You know there isn’t much in a single location aside from Wikipedia.
In textbooks I’ve come across , there is discussion of the pharmacology properties or a brief note about counter culture and general effects.
There is limited research on the drug as it’s been black listed for almost 50 years and even now, it’s primarily only researched for terminally ill people/mental health. Only a handful of those studies exist and none use double blind controls so the science quality is poor.
I myself am not convinced it has mental health benefits due to the way the drug works. It does however have strong suggestive effects meaning the drug itself promotes placebo/expectation effects.
The lecture I put together for my class (perception and sensation ) pulled info from a wide range of resources.
However there is one organization trying it’s best to do modern research and they have done some MRI studies. There was also a study on LSD and synesthesia which sheds a lot of light into the mechanisms. MAPS is the organization.
https://maps.org/
They have videos on YouTube with researchers discussing the research and studies they have done.
But they mostly focus (last few years at least) on it’s use in mental health.
The drug property information I know about is mostly pulled from old research from the 60s before the research bans. A lot was done on animals to understand dosage and half life. The cascade effects of how this drug works are still not really understood. We do know that the drug is similar in structure to serotonin. But there are still a lot of unknowns.
Let me dig around for my resource links. I have a few interesting studies I found when preparing the lecture, including the synesthesia one, and I’ll organize it all and I’ll put a link up to a g drive with it.
The lecture I did was 3 hrs long about hallucinations with a chunk dedicated to psychedelics. It did rely on other lecture materials to understand or otherwise id just put it up. (It was the final lecture for the class so it referred back multiple times to previous lessons). But maybe I can re-write it a bit. I’ve honestly been thinking of turning it into a video for a while because there are so few resources out there that review it more broadly. And a hell of a lot of misinformation about hallucinations and psychedelics.
Basically this lecture was on hallucinations and the primary causes and how each of these causes relies on the same root changes in brain processing.
For instance. You are driving on a country road at night. Vigilant to look for deer. Multiple times you were sure you saw an animal near the road but soon realized it was a fence post. Or an old glass bottle reflecting your headlamps. But for a split moment you did see an animal there before you corrected the perception.
What ultimately caused that is what causes hallucinations in other situations. Like schizophrenia and drug use.
So we circle around neuroscience, psychiatry, physiology, and pharmacology. As well as cultural impacts influencing the experience of hallucinations or psychedelics.
This is getting long. Apologies. The lecture is 3 hrs and relies on many other hours of information. It’s a big topic.
I don’t lecture about how much acid you should drop or how to prepare for a trip. I give a lecture on the cognitive and physiological changes the drug causes.
I use scientific resources.
Other people are welcome to use personal stories and opinions to inform themselves but we don’t use anecdotes in academia because none of them can be verified and are heavily subjective.
Doesn’t mean they don’t have value. Doesn’t mean the information is false.
The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.
It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.
A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.
As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.
But it does have to be science to be science.
More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.
Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.
Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,
Why is review so important?
Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.
Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.
None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.
It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.
I don’t know what to tell you.
I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.
My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
Why do you care how it works ?
Why are you so invested in this?
Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?
If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.
Jesus Christ that’s a wall of text. Did you even click the link?
It’s literally a bunch of links to scientific journals.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
You can’t even keep straight which thread you’re on.
I haven’t argued anything resembling your straw man. I’ve only argued that you seem to suck as a researcher.
Your inability to accept that erowid is more than a forum where people talk about their experiences, which you keep doubling down on, is a pretty good indicator of that.
You know there isn’t much in a single location aside from Wikipedia.
In textbooks I’ve come across , there is discussion of the pharmacology properties or a brief note about counter culture and general effects.
There is limited research on the drug as it’s been black listed for almost 50 years and even now, it’s primarily only researched for terminally ill people/mental health. Only a handful of those studies exist and none use double blind controls so the science quality is poor.
I myself am not convinced it has mental health benefits due to the way the drug works. It does however have strong suggestive effects meaning the drug itself promotes placebo/expectation effects.
