143
FDA’s review of MDMA for PTSD highlights study bias and safety concerns
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
143 points (93.3% liked)
News
32952 readers
450 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Again, I'm all for anecdotal advocacy and the use of any drugs people prefer
I still don't see the point of focusing on more dangerous, less effective drugs as therapy when we have a perfectly safe, effective therapy available.
Maybe I'm missing something from what you're saying, because I didn't see any outline for why maps is focusing on Molly specifically for PTSD.
The proposed benefits you're talking about using Molly are already known benefits of taking psilocybin, athough psilocybin has a lower physiological risk and simpler therapy scheduling.
No problem with researching both, this is more a case of diagnosing a problem, having the solution, but making people wait by purposefully diverting our attention elsewhere while there is a more effective, risk-free solution available.
It seems at best a waste of time and at worst cruel to tell people we might decide to help them soon If they wait for unknown years while we look into different solutions instead of helping them directly at no risk with the safe, effective solution we have.
Of course you believe there's a "we", you are continually asserting your place within this research landscape to legitimize your anecdotes.
And again, psilocybin conclusively provides the same possible benefits you're proposing MDMA may provide without the physiological risk or burdensome therapeutic balancing and time management.
As for the "cardiovascular risks" of psilocybin, caffeine also comes with cardiovascular warnings and is twice as "toxic" as psilocybin, similar to the also more toxic MDMA.
It's fine if you personally like MDMA more and cool if you believe it helps you more than other therapies, but it doesn't make mdma more simple, safe or effective than psilocybin.
Maybe more research will come out later that legitimizes MDMA, or makes it as simple or as safe a therapy as psilocybin already is.
But not even a therapeutic process, let alone research on mdma is anywhere near conclusively positive yet, so I don't see the point of experimenting with more complicated unsafe medication when psilocybin is available, simple and safe.
It's pretty clear you have blinders on when it comes to mdma, so I understand why you don't want to believe in the clinical results of a safer, more effective therapy for PTSD symptoms since that clashes with how you feel about MDMA.
It seems likely Molly will eventually become a less dangerous alternative to even more dangerous medications in dealing with certain symptoms, but I don't see the point in asking people to wait while we develop a less safe, more complicated therapy when we already have a cost-effective, completely safe and simple therapy available that conclusively treats those symptoms and provides the same benefits more dangerous therapies might provide in the future.
The articles I provided to you are evidence of further ongoing trials specifically for PTSD using psilocybin, since you misread the original provided article. Follow-up and related studies are not irrelevant in therapeutic research, which you may recognize in all of your personally esteemed Molly studies.
The earlier article shows that psilocybin alleviates the PTSD symptoms you hope Molly will and provides the same benefits molly may provide eventually after clinical trials are completed.
Then you insult and make obviously incorrect assumptions about me instead of asking questions to remedy your ignorance.
You know what sam Jackson says about assumptions in the movie basic.
You're wearing blinders.
You personally like a less safe and less effective therapy. That is totally fine.
It's also very clear that it makes more sense to focus on a conclusively safe and effective therapy rather than an unsafe and less effective therapy.
I think people should do tons of drugs. That doesn't make all drugs safer or more effective in all situations.
I don't see the point of focusing on more dangerous, possibly effective future therapies when a safe, effective therapy is currently available for the same symptoms.
Pretty telling that "projection" is what's setting you off.