Psh. “Cardiovascular concerns.” Fucking read the side effects for the drugs you’ve already approved, FDA. You’ve allowed an autoimmune treatment drug that has a high chance of giving terminal fucking cancer, you dumb fucks. Fucking Viagra has “cardiovascular concerns.”
Nah, that’s not the issue (nor do I believe in magic bullets, but that’s a different matter). See, the issue is that MDMA can’t be patented. Anyone can make it so no one pharmacorp can have a 20 year monopoly
I said potential to help cure. I think MDMA assisted psychotherapy, in particular, has the potential to cure PTSD in a lot of people. Not everyone. But a lot.
And the patent issue on this has been solved by starting a non-profit pharmaceutical company and getting grants and donations to fund these trials. And then patenting the treatment protocols under a public trust corp I believe. I follow MAPS quite a bit, the non-profit that spear headed a lot of this.
I think what the other poster said about the FDA approving drugs with more cardiovascular issues than MDMA is true and points towards corporate bias in the panel (which most of us probably know is true).
Treating mental health with SSRIs etc. is a big business. Some of that panel probably stands to lose money if some of those repeat customers find a cure.
You sound like you’d be interested in David Healy’s work. Check out Children of the Cure if you haven’t already. That, as well as a plethora of other shady things I learned in university, are responsible for reorienting me toward public policy rather than becoming a practicing psychologist.
Usually first to market work generics enjoys a year of exclusivity. Usually other companies abandon our back burnera project they don’t make to market first. There’s still money to be made. Just not as much.
Current pharmaceuticals are usually a (life)long prescription. It’s not like antibiotics, where you get a dose for a few days or weeks and you’re done. Antidepressants have to be taken for years. Every day. That means revenue every day. It’s a treatment, not a cure.
MDMA on the other hand is a (potential) cure. You take it a few times under supervision and that’s it.
Problem is, this takes away customers from the former group. And that means, far less revenue from “traditional” psychopharmacology products. MDMA cannibalizes other drugs.
Well, I guess it’s not only that. Psychedelic drugs can really fuck you up, if you aren’t prepared. People talk about set and setting a lot.
I suspect that these drugs sure help a lot of people, but can also fuck a lot of people up really badly. It’s like, people who don’t go along well with these substances, avoid them instinctively.
Now, if someone would prescribe them, I’m pretty sure that a lot of people who are simply not prepared for it mentally (instead blindly trust the medics), would take them and get hurt pretty badly because of that.
That’s why its better to take them under medical supervision(at least for the first time). Just giving them someone is probably the dumbest thing you could do.
I prepared myself for years before I took psilocybin for the first time, because I knew that it’s going to bring up all of the subconscious shit that I carried around. So I “cleaned” myself enough emotionally beforehand, before taking the fungus.
Now, imagine your typical asshole walks into your medical treatment facility and demands psilocybin. Sure, you can give them psilocybin, but you cannot give them the sense of respect and understanding in front of these drugs.
Edit: by “your typical asshole” i mean, the typical asshole that you would encounter daily. Not you personally or sth.
These drugs are typically used for individual and group therapy sessions and not given as prescriptions to take at home. They’re basically just there to augment therapy sessions.
I do think they should be legalized and allowed for recreational use as well but your concerns aren’t really justified if you look at what existing therapeutic applications are like and what companies in the psychedelic space are trying to do right now.
There is no such thing as “curing” a mental disorder/disability. Although it could theoretically help speed up recovery from temporary bouts of depression or post-traumatic stress (which is often labelled “PTSD” when it’s not), it cannot cure a lifelong disorder like depressive/mood disorders or PTSD & CPTSD. “Curing” a mental disorder would mean making you a completely different person, it’s inseparable from the rest of your brain – especially something that leans more into the “neurodivergence” idea, like ADHD or ASD/Autism, which both have imperfect yet effective treatments (ASD less so than ADHD), but “curing” such a thing would be impossible.
The only solution that helps people with disabilities is to make treatment in the form of pharmaceuticals, counselling, and other methods widely available and accessible over the long term – not to look for a cure. Not to say that MDMA can’t be used for that though, it definitely can, it’d just be misleading to call it a cure.
I mean if it has an effect on the heart it should be mentioned…in a study about MDMA’s effect on the heart…I don’t really know how 2 trials about MDMA’s psychiatric effects has much to with cardiovascular health. I mean, if you stretch it you can maybe say something about the cardiovascular effects in relation to anxiety, but that’s about it.
Addendum: somehow forgot to add “in relation to anxiety”
Yeah. Every drug has side effects; I’m saying that it’s a weak excuse for not approving it, considering all of the other crap FDA’s approved, with all of the other crap’s side effects. So label it, put a warning on it.
