Jump to content
The Corroboree

Recommended Posts

Cool short video on ayahuasca neuroscience and shamanism. 

 

[media] 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly has a reverse tolerance affect too.

Edited by manu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it! Guess l have to officially add this to the list of things. Nootropics and spirituality in one! Always loved the idea of ayahuasca and l think this just added incentive for me to finally  explore the possibilities. Any experts on the subject feel free to shoot me a PM. And thank you very much for sharing Drugo.

Edited by Drake1337
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry bud but this is complete rubbish.  There is no substance that is currently known to 'grow' new brain cells.  On a positive note, its a nice example of why you shouldn't take knowledge from random youtube vids, especially ones that include no references or sources for the info ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how you'd prove it in vivo but nano coated curcumin seems to show some promise in rats cell lines in vitro. I have to admit I've read the abstract though, so it could be a bit of blinged up BS to keep the funding flowing.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn405077y

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its in the terminology.  We all do grow around 1500 new neurons a day in the hippocampus, but that is innate, not because we take anything special to do it.  In that article, it is talking about it in relation to Alzheimer's Disease models.  In AD, this ability of the hippocampus to continue neurogenesis is greatly reduced, so they are talking about nano coated curcumin being able to restore that function to a level of operation that brings it closer to normal brain function. This is not the same as taking some substance that some how magically makes your brain produce new neurons.

 

For what it's worth, there are three places that I know of where neurogenesis takes place, one in the brain, the hippocampus (and PVN?), and two in the peripheral nervous system, your taste and olfactory receptor cells, which are sort of modified bipolar cells.  Researchers have also recently found basal cells (neural progenitor cells) in the meninges surrounding the brain, but I'm not sure how far along the understanding of them is, and I haven't seem any bold statements yet  about them.


One thing to remember about animal studies too, mice have probably 100 million years or more of evolution between them and us, so never get too excited about animal studies in reference to humans.  And of course same goes for in vitro vs in vivo, cells generally don't behave the same once you take them out of their normal environment. 

 

And finally, with your AD study, restoring the 'normal growth' of brain cells is a hell of a lot different to growing new brain cells by taking a novel substance.  Like I said, depends on your view of the terminology I guess, but to me at least, restoring a normal function like hippocampal neurogenesis is definitely not the same as taking substance A and inducing neuron growth in a new area B.  A thing about neurons too, they don't have centrioles, so do not have the ability to undergo mitosis,  any new neurons come through a complex process of basal (stem) cell differentiation,  

 

Either way, sematics aside, doesn't matter what you take, your not going to improve neurogenesis to a level above a normal healthy drug free version of yourself, by taking anything currently available, whether legal or illegal

Edited by Cubism
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmm at least its nice music for waken baken though eh?

and the words are defo music to the ears too

ears look a little bit like bacon ....

i read the same kinda sumsum from a ... um*dives into the surf... returns* these :-

http://reset.me/study/study-psilocybin-mushrooms-stimulate-growth-of-new-brain-cells/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23727882

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thunder, modulating neurogenesis is not growing new brain cells, you have to understand the language  (as in biology/physiology, i don't mean english obviously) of what your reading.  Even the pubmed article you posted mentions in the abstract they don't even know what receptors apart from 5-HT2A the (PSOP) psilo is interacting with!!!! From the abstract -

 

Injection of PSOP, 25I-NBMeO or ketanserin resulted in significant dose-dependent decreases in number of newborn neurons in hippocampus. At the low doses of PSOP that enhanced extinction, neurogenesis was not decreased, but rather tended toward an increase.

 

Doesn't sound too positive to me...decreased number of newborn neurons.....hmmmm.  And tending towards an increase does not mean an increase!  Can't be bothered reading the whole thing, but as you can see, you need to understand what your posting, not just like a fancy title or headline.  You have to learn how to read the content objectively before even trying to look at journal articles.

 

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on this, in fact it would be pretty awesome if it was true, but cherry picked information and links to biased pro-psychadelics websites don't really cut it as far as healthy skepticism and the scientific method is concerned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neurogenesis is quite a restrictive term in one sense. As it stands we don't have much proof that it can effect much of a change by the generation of new brain cells (presumably from pluripotent stem cells)  but is that the end of the discussion ?

