Jump to content

Talk:LSD/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Pharmacodynamics, the second paragraph

The second paragraph of the section Pharmacodynamics refers to crystallographic information of the binding of LSD to receptor 5-HT2B. The whole paragraph cites three sources (cited as 62, 63 ad 64), but I wanted to point your attention to the fact that only [64] is am actual study; [62] and [63] are blog entries that summarise that study. Perhaps half the section of pharmacodynamics being based on that single study gives it too much weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.195.34 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is LSD illegal, along with other hallucinogens?

Wikipedia articles on hallucinogens simply state that LSD is illegal, but don't provide any justifications or reasonings for why. I guess Congress didn't give any reasoning for including LSD in the Controlled Substances Act, and the DEA doesn't give reasoning for making it schedule 1?

there's a lot of speculation out there, such as that it's intended to persecute the hippie movement, but that doesn't explain why law enforcement is still vehemently anti-LSD today, with the hippie movement over. Or that it's a conspiracy to prevent the people from "waking up" and realizing their way of living is wrong, or some woke voodoo like that. Or that the people just consider it a hedonistic degradation of moral values.

Just something I have observed in these articles. MDaxo (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

LSD for anxiety

User:Walidou47 Were does this ref state it is approved for anxiety.[1]

Please provide exact quote from the text in question.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James : "A few single administrations of LSD or related substances within a therapeutic setting may be beneficial for patients with anxiety associated with severe illness, depression, or addiction. These old–new treatments may have a potential in psychiatry. As professionals, we should actively study these new options so patients who are in need will not look elsewhere for unproven treatments from unregulated sources." Of course the term approve, approved, approval is not mentionned but I do not think we can say that "LSD currently has no approved uses in medicine." I remind you the definition for saying smth is approved.
"In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure," So yes as the review says, LSD therapy is a valid reason for anxiety disorders.Walidou47 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like my way of stating it we can find a way for saying what the review is saying. Off label use maybe ? ThanksWalidou47 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Walidou47, in the US there is active research on this subject at Johns Hopkins, with at least three recent studies focusing on alleviating anxiety with psychedelic drugs. I can’t speak authoritatively, but it appears to me that psilocybin is favored over LSD for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Approval of a medication is a specific regulatory process.
Would could say in the research section that "It has been proposed that LSD be studied for use in the therapeutic setting". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Doc JamesUser:Viriditas Why not stating it in the medical section ?Walidou47 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Because this is a research use not a approved / common medical use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok in this case I am deleting the the linking of approved use to the Indication (medecine) article as the definition is not the same, at least for you. ThanksWalidou47 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

I suffer from HPPD and am the moderator of a group on facebook for people suffering from hppd. This line is factually incorrect: "Distressing flashbacks might occur in spite of no further use, a condition called hallucinogen persisting perception disorder". Hppd is primarily not about "flashbacks", it is primarily a neurological condition from altering of receptors pertaining to GABA and serotonin systems in the brain, primarily in the occiptal lobe. The primary symptoms are visual snow, headpressure, and many also experience depersonalisation and derealisation. Hppd has been known to be caused by primarily psychedelics such as lsd, mdma, psilocybin and so on, but there are also cases which has been caused by use of antidepressive medicine of the typ "SSRI" (unfortunate interatction with the serotonin systems of the brain). To call HPPD a "flashback" is simply not correct, I have been diagnosed in Sweden at Lund University hospital by 2 doctors of Neurology, one a PHD and very respected professor of Neurology. Please remove the line, or alter it, since it is not correct, and I would say, missleading.

The studies cited for this claim is missrepresented: In citation 17 the abstract says: "Two forms exist: Type 1, which are brief “flashbacks,” and Type 2 claimed to be chronic, waxing, and waning over months to years." The most common form is type 2, which are not characterised by "flashbacks". the other citation, nr 16, writes like this: "Long-term Frightening flashbacks (called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder [HPPD]); ongoing visual disturbances, disorganized thinking, paranoia, and mood swings." but offers no citations what so ever; meaning it is just a statement, but not based on fact nor studies.