Cigarettes will most likely kill you if you smoke enough of them, and FDA still allows their sale even though they have no medical application. Same with alcohol; despite the alcohol industry’s efforts to link health benefits with alcohol consumption, there are as many studies showing there’s no verifiable link between any benefit and any amount of alcohol consumption. It’s a poison that dehydrates you and shrinks your brain a little every time you drink it. But it’s legal.
FDA is the only dyke preventing outright charlatanism by the pharma and medical device industries, but fuck them on this topic. They’re there to ensure companies don’t outright lie to consumers about benefits and risks; preventing access to risky behavior is not their job.
preventing access to risky behavior is not their job.
I disagree. Lots of people will listen if you tell them about the dangers of a specific medication, but few will understand. Especially if they have no background in medicine or pharmaceutics.
As a species, we’re horrible at statistical risk-based decision-making. My opinion is that we - as a society - should better educate and prepare children in statistical evaluation, and then as long as the behavior directly impacts only the individual, let people do what they want. The alternative is a morass of laws dictating personal behavior, with often unintended and arguably worse outcomes for society (c.f. The War on Drugs).
But in any case, FDA’s job is to dictate the actions of companies, and prevent as well they can companies lying to and misleading consumers. Its mission is not to dictate individual behavior. And nor should it be.
FDA is there to stop cigarette companies from arguing or advertising to consumers that smoking is healthy, or that it makes you dick bigger, or whatever they think can make sales. FDA does not make rules preventing you from smoking.
What they’re doing here is flexing control over a substance that has no giant, well-heeled organization pressuring them to allow companies to sell it.
I will note that I’m not an MDMA advocate; I’ve consumed a variety of chemicals, some in numerous quantities, but I’ve never knowingly taken MDMA. So my argument doesn’t come from being butt-hurt about targeting my favorite drug; it’s about the hypocrisy in the FDA wording of their warning.
Oh, I’ll add: FDA doesn’t make laws, but they’re listened to by, and provide guidance for, lawmakers. And they do make decisions that decide whether a pharmaceutical or medical device company can bring a product to market, so they control legal supply. And this is only in the US, of course; the each country has their own version, and the EU has dozens from which corporations can pick and “give business to” to get approval to sell in that market.
There is this game where you get a million dollars with 99% probability and die a gruesome death with 1% probability if you press a certain button.
What would you do in that case?
IMO, statistics isn’t everything, and one cannot only rely on statistics to make meaningful decisions. Lots of people I know wouldn’t press that button.
Ah, but I disagree! The “gruesome” part is what changes it; it’s an important detail in Pascal’s Wager. If it were a sudden, painless death? I’d absolutely press it. If it meant death by being buried alive in a coffin? I wouldn’t press it if the odds were 1,000:1, or 10,000:1. The “badness” vs “goodness” factor of each certainly factors into the decision process. The benefit would have to be enormous to outweigh the consequence of a long, terrifying, and/or painful death. Far more than money, for me.
But it if were even 50:1 odds, and the penalty is a sudden and painless death, vs the world being contacted and accepted into Iain Bank’s The Culture? Heck yeah, gimme the button. I might take even worse odds.
And yet, I’m human, and humans are terrible at making decisions based on statistical odds; I’m maybe a little better than average for an American, but only because I have a formal process for making decisions like this. But I don’t apply it intuitively to every risk, so I’m as bad as anyone else, in general.
Imagine that (hypothetical scenario) MDMA heals 70% of people, doesn’t do anything for 10% of people, but throws 20% of people into mental disturbances.
I don’t have any mental illnesses of which I’m aware, but it depends on how bad the illness was if I did. Is it debilitating? Am I regularly having suicide ideation? Am I miserable all the time because of my depression? Is it running my marriage, my friendships? Yeah, I’d take it. 20% is pretty high odds, but if I’m so I’ll I’m considering suicide already, 70% of being cured sounds good. Wouldn’t you?
Is my illness such that I have sad days a couple of times a month? But 20% chance of getting a permanent psychosis? Probably not worth the risk.
If the perceived goodness value * % chance good outcome is greater than the perceived badness value * % chance of a bad outcome, then “Yes.” That’s the basis of Pascal’s Wager, and it’s a good a decision process as any I know.
Oh, heck… if I’m honest, I’d probably take MDMA recreationally at least once just to see what it’s like, if it were legal and available.
Psh. “Cardiovascular concerns.” Fucking read the side effects for the drugs you’ve already approved, FDA. You’ve allowed an autoimmune treatment drug that has a high chance of giving terminal fucking cancer, you dumb fucks. Fucking Viagra has “cardiovascular concerns.”