 

For example if I read a book that blows my (tiny) mind and it creates a bridge between my understanding of electronics and physics and in turn reveals a new paradigm that I never could have previously even contemplated, doesn't that increase the neural connections and build new neural networks in my brain that didn't exist prior to reading the book ?

 

It wouldn't be neurogenesis in the pure definition but it is still loosely classed as a form of neural adaptation where more networks are active than were previously. Maybe it won't generate any measurable change in regards to cell count but a positive change has taken place none the less.

From what I understand it's hard to downplay the role of the hippocampus as it's like a control centre of sorts and regulates many functions in the brain. A few small changes in the hippocampus could have a dramatic effect on the overall function of the brain.

 

Don't get me wrong Cubism, I like to see evidence before I'll believe in that sort of thing myself, I'm not sold either way. I do think research into the brain is still is in its infancy in some respects though, so even though we believe something is not possible now doesn't mean it will never be proven to be possible.

 

Just look at Wim Hof.  He demonstrated that he could exert conscious control over his immune system and other physiological processes that modern science had previously proven to be impossible.

 


Is neurogenesis probable ?
Most likely no

Is it possible ?

Maybe, Who really knows

Edited by Sallubrious
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What your talking about re: adaptation is called plasticity.  Nothing to do with 'growing new brain cells' or neurogenesis.  By the simple act of reading this page you are creating new and modifying existing synapses, in turn creating new 'networks',  Almost everything you do does this to your brain, but is in no way to be considered a form of neurogenesis, two different things.

 

Certainly not downplaying the hippocampus, but its not a control centre.  As far as is currently understood, it is mostly involved in memory formation (but probably not storage) and also spatial awareness to do with memory (eg maps of places).  It probably does a shitload of other things too, but like everywhere in the brain it is not fully understood.  By your description, I'm pretty sure your confusing the hippocampus with the hypothalamus right????  That certainly has a major role in autonomic and somatic functions throughout the body.  On the other hand, you can have both your hippocampi removed and still live "relatively normally" except for having very extreme (and abnormal) case of amnesia (google the patient HM, I think full name is Henry Molaison, or similar).

 

This may sound rude, but I honestly don't mean it like that but its hard to get the right words on the internet -

             - Neurogenesis and plasticity are not the same thing, and both occur all the time regardless of what you do, psychadelics aren't gonna change that, and they are not responsible for that, as far as current knowledge goes

             - If you don't know your hippocampus from your hypothalamus your probably better of reading a basic neurobiology text before trying to understand neuroscience literature (no offense, brain anatomy is really hard, but you have to start with the fundamentals like any topic)

             - How is neurogenesis a restrictive term? - it means the generation of neurons, which as I have mentioned, don't have centrioles (if you don't know what they are, google 'centrioles' and 'cell division (or mitosis/meiosis) and you will see exactly why neurogenesis can only occur from differentiation of basal (stem) cells.  Yes we may in future find another way for neurons to develop, but neurogenesis is the only way we know of now, you can't put a caveat into every term in order to appease something that may or not happen.  So as it stands, neurogenesis is a specific term for a specific mechanism of action.  I personally would call that good common sense and clarity, certainly not restrictive.

 

See my point about understanding the language now???  I don't get into the threads about plant genetics, taxonomy etc etc because I know nothing about it all, and all I'd have to offer is unfounded opinion, misinterpreted understanding and would only muddy the waters, but I do read them and look for sources to further my undertanding of those points that stick in my head.  But thats just me, I'm not saying don't get involved, but if you question something,I personally think its best to make an attempt to understand what it is you are questioning to begin with.

 

 

Is neurogenesis probable ?

Most likely no

Is it possible ?

Maybe, Who really knows

Well the answer is yes and yes.  Its not speculation, it is a thing that any basic neuro textbook will tell you.  In fact it is such a fundamental point of teaching as it stands out as the only place in the central nervous system where this happens, that it is common knowledge amongst many parts of the general population, and hence is subject to use and abuse such as the absolutely false and misleading youtube video posted in the OP. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one Cubism, I agreed with you and then you completely misinterpreted what I'd written and then felt compelled to prove yourself right.

I did state that what I was referring to was not neurogenesis and tried to find some middle ground without alienating the OP from his own thread. I'd had well over 30 legal servings of alcohol before I wrote that and now it's like I'm on trial for a semantic "slip of the tongue' so to speak.

