autismdetector.jpg (7KB, 261x152px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x152px

>>8389151
That's just linguistics pal. When talking about people, 99% = everyone.

>>8389159
Tbf it's an important distinction

>>8389147
This is a good analogy. At the very least it's generally not harmful and it can help people work through life issues and make connections they might otherwise not have made.

>>8389159
>>8389163
This is the only board on this website where the distinction between everyone and "everyone" is important and not semantics. Saying "autism" is not an argument, either.

>>8389159
>>8389163
Not him, but no, it's not semantic. Science is about precise claims, precise hypotheses, precise predictions, and precisely-defined observations and evidence. They literally have different meanings.

The more information you present and study these with, the more information you gain about the natural world.

If you mean seeing a particular statistically significant benefit in the general population (of course there will be bad trips and misfires) as I assume you do, it's important to explore various clearly defined, objective benefits that we can test, if we want to get meaningful conclusions.

This is notoriously difficult when we're not treating specific diseases. Nootropics research identifies and measures various components of cognitive ability and the compounds' effects on them, if any, but a huge amount of them are marketed and sold without compelling evidence. Even worse, the specific marketing strategy is to ignore the "trite" parameters we can study, hiding behind a veil of "generalized well being." This is the tactic of the snake oil salesman, and it's only tolerance for imprecision that gives him his power.

If you mean it purely colloquially, then as an avid psychonaut I'd say yes. That answer really isn't useful, though, and really doesn't tell you anything.

>>8389100
I know many people with messed up brains who don't do drugs and many without who don't

File: 1262900847831.gif (743KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 100x100px

Once I did mushrooms and cried in the back yard about how dragons use optimal foraging theory to lure their prey to them.

I legitimately think that some dude weed lmao is good every now and then. Having a smoke and then thinking over some things can give me an entirely different perspective on the matter.

>>8389085
that all depends anon, how far are you willing to go down the rabbit hole?
can you handle the truth?

>>8389710
While colloquially "semantics" is associated with pedantry, in a linguistic sense it literally means meaning. So this definitely is semantic.

File: tmp_11899-20160925_012328-741394668.jpg (76KB, 396x343px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 396x343px

>>8390658

>>8389085
I think anyone can benefit from a truly beautiful experience.

Psychadelics can severly fuck you up if you have the wrong genetics etc. They can also be of good help, as they've been to me.

I'm a MD, ya'll are you just trolls or stupid.

>>8389710
>Science is about precise claims, precise hypotheses, precise predictions, and precisely-defined observations and evidence.
Holy shit you are autistic. Science isn't synonymous with precision. You can do a scientific study without any precision and still make valid conclusions. This entire post just shows you're more interested in the philosophy of science then science itself. Which you're still wrong about.

>Here's the thing with "everyone:" if even one person doesn't benefit from a given treatment or lifestyle, then you can't say everyone benefits from it.
This just shows you are not an experienced scientist. Have you ever even taken statistics? Data is full of outliers, that scientists need to remove before making sense of the data.

Let me rephrase the question for your autistic brain:
Is there any proof that psychedelic drugs are beneficial for the average person?

>>8390995
They're illegal to start with so its fishy however most of the controlled studies do offer positive results as well as the microdosing ones with Fadiman.

>>8390995
Psychedelics are mostly of not completely subjective experience and science doesnt do subjective experience because hurr durr consciousness is nothing

>>8390995
>Beneficial to the average person
No. Retard.

File: IMG_1049.jpg (26KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 248x249px

>>8389111

>>8390995
No you can't just remove outliers.

Ive heard microdosing mushrooms can be beneficial to creativity and cognition; not enough so to trip though. Going to try it out, I'll let you guys know my results if anyones interested.