Stamet's reckons psilocybin will be made Schedule 2

[-RC-]

I linked the talk in the YouTube thread but around 1hr 08mins he says that he has friends who have FDA licenses for psilocybin research and production. The same friends say that psilocybin will soon be made Schedule 2, which is a big deal, especially in the US.

 

Don't want to get too excited but sheeit, sounds legit. 

 

He also outlines a nootropic formula that he has a patent for:

 

0.1mg+ psilocybin mush

100 - 200mg lions mane

150mg niacin/nicotinic acid, neurogenesis

For creativity, cognition, PTSD, etc. and vision/auditory specific neurogenesis. 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Responsible Choice

[87_botanist]

cheers for sharing @Responsible Choice can you send me the link?

[Inyan]

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-mind/mood/article/will-psychedelic-drugs-soon-be-legal

 

 

[obtuse]

i take everything stamets says with grain of salt these days.  seems he is set on self promotion these days, maybe he has a new book ready to release.

[Cubism]

21 hours ago, Responsible Choice said:

...and vision/auditory specific neurogenesis.

This would be pretty impressive considering in humans neurogenesis has only been proven to occur in the hippocampus (for memory encoding but not storage) and in the olfactory bulb (involved in your sense of smell).  And of these new neurons, the vast majority of them do not survive anyway, let alone have anything to do with the auditory or visual systems (although as a caveat, everything in the brain is massively interlinked).  Additionally, all our senses have multiple maps throughout our central nervous system(from receptor/sensation to cortex/perception), especially audition and vision which each have in excess of 3 to 6 hierarchical maps respectively on their way to higher cortical functions such as conscious perception of stimuli. If you start adding in new neurons into established maps at certain points along that hierarchy (e.g. at lower/earlier stages) then that would entirely mess with the processing of any information at later/higher stages.  This is one of the major theories as to why humans have extremely limited ability for neurogenesis, compared to say certain fish species which can do so at hugely more impressive levels and rates.  Lower vertebrates like fish lack the neural complexity (e.g. your cortex) such that renewing neural tissue is unlikely to disrupt any processing downstream at higher functional levels. 

 

For example, goldfish vision has only one map, from the retina to the optic tectum.  Cut the optic nerve and it only has to grow neurons and map them to the correct place once.  Humans (as well as the tectum) has a visual system with maps at every stage along the path from retina > thalamus > V1 cortex > V2 cortex > V3/4 cortex > V5 and/or parietal and/or inferotemporal cortex etc etc.  So lets say you can induce neurogenesis at the level of the V1 cortex, what happens to everything downstream of that when the map has been changed at V1???

 

Hopefully some of that makes sense, but as for anything that mentions neurogenesis, I have one suggestion, question everything and doubt everything until proven otherwise as it is a media buzzword which we still really have no idea about.

 

On a lighter note, I totally agree that there is some awesome research coming out in regard to Psilocybin which is well worth looking at.  It certainly seems to be very promising for a number of uses, and psychedelics in general are finally starting to gain speed in research ethics approvals which is awesome (especially as the psychopharmacology of psychedelics is what I'm aiming towards in my studies) so the future does look positive.

[87_botanist]

6 hours ago, obtuse said:

i take everything stamets says with grain of salt these days.  seems he is set on self promotion these days, maybe he has a new book ready to release.

The man is a genius with mushrooms!!! but sometimes he is a bit serious for my liking and I understand where you are coming from lol

Edited February 27, 2018 by 87_botanist

[obtuse]

2 hours ago, 87_botanist said:

The man is a genius with mushrooms!!! but sometimes he is a bit serious for my liking and I understand where you are coming from lol

 

a bit serious, na i find him too flippant.  misquoting papers and making things sound like they agree with his research.

[Darklight]

On 2/27/2018 at 11:16 PM, obtuse said:

 

a bit serious, na i find him too flippant.  misquoting papers and making things sound like they agree with his research.

 

With you 100% on that Obtuse.

 

I can't quite decide if his self-promoting is causing others to misreport his work and/ or mis-attribute the work of others to him personally. Or worse, if he does the mis-attribution himself.

 

That issue was really bought home to me when I was doing some mycoremediation research with a bunch of other crew for a fledgling project, which frankly died in the arse after the client realised that yes, Mushrooms Can Maybe Save The World, but that it wasn't going to be as easy as it sounded and he'd actually have to pay for some proper research. Which may not give him the results as seen on Youtube.

 

Half the stuff or more Stamets quoted was done at least a decade previously by others- this was published work at the time too. I never heard mention of it in any of his work I read or heard which led me to the papers, but a quick Google made it really obvious once I stopped shaking my head around certain incongruities of dates and facts.

 

Personally I'm well over the cult of celebrity around some speakers. Maybe it's needed in order to raise awarenesses ( ha! ) of their special subjects- a certain amount of celebrity is more of a media honeypot. But often there's not enough at the back of it to justify the hype.

 

This could also be as much a criticism of audiences as much as of celebrity- too many people looking for pub flair and dinner party convo and easy fixes who CBF with their fact checking or sticking with something longer than five minutes to get a deeper understanding.

 

But a professional presenter of information has a responsibility of conveying accuracy, conferring credit where it's due, and not slipping into hype. And he's failing at that- instead of encouraging a community of colleagues he's fuelling consumption of dumbed-down sound bytes, unjustified speculation and increasing sales figures.

 

Look, the bloke's written some great books, runs a good business as far as I can tell, and is probably kind to old ladies and small kittens. Good on 'im. More power to his writing arm. He's bought the issues of the importance of fungi to the public hive-mind in a way nobody else has. That's a breath of fresh air. But it doesn't make him Mushy Jesus or anything.

 

It's Planet Of The Spivs out there in every field- science included- and certainly psychedelic science. But it doesn't have to stay that way