The researchers seem pretty convinced that this mushroom causes the hallucinations yet they do not describe trying it out in an experiment.
Surely the most straightforward way is to undercook the mushrooms and run a blind controlled experiment where participants eat the shrooms and report on hallucinations.
> the trips it produces are unusually long, commonly lasting one to three days after an onset of 12 to 24 hours, and in some cases even causing hospital stays of up to a week. Because of the extraordinarily long duration of these trips and the chance for prolonged side effects such as delirium and dizziness, Domnauer has yet to try the raw mushrooms himself.
> These mega-trips might help to explain why people in China, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea do not seem to have a tradition of purposefully seeking out L. asiatica for its psychoactive effects, according to Domnauer's findings. "It was always just eaten for food," Domnauer says, with hallucinations being an unexpected side-effect.
It kind of does, just because people see spiders and all other kinds of “real” things on datura or benadryl, but I “tripped” on benadryl a few times in high school and it was very “non-euclidean” every time. The laws of physics were not obeyed, and the hallucinations are a lot scarier than goofy little people falling over themselves.
So if the experiences really are real, it sounds to me like something wholly unique. Apparently there are no recorded deaths from the lilliputian mushrooms, and the long onset is weird too because anticholinergics come on very quickly.
There are psychedelic phenethylamines that last 24 hours or more, so I don’t think the duration is a sign of anything really.
> the long onset is weird too because anticholinergics come on very quickly.
Maybe what causes the effect is not directly in the mushroom, but it needs first to metabolise into it? As in maybe the effect is caused by molecule A, but the mushroom only contains B which then breaks down into A. (for example by the liver or perhaps intestinal microbiome.)
> very “non-euclidean” every time. The laws of physics were not obeyed, and the hallucinations are a lot scarier than goofy little people falling over themselves.
I've never had benadryl hallucinations, or anything of the sort, but I have had quite a few very high fevers that resulted in very similar dreams and hallucinations - and I have zero desire to repeat them, to the point where I'll often delay going to sleep if I have a fever.
I don't think you can put Datura in this scale at all. Datura is borderline psychotic inducing. More damage you might not heal from than funny visuals.
We're talking psychedelics, they're all borderline psychotic inducing, that's why we like and consume them :)
Datura is definitively a different beast, and definitely something I'd recommend others to stay away from even if I and my friend was dumb enough to consume it when we were young. LSD, mushrooms and friends are 100x better and more fun.
No, they are not. Let's not generalize. There is nothing funny or therapeutic about psychosis. We are leaving the dark ages of psychedelics. We don't need to bring them back.
What? Every psychedelic can be dangerous, as always it's more about set and setting than the actual chemical you're using. Most of them can be "psychotic inducing" used the "right" (wrong) way, absolutely.
Again generalising. Psychdelics, if you are not predisposed to psychotic breaks, can cause anxiety and similarly overwhelming emotions. They last 12 hours max. And this mescaline and LSD mostly. Datura can potentially last 2 days. It is dangerous, end of. Also datura is not considered a psychdelic. Hallucinogenics and psychdelics are not equivalent. Datura is referred to as a delirant. With psychdelics, you can estimate dosage much easily. With datura, it is much harder because it is naturally not as evenly distributed in the actual source plant. So you can easily overdose. It's like trying to split a shroom choc that melted but the distribution among areas can be several times over the other areas.
In my opinion, the combination of not able to estimate dosage and losing the ability to tell reality from fiction for up to 2 days alone puts datura in its own separate category.
Someone tripping in psychdelics or even Salvia is really a different category to Datura where the line between reality and fiction is thin. No smiling silly at the wall or laughing uncontrollably but moving coherently and overall looking sane while doing things that on closer look don't make sense.
Anyone that has seen someone take a strong dose of datura can attest that what you are saying is all correct. It is not a traditional psychedelic in any way, shape, or form.
It's wild seeing someone fully interact with a reality that isn't there and then come back not knowing anything about what happened. I had a friend in the early 2000's that had us video tape and babysit him. He had a half hour long conversation with his dead mother on a telephone that wasn't there. Also, he chain smoked non existent cigarettes for hours. He knew we were there and interacted with us, but he had no continuity.
> . Also datura is not considered a psychdelic. Hallucinogenics and psychdelics are not equivalent. Datura is referred to as a delirant
Ok, finally it's clear you don't actually seem to have a clue what you're talking about. "Deliriant" is not some scientific classification term, it's a subset of hallucinogens some people like to use to distinguish between more visual psychedelics and less ones. And yes, psychedelics and hallucinogens are for all intents and purposes synonyms.
Again, Datura sucks, stay away from it, horrible drug and no fun at all. But the fact that you think that psychedelics automatically mean "No smiling silly at the wall or laughing uncontrollably" again gives the impression you're not actually giving these drugs the seriousness they warrant. They're wonderful tools but should be used correctly and with a proper understanding of what they actually are and do.
This would be impossible to get past ethical review in any institution who has such a thing. You'd be forcing people to have a trip, which may or may not be pleasant for them, for days, with no guidance on wtf is happening to them. Depending on the person, that's some pretty heavy trauma.
You could tell people what to expect, but that ruins the blind part. I still think you'd have no chance of passing review anyway.
Couldn’t you get consent from the participants to consume hallucinogenic substances but also getting them to agree that there will be a number of trials and they won’t know which one if any of them will actually contain it?
So instead of a single experiment where half of the people get it and half don’t, the experiment will be repeated ten times with the same people over a few months, different meals each time and in total each person will get hallucinogens in their food either zero or one times.
And then you see what effects people report and if that correlates well with who was actually given the hallucinogens, and if there is a lot of placebo among the rest of the people each time that they were not given hallucinogens.
What if the hallucinogen has long term health effects? What if tiny people show up for a participant years from the experiment, while driving?
I guess you can be upfront about unknown unknowns, and most human experiments have some of those, but I assume there are standards to keep those to a minimum.
1. The main problem I imagine is not consent but ethics approval. You are probably gonna find some experienced psychonauts curious enough to want to try, but getting it approved by an ethics committee I imagine being tricky.
2. Multiple times per person over months risks attrition which gonna mess