I am a strong opponent of drugs today, but I also a staunch opponent of unscientific nonses. Cheers /Anders from Sweden Uberarne (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The first source says Frightening flashbacks (called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder [HPPD]) and is from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The second source says The ICD-10 (World Health Organization 1992) lists “F16.283 hallucinogen dependence with hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) (flashbacks)” as temporary, short-lived re-experiences of aspects of the initial drug intoxication. [...]  The DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association 2013) lists “HPPD (Flashbacks)” as a typically temporary re-experience of aspects of the drug intoxication. These are reliable sources so we try to reflect how they word things. I think we should maybe split the "frightening" part up and use a definition similar to the ones used in the second source. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Hi,

Please change "... intrusive thoughts of hopelessness, wanting to harm others, and suicidal ideation." to "... intrusive thoughts of hopelessness, and suicidal ideation." contained under heading "Effects", subheading "Psychological".

The claim 'LSD may cause feelings of "wanting to harm others" is entirely baseless. Neither sources [31][32] support this statement. Source [31] does include the line "wanting to harm yourself or others" but this is not supported by any of the references contained on their page. To check this I read through the relevant sources [31][32] and all the references included in source [31]. I also performed a search for the keywords "harm", "hurt", "LSD", "acid", and "others" which revealed 0 mentions of this claim. It was likely included as a personal bias or anecdote as the claim is entirely baseless. There is 0 supporting evidence among the provided sources and when looking for other unreferenced evidence. I suspect some other claims are also dubious but I'll be satisfied having the most erroneous claim corrected.

Thank you Dartrolium (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Source contradicts statement for which it is a citation

"We did not find use of psychedelics to be an independent risk factor for mental health problems."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747247/

VS what is in this Wikipedia article...

"Review studies suggest that LSD likely plays a role in precipitating the onset of acute psychosis in previously healthy individuals with an increased likelihood in individuals who have a family history of schizophrenia."

I checked the other source and it doesn't appear to conclude that healthy individuals are at risk, so much as there's a link, especially among people with (developing or developed) schizophrenia.

207.161.212.113 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

10% of US have used LSD? Unlikely.

The citation source is not directly available, and should be questioned. Ten percent of all ADULTS or ADULTS OF A GIVEN AGE GROUP would still appear incredibly high. Even at the height of its use in the late 1960's, estimates of (deliberate) users were less than two million. This survey estimated 20 million users while only documenting some 5.2 million users ages 12 to 25. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs4/4260/index.htm#:~:text=Data%20reported%20in%20the%20National%20Household%20Survey%20on,to%2025%20used%20the%20drug%20at%20least%20once. 2600:8807:4804:9C1D:9866:5706:9EC8:758E (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC) dfoofnik not logged in

Recent reversion

@Alexbrn: The source at this edit [2] looks like a WP:MEDRS source to me. Could you please provide more justification why you think Nature Neuropsychopharmacology is NOT MEDRS? Thanks. ---Avatar317(talk) 02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It's primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Many users see or hear things that do not exist"

The cited source is about hallucinogens in general and does not say that LSD causes visual/auditory hallucinations. I could not find a source that directly says LSD causes hallucinations of things that don't exist, only that it alters the perception of things that are already there. Can this statement be sourced? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I've replaced the cite with citations of reliable secondary sources that support the info. Just as an anecdotal aside, anyone who's ever done more than 200 μg of pure LSD knows that visual and auditory hallucinations are certainly possible in a trip. I've done acid a couple hundred times since my first trip over 50 years ago, and I must say that my first was the best. I bought a hit of double-domed white lightning for $2.00 that the guy said was made by Owsley, and I believe it—so clean, powerful, and pure. I experienced strong visuals of what I can only describe as a moving belt of incredibly intricate Aztec-glyphs with lots of beautiful snakes overlaid on my field of vision. I also heard entrancing auditory hallucinations of spacey sounds with echoes emanating from I know not where, similar to what one might hear on Michael Oldfield's Tubular Bells (1973) album. I sent Owsley an email to thank him for that long-ago "gift" not long before he got killed in a car wreck, and he replied with a charming affirmation. RIP, Augustus Owsley Stanley III, thanks for the memories.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