Biased, bought, dumb-asses.
Bought is it.
Mental health meds are a huge industry. MDMA has the potential to help cure what other medication can only treat.
Nah, that’s not the issue (nor do I believe in magic bullets, but that’s a different matter). See, the issue is that MDMA can’t be patented. Anyone can make it so no one pharmacorp can have a 20 year monopoly
I said potential to help cure. I think MDMA assisted psychotherapy, in particular, has the potential to cure PTSD in a lot of people. Not everyone. But a lot.
And the patent issue on this has been solved by starting a non-profit pharmaceutical company and getting grants and donations to fund these trials. And then patenting the treatment protocols under a public trust corp I believe. I follow MAPS quite a bit, the non-profit that spear headed a lot of this.
I think what the other poster said about the FDA approving drugs with more cardiovascular issues than MDMA is true and points towards corporate bias in the panel (which most of us probably know is true).
Treating mental health with SSRIs etc. is a big business. Some of that panel probably stands to lose money if some of those repeat customers find a cure.
You sound like you’d be interested in David Healy’s work. Check out Children of the Cure if you haven’t already. That, as well as a plethora of other shady things I learned in university, are responsible for reorienting me toward public policy rather than becoming a practicing psychologist.
I found a TED talk with him I’m listening now. Thanks for the lead I hadn’t heard of him before.
Usually first to market work generics enjoys a year of exclusivity. Usually other companies abandon our back burnera project they don’t make to market first. There’s still money to be made. Just not as much.
I think you don’t quite understand the comment.
Current pharmaceuticals are usually a (life)long prescription. It’s not like antibiotics, where you get a dose for a few days or weeks and you’re done. Antidepressants have to be taken for years. Every day. That means revenue every day. It’s a treatment, not a cure.
MDMA on the other hand is a (potential) cure. You take it a few times under supervision and that’s it.
Problem is, this takes away customers from the former group. And that means, far less revenue from “traditional” psychopharmacology products. MDMA cannibalizes other drugs.
Well, I guess it’s not only that. Psychedelic drugs can really fuck you up, if you aren’t prepared. People talk about set and setting a lot.
I suspect that these drugs sure help a lot of people, but can also fuck a lot of people up really badly. It’s like, people who don’t go along well with these substances, avoid them instinctively.
Now, if someone would prescribe them, I’m pretty sure that a lot of people who are simply not prepared for it mentally (instead blindly trust the medics), would take them and get hurt pretty badly because of that.
That’s why its better to take them under medical supervision(at least for the first time). Just giving them someone is probably the dumbest thing you could do.
It’s not just supervision IMO.
I prepared myself for years before I took psilocybin for the first time, because I knew that it’s going to bring up all of the subconscious shit that I carried around. So I “cleaned” myself enough emotionally beforehand, before taking the fungus.
Now, imagine your typical asshole walks into your medical treatment facility and demands psilocybin. Sure, you can give them psilocybin, but you cannot give them the sense of respect and understanding in front of these drugs.
Edit: by “your typical asshole” i mean, the typical asshole that you would encounter daily. Not you personally or sth.
That’s why you shouldn’t just give it out to the Normie’s. It should only be taken with medical supervision.
These drugs are typically used for individual and group therapy sessions and not given as prescriptions to take at home. They’re basically just there to augment therapy sessions.
I do think they should be legalized and allowed for recreational use as well but your concerns aren’t really justified if you look at what existing therapeutic applications are like and what companies in the psychedelic space are trying to do right now.
Yeah, I guess you have a point.
Don’t use the word cure.
It does not have that potential. This should be downvoted to oblivion.
There is no such thing as “curing” a mental disorder/disability. Although it could theoretically help speed up recovery from temporary bouts of depression or post-traumatic stress (which is often labelled “PTSD” when it’s not), it cannot cure a lifelong disorder like depressive/mood disorders or PTSD & CPTSD. “Curing” a mental disorder would mean making you a completely different person, it’s inseparable from the rest of your brain – especially something that leans more into the “neurodivergence” idea, like ADHD or ASD/Autism, which both have imperfect yet effective treatments (ASD less so than ADHD), but “curing” such a thing would be impossible.
The only solution that helps people with disabilities is to make treatment in the form of pharmaceuticals, counselling, and other methods widely available and accessible over the long term – not to look for a cure. Not to say that MDMA can’t be used for that though, it definitely can, it’d just be misleading to call it a cure.
I mean if it has an effect on the heart it should be mentioned…in a study about MDMA’s effect on the heart…I don’t really know how 2 trials about MDMA’s psychiatric effects has much to with cardiovascular health. I mean, if you stretch it you can maybe say something about the cardiovascular effects in relation to anxiety, but that’s about it.