I stopped coming here because of this holier than thou shit before, it might be time to leave for good this time.

& people wonder why this place is dying out.





Edited by Sallubrious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whooa dude. 

 

Your previous post was wrong in so many respects I was actually attempting to explain it in a nice way.  I have no interest in making anyone feel bad. 

 

Go back and look at what you wrote.... you completely confused neurogenesis and neuroplasticity and mashed them up into something to suit your wrong understanding.  In reality I could have been much harsher, especially as you were trying to convince me maybe the OP has a point (which it doesn't, it's tripe and any biologist will tell you so, I mean I'm a student and I can see its that fundamentally wrong, but I digress), anyway, in trying to sound like you know what your talking about you even confused two of the most fundamental brain structures, the hippocampus and hypothalamus.  Not to mention relating adaptation (what you mentioned is called plasticity) to cell counts????? 

 

Now when I respectfully explained how you were wrong and confusing things, rather than be humble and learn something, you have a tantrum, blame alcohol (rather than yourself, very convenient) and threaten to leave the forum for good.

 

On the leaving the forum, I don't think you should, some of your posts are really interesting.  But.....if everytime someone points out your wrong you threaten to leave (I've been here long enough to see you do this at least once or twice before), maybe you need to look inside for the cause, not the "holier than thou" people on here who god forbid may just know what they're talking about better than you do. 

 

If theres a problem, look at your own behaviour first, blaming alcohol and other people is a pretty sad way to live your life.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sorry bud but this is complete rubbish.  There is no substance that is currently known to 'grow' new brain cells.  On a positive note, its a nice example of why you shouldn't take knowledge from random youtube vids, especially ones that include no references or sources for the info ;)

Hey @Cubism, the claims & some of the pictures are taken from this study Harmine stimulates neurogenesis of human neural cells in vitro, which is referenced in the video, but in just about the vaguest way possible.

 

 

I guess its in the terminology.  We all do grow around 1500 new neurons a day in the hippocampus, but that is innate, not because we take anything special to do it.

 

Either way, sematics aside, doesn't matter what you take, your not going to improve neurogenesis to a level above a normal healthy drug free version of yourself, by taking anything currently available, whether legal or illegal

Really? I thought the video made an interesting point about neurogenesis being inhibited (in rats at least, and I thought there was at least some support for the same thing happening to humans) in socially isolated animals. The human studies I'm thinking of were looking at the brains of addicts specifically, which is one of the groups who (on anecdotal evidence) seem to often gain long-term benefit from ayahuasca. So feel free to slap down this idea if you have some evidence, I will be interested to read an answer either way. But it seems based on my flimsy understanding that Alzheimers is not the only condition which inhibits neurogenesis (it's just a nice clear-cut one where it's easy to see results or lack thereof), and that other less extreme conditions which contribute to social isolation such as [drug or other] addictions, anxiety or depression, could all be having an effect as well, albeit a less pronounced one. So I do follow your argument that no known drug will boost neurogenesis above normal-optimal level. What I'm asking is: how many people are actually functioning at that level, and how many might have impaired neurogenesis from social isolation, just less severe than might be seen in Alzheimers patients? And if those people are operating at sub-par levels, and if harmine/THH really do stimulate neurogenesis in vivo as well, then isn't it possible that ayahuasca might help them to regain normal neurogenesis? Lol, there's a few too many "if"s in that last sentence, I know! But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for joining in Anodyne and for the link, if your interested here is the peer reviewed version

https://peerj.com/articles/2727/

 

There's a lot more than anecdotal evidence to support the therapeutic use of Ayahuasca, that I am not disputing, neither am I disputing it for many psychadelics, in fact I am very much for the idea that we need more research now things are starting to open up and attitudes change towards them, but the emphasis is on need more research.

 

I don't need to "slap down" the idea because I am not disputing it.  Kind of ironic though that you refer to anecdotal evidence, don't provide a reference, then demand I do.  Not to mention supplying a non-peer reviewed citation.  But I'm not trying to start a shitfight here...so no worries, just an observation.

 

What I am saying is always be skeptical.  Cells in vitro do not represent cells in vivo.  Yes, they are an excellent experimental tool, and provide excellent insights into future research possibilities.  But.....cells in culture are in a closed system, cells in an unmanipulated organism are never in a closed system.  Again, as for ayahuasca, it is not just harmine either is it.  So....maybe adding harmine alone to cultured cells does equate exactly to human consumption of ayahuasca, but an objective look at it raises far too many questions compared to answers.  So I will remain skeptical until shown otherwise.