LSD Absorption Through Skin Doubt

I propose we change the sentence "Hofmann discovered its effects in humans in 1943, after accidentally absorbing it through his skin." from the current statement of fact to one something more like "Hofmann discovered its effects in humans in 1943, claiming he accidentally absorbing it through his skin." I would also like to add a sentence after that, citing this article stating that "Other experts on LSD and its synthesis doubt his claims about LSD's ability to penetrate the skin."

Dr. David Nichols is the foremost living expert on lysergides. He gave a talk at the Mindstates IV conference detailing his reason for doubting Hofmann's claims about accidental absorption through the skin:

Firstly, Hofmann claims his trip only lasted TWO HOURS: "I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours (emphasis added) this condition faded away." (Hofmann, 1983).[1]

Secondly, he explains, "I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens."[2]

Finally, he cites a conversation with legendary LSD chemist and producer of Orange Sunshine Nicholas Sand: '...and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened."'[3]

I believe having this misinformation that LSD can be absorbed transdermally continues to do great harm to the psychedelic community, and therefore society at large. Just today I was reading a claim on Twitter that someone was dosed with LSD without their knowledge or consent, believing it was transferred via a high-five, and then absorbed through the skin. In the discussion thread, someone pointed to Wikipedia as a source of trusted knowledge, referring to the sentence in the article as proof that transdermal absorption is possible. I think it's time to call this myth out for what it is, a myth, and reference it as such in the article. Many people new to LSD trust Wikipedia as a reliable source, and promoting falsehoods is antithetical to Wikipedia's aims. Terribliz (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have amended the sentence in question to read,"Hofmann discovered its effects in humans in 1943, after somehow unintentionally ingesting the substance, possibly absorbing it through his skin."
Although Nichols is indeed one of the foremost authorities on the mechanism of action of psychedelics, the quotes you cite are merely either his opinion or anecdotal. A transcript on Erowid of a presentation he gave at Mind States IV cannot be cited to support your contention. Erowid is not a reliable source, and his comments regarding Hofmann's 1943 "Bicycle Day", which I just read, is a very informal non-scientific summary of some personal anecdotes, which he concludes with the words, "The only hypothesis I can come up with that's consistent with all of these facts is that on April 16, 1943, Albert Hofmann did not get LSD in his body at all. He had a spontaneous mystical experience!" Rather than offering a summary of research regarding the question of LSD's absorption through skin (obviously not performed), he gives us the exclamatory, "...a spontaneous mystical experience!". That won't pass muster.
Hofmann himself wrote in his book, LSD — My Problem Child, a description of this incident in a report he sent to his colleague Professor Stoll: "Last Friday, April 16,1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness. At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant intoxicated-like condition, characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination. In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the daylight to be unpleasantly glaring), I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded away." ~ Clearly the entire experience lasted longer than two hours, as it began when he was at work, and he had to get home and then lie down.
He continues in his book: "But this led to another question: how had I managed to absorb this material? Because of the known toxicity of ergot substances, I always maintained meticulously neat work habits. Possibly a bit of the LSD solution had contacted my fingertips during crystallization, and a trace of the substance was absorbed through the skin."
Regards, an old acid head, Carlstak (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


Carlstak (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl! I agree those accounts are purely anecdotal and don't have any solid scientific proof behind them, but they're the best evidence I've been able to find. We also don't have any proof that LSD is in fact able to be absorbed through the skin, except, of course, more anecdotes - I'm sure you've heard some.

If you'll indulge one more anecdote, a friend mine of was fortunate enough to go to the "International Symposium on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Albert Hofmann". He claimed that while there, someone asked Dr. Hofmann about its ability to be absorbed through the skin, and Hofmann looked at everyone and winked, insinuating that the ingestion wasn't purely accidental. If that was the case, I'm somewhat perplexed why he wouldn't publicly admit that later in life when there was little to nothing to lose, but maybe he wanted to keep that air of mystery around it.