The lecture I put together for my class (perception and sensation ) pulled info from a wide range of resources.
However there is one organization trying it’s best to do modern research and they have done some MRI studies. There was also a study on LSD and synesthesia which sheds a lot of light into the mechanisms. MAPS is the organization. https://maps.org/
They have videos on YouTube with researchers discussing the research and studies they have done. But they mostly focus (last few years at least) on it’s use in mental health.
The drug property information I know about is mostly pulled from old research from the 60s before the research bans. A lot was done on animals to understand dosage and half life. The cascade effects of how this drug works are still not really understood. We do know that the drug is similar in structure to serotonin. But there are still a lot of unknowns.
Let me dig around for my resource links. I have a few interesting studies I found when preparing the lecture, including the synesthesia one, and I’ll organize it all and I’ll put a link up to a g drive with it.
The lecture I did was 3 hrs long about hallucinations with a chunk dedicated to psychedelics. It did rely on other lecture materials to understand or otherwise id just put it up. (It was the final lecture for the class so it referred back multiple times to previous lessons). But maybe I can re-write it a bit. I’ve honestly been thinking of turning it into a video for a while because there are so few resources out there that review it more broadly. And a hell of a lot of misinformation about hallucinations and psychedelics.
Basically this lecture was on hallucinations and the primary causes and how each of these causes relies on the same root changes in brain processing.
For instance. You are driving on a country road at night. Vigilant to look for deer. Multiple times you were sure you saw an animal near the road but soon realized it was a fence post. Or an old glass bottle reflecting your headlamps. But for a split moment you did see an animal there before you corrected the perception.
What ultimately caused that is what causes hallucinations in other situations. Like schizophrenia and drug use.
So we circle around neuroscience, psychiatry, physiology, and pharmacology. As well as cultural impacts influencing the experience of hallucinations or psychedelics.
This is getting long. Apologies. The lecture is 3 hrs and relies on many other hours of information. It’s a big topic.
All this and you don’t even link to erowid?
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml
You don’t seem like a very good researcher.
also, PsychonautWiki…
https://m.psychonautwiki.org/wiki/LSD
Erowid is personal opinions of drug users.
I don’t lecture about how much acid you should drop or how to prepare for a trip. I give a lecture on the cognitive and physiological changes the drug causes.
I use scientific resources.
Other people are welcome to use personal stories and opinions to inform themselves but we don’t use anecdotes in academia because none of them can be verified and are heavily subjective.
Doesn’t mean they don’t have value. Doesn’t mean the information is false.
It just means it’s not scientific.
Among other things, including many links to scientific resources.
This is such a bad take that I again question your research methods.
Erowid is not a scientific resource.
Just because some people refer to scientific articles in their explanations does not mean, it, itself, is a scientific resource.
For instance. What I posted in the comments is not a scientific resource.
Even if I used links to actual resources. The resources are. But my comment is not.
Because it is not verified or peer reviewed.
Opinions, even those founded on science, are not scientific resources unless they meet other standards.
https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?S=lsd
Yeah, why is that? My link has thousands of peer reviewed journal articles and you have provided nothing of the sort.
The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.
It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.
A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.
As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.
But it does have to be science to be science.
More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.
Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.
Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,
Why is review so important?
Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.
Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.
And there are way more than these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
And have a look at memory errors while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_error
Oh and the best one. Bias blind sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.
It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.
I don’t know what to tell you.
I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.
My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.
Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.
Why do you care how it works ? Why are you so invested in this? Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?
If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.
It’s what a lot of people do.
Jesus Christ that’s a wall of text. Did you even click the link?
It’s literally a bunch of links to scientific journals.
You can’t even keep straight which thread you’re on.
I haven’t argued anything resembling your straw man. I’ve only argued that you seem to suck as a researcher.
Your inability to accept that erowid is more than a forum where people talk about their experiences, which you keep doubling down on, is a pretty good indicator of that.
Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.
It’s not.
FUCKING EROWID