Addendum: somehow forgot to add “in relation to anxiety”
Yeah. Every drug has side effects; I’m saying that it’s a weak excuse for not approving it, considering all of the other crap FDA’s approved, with all of the other crap’s side effects. So label it, put a warning on it.
Cigarettes will most likely kill you if you smoke enough of them, and FDA still allows their sale even though they have no medical application. Same with alcohol; despite the alcohol industry’s efforts to link health benefits with alcohol consumption, there are as many studies showing there’s no verifiable link between any benefit and any amount of alcohol consumption. It’s a poison that dehydrates you and shrinks your brain a little every time you drink it. But it’s legal.
FDA is the only dyke preventing outright charlatanism by the pharma and medical device industries, but fuck them on this topic. They’re there to ensure companies don’t outright lie to consumers about benefits and risks; preventing access to risky behavior is not their job.
I disagree. Lots of people will listen if you tell them about the dangers of a specific medication, but few will understand. Especially if they have no background in medicine or pharmaceutics.
As a species, we’re horrible at statistical risk-based decision-making. My opinion is that we - as a society - should better educate and prepare children in statistical evaluation, and then as long as the behavior directly impacts only the individual, let people do what they want. The alternative is a morass of laws dictating personal behavior, with often unintended and arguably worse outcomes for society (c.f. The War on Drugs).
But in any case, FDA’s job is to dictate the actions of companies, and prevent as well they can companies lying to and misleading consumers. Its mission is not to dictate individual behavior. And nor should it be.
FDA is there to stop cigarette companies from arguing or advertising to consumers that smoking is healthy, or that it makes you dick bigger, or whatever they think can make sales. FDA does not make rules preventing you from smoking.
What they’re doing here is flexing control over a substance that has no giant, well-heeled organization pressuring them to allow companies to sell it.
I will note that I’m not an MDMA advocate; I’ve consumed a variety of chemicals, some in numerous quantities, but I’ve never knowingly taken MDMA. So my argument doesn’t come from being butt-hurt about targeting my favorite drug; it’s about the hypocrisy in the FDA wording of their warning.
Oh, I’ll add: FDA doesn’t make laws, but they’re listened to by, and provide guidance for, lawmakers. And they do make decisions that decide whether a pharmaceutical or medical device company can bring a product to market, so they control legal supply. And this is only in the US, of course; the each country has their own version, and the EU has dozens from which corporations can pick and “give business to” to get approval to sell in that market.
There is this game where you get a million dollars with 99% probability and die a gruesome death with 1% probability if you press a certain button.
What would you do in that case?
IMO, statistics isn’t everything, and one cannot only rely on statistics to make meaningful decisions. Lots of people I know wouldn’t press that button.
Ah, but I disagree! The “gruesome” part is what changes it; it’s an important detail in Pascal’s Wager. If it were a sudden, painless death? I’d absolutely press it. If it meant death by being buried alive in a coffin? I wouldn’t press it if the odds were 1,000:1, or 10,000:1. The “badness” vs “goodness” factor of each certainly factors into the decision process. The benefit would have to be enormous to outweigh the consequence of a long, terrifying, and/or painful death. Far more than money, for me.
But it if were even 50:1 odds, and the penalty is a sudden and painless death, vs the world being contacted and accepted into Iain Bank’s The Culture? Heck yeah, gimme the button. I might take even worse odds.
And yet, I’m human, and humans are terrible at making decisions based on statistical odds; I’m maybe a little better than average for an American, but only because I have a formal process for making decisions like this. But I don’t apply it intuitively to every risk, so I’m as bad as anyone else, in general.
deleted by creator
Imagine that (hypothetical scenario) MDMA heals 70% of people, doesn’t do anything for 10% of people, but throws 20% of people into mental disturbances.
Would you take it?
I don’t have any mental illnesses of which I’m aware, but it depends on how bad the illness was if I did. Is it debilitating? Am I regularly having suicide ideation? Am I miserable all the time because of my depression? Is it running my marriage, my friendships? Yeah, I’d take it. 20% is pretty high odds, but if I’m so I’ll I’m considering suicide already, 70% of being cured sounds good. Wouldn’t you?
Is my illness such that I have sad days a couple of times a month? But 20% chance of getting a permanent psychosis? Probably not worth the risk.
If the perceived goodness value * % chance good outcome is greater than the perceived badness value * % chance of a bad outcome, then “Yes.” That’s the basis of Pascal’s Wager, and it’s a good a decision process as any I know.
Oh, heck… if I’m honest, I’d probably take MDMA recreationally at least once just to see what it’s like, if it were legal and available.