Anyway, thanks again for allowing some room for doubt there.

Regards, a somewhat younger acid head, Terribliz (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice. I can believe that about Hofmann; he was a good man. Best, Carlstak (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml
  2. ^ https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml
  3. ^ https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml

Pharmacokinetics

The article currently states "O-H-LSD is formed by cytochrome P450 enzymes, although the specific enzymes involved are unknown". This year there was published article titled "Genetic influence of CYP2D6 on pharmacokinetics and acute subjective effects of LSD in a pooled analysis" and the abstract suggests that genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 significantly influence the pharmacokinetic and subjective effects of LSD. I don't have the time to look into it further and maybe I wouldn't feel competent enough to edit even if I did so I will just leave this here.--Custoo (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agratian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Common word usage

There is a dispute over whether "alcoholism" should be used or "alcohol use disorder". The stable version of the article has used "alcoholism" and the Wikipedia article on the subject is called Alcoholism. A change was made by TylerDurden8823 and I reverted it, per WP:BRD. Rather than discuss, he reverted back without discussion, so rather than edit war over it, I'm bringing it to the proper place, the article talk page. If you want to start using politically correct phrases within an article, making the links land on redirects rather than the actual page at Wikipedia, it would seem you would want to instead go to the alcoholism page and suggest changing the name of that page. Alcoholism is the common name for someone addicted to alcohol, not "alcohol use disorder". This seems an attempt to be politically correct or pander rather than follow the clear directions at WP:COMMONNAME, which is the policy that covers this exact situation. Others, please feel free to opine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Numerous calls in the literature to use more neutral/less stigmatizing language on this topic including in written topics. FYI, the main page prominently features the term alcohol use disorder. Also, there was discussion in the edit summary (I'd appreciate not being mischaracterized, please see your talk page as well). There is extensive guidance out there about this. For example, please see this review [3] that came out of Harvard & Massachusetts General Hospital, though this is far from exhaustive. I can't say I understand the desire to cling to stigmatizing language that promotes biases in its readers. It's not "politically correct" (if anything, it feels like you're the one politicizing it here) to use the neutral medical term for the disorder. This is extensively discussed in the medical and addiction literature and elsewhere. For example, in our own style guide we attempt to use gender-neutral language, see here [4]. This is very similar and neutral language is strongly recommended when discussing substance use disorders. Many people who read Wikipedia may have such disorders or know someone affected. Don't you think that should be considered? Alcohol use disorder is also very commonly used terminology (I could find you thousands of examples). Anyway, do what you want, Dennis. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Some places where this has been discussed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_78#What's_going_on_with_SUDs? / Talk:Alcoholism/Archive_8#Move / Talk:Alcoholism/Archive_9#Consider_Changing_the_Name_of_the_Article ---Sluzzelin talk 08:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I'd seen one of those previous, but having all the links helps. It seems pretty clear there isn't a huge appetite for change. Consensus can change over time, of course, but for now, I revert back to the stable version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I support the change as long as alcoholism and alcohol abuse redirects to the new terms. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just read that LSD is a TNF-Inhibitor. That's the main target for most immunosuppressive medications.

Source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/TNF_inhibitor#Examples


--FollowThoughts (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC) FollowThoughts 01:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Add a comma after "serotonin receptors" in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the intro. SolarCygnet (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

On the "Modern Distribution" Subtopic

Under "Society and Culture" we have "Modern Distribution." The section opens with a claim about how LSD is produced, and then cites two sources that are both from >50 years ago. The section then goes on to speculate on DEA priorities, using citation 188. Full text of citation 188: "LSD: The Drug." No year, publisher, author, or additional context.

The rest of the section is well-cited, and should be the only text in the section. It *could* be consolidated into a single paragraph and rewritten but even as-is, it's much more relevant than the first two blurbs. 63.224.248.97 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:LSD/Archive_8&oldid=1258256606"