My brother went on an Ayahuasca retreat but ended up deeply disappointed that it didn't change his life and his problems got much worse as a result.
Of course, that can happen with any treatments as well. However, professional support could maybe mitigate that a bit. Plus actual data may give a better idea of likely outcomes.
He then came home and took LSD that caused an episode of psychosis that lasted a couple weeks and landed him on the hospital plus in trouble with the law.
I don't disagree that these drugs can be beneficial for many people and should be studied but there is dangers as well and the dangers are often downplayed as "just anti drug FUD."
> No current or past history of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, no Bipolar I or II disorder, and no first or second-degree (“A second-degree relative is defined as a blood relative which includes the individual’s grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces or half-siblings.”) relatives with these disorders.3
Also this means that it is advisable for you to steer clear of psychedelics.
For what it’s worth:
> “Since the early 1990s, approximately 2000 doses of psilocybin (ranging from low to high doses) have been safely administered to humans in the United States and Europe, in carefully controlled scientific settings, with no reports of any medical or psychiatric serious AEs, including no reported cases of prolonged psychosis or HPPD (Studerus et al., 2011).”1
I really dislike this argument. About 1% of US adults have had schizophrenia in the past year. And 2.6% of the adult population has bipolar. Yet at some point in their life they didn't know they were going to have schizophrenia or bipolar! You're arguing that this only affects people with the condition already but if you can't know if you are predisposed for that, then you have to accept that there's risk. I support studying the risk and benefits, but your argument suggests that the risk only applies to other people. It doesn't and it's destructive to suggest otherwise.
Let me put this another way. Their recommendations include first and second degree relatives. Wikipedia says that the risk of having schizophrenia when you have a first degree relative with it is 6.5% [1] This is the single biggest risk factor for it but it's still pretty small. If it's too dangerous to take based off a 6.5% risk then it's also probably too dangerous to take off the 1%-ish risk that the entire general population faces. At the very least, it's important to acknowledge that there exists these risks instead of replying to every anecdote that hurts your cause with this misleading information while allowing the anecdotes that help.
So you're 500% more likely to have schizophrenia when first-degree relatives are more involved.
Another book cited by the wiki page claimed that 13% of people with one parent, and 50% of people with both parents, are likely to have schizophrenia.
These aren't hard and fast rules. People can experiment, but they should know that if they do psychedelics when first-degree relatives have the condition, then they're more likely to have it themselves.
>A second-degree relative is defined as a blood relative which includes the individual’s grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces or half-siblings
You absolutely do not know the medical history of all those people to know if they have a history of schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, or bipolar disorder. People tend to not talk about their mental illness and these disorders can be well managed with medication. I have 17 aunts and uncles half of which I only see every 3-4 years and one I've never met. Do you think I know what their diagnosises are? Apparently one of my uncles had a really bad heart condition since birth but I didn't even know he did until it killed him in his 60s.
Plus if you just keep adding relatives you'll eventually get one with one of those conditions. You're more asking about family size at that point.
Thank you for sharing this. I've observed this with friends as well. As Tony Soprano once said: "There is no geographical solution to an emotional problem."
"There is no geographical solution to an emotional problem." - I really wish someone told me this 30 years ago. My above mentioned brother and I grew up with very abusive parents which cased significant emotional problems in both of us. I tried to solve mine by moving across the country. For anyone who is reading this - that really doesn't work!
Of course, that can happen with any treatments as well. However, professional support could maybe mitigate that a bit. Plus actual data may give a better idea of likely outcomes.
He then came home and took LSD that caused an episode of psychosis that lasted a couple weeks and landed him on the hospital plus in trouble with the law.
I don't disagree that these drugs can be beneficial for many people and should be studied but there is dangers as well and the dangers are often downplayed as "just anti drug FUD."