 

For an example of what I would consider normal neurogenesis, see the following (should be open access)-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413005333

 

Alzheimers, addiction, depression etc are obviously the more extreme end of dysfuntion, you surely don't need me to direct you to tonnes of epidemiological data, and I haven't the time or interest to sift through it myself  Normal means neurotypical, admittedly me using normal was not the best choice of words,

 

Too many if's.....I mean how long is a piece of string??? 

 

I'm not saying I am an expert on anything to do with the brain, in fact I'm a long long way from it.  What I am saying is always be skeptical, and with neuroscience, be twice as skeptical. How many neuro related breakthrough studies ever make it past their 15 minutes of fame? Tissue culture has been around for decades, and in that time, how many "amazing results" have translated into anything of clinical or therapeutical value???  As for stimulating neurogenesis...... try exercise, it's suggested to be just efficacious as anything else, and the worst thing that can happen is you pull a muscle.  As for Aya, do I think it is promising as a future therapeutic agent for many mental health issues, well yes I do, and the research is certainly picking up momentum, but there is a huge way to go before it is anything more than promising.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I don't need to "slap down" the idea because I am not disputing it. 

 

Okay, I think I got confused by your first post where you very much seemed to be disputing it:

 

Sorry bud but this is complete rubbish.  There is no substance that is currently known to 'grow' new brain cells.

Either that or you've been confused by my sloppy writing style (which I admit has precedent): the "slap-down" comment was in reference to the question that followed it, not the anecdotal-aya stuff that preceded it.

 

 

Kind of ironic though that you refer to anecdotal evidence, don't provide a reference, then demand I do.  Not to mention supplying a non-peer reviewed citation.  But I'm not trying to start a shitfight here...so no worries, just an observation.

Thanks for the link to the peer-reviewed version, I didn't spy it in my quick search because they had changed the name, and the non-peer-reviewed title was the one mentioned in the video. But upon skimming it looks like that's the only thing they changed, so PR vs. non-PR doesn't seem to be an issue here. As far as providing references for my claims, I don't think I was making any (beyond anecdotal ones - and sure, I can provide anecdotes if you want 'em). I was just asking a question. You were the one claiming that the OP was "rubbish" without reading the source material. That's where I was asking for an actual refutation, not just the "I don't even have to read that to know it's rubbish" kind of response - which I admit was my first thought on seeing this thread title as well.

 

 

Alzheimers, addiction, depression etc are obviously the more extreme end of dysfuntion...Normal means neurotypical

Look I'm not trying to nitpick here. Really I'm not. I'm not asking you to believe in the healing power of aya based on a shitty Youtube video. I certainly wouldn't. What I was asking was only: based on your understanding, if we assume for the sake of argument that agents exist which can stimulate neurogenesis in vivo in adult humans, mightn't people who have impaired neurogenesis benefit more drastically than neurotypicals? And I guess I was also asking the subsidiary question: roughly what portion of the population do we estimate to be neurotypical in the sense we're discussing here? Because if this effect were significant only in those people who are socially isolated, depressed, or have addictions, have suffered childhood trauma or any of the other factors which seem to influence baseline neurogenesis... perhaps I just have a pessimistic view of our society, but I would guess that group to be a significant minority of the population at the very least. So where to draw the line on this continuum of conditions? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm not claiming anything here - I am asking this as a real question: where does this effect become significant? How many people might this impact?

 

And while this string of "if"s has certainly gotten long enough by now to hang myself with, I'll add one more: if many people might be affected by something being true, it seems worth looking into at least. Not from a wish-fulfilment standpoint, but just because it's too important not to try to find out for sure. 

 

The pop media response to this study has taken it way too far obviously, but when is that ever not true? The original research, which I read as pretty much "we observed an effect which might help explain some anecdotal observations" just didn't seem worthy of the derision you were throwing at it. I'm all for skepticism & recognising the limitations of our tools and how we can apply them. These are great concepts, and some of the core of what makes science wonderful & meaningful. Just so long as we don't forget to be skeptical of established ideas sometimes as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

Edited by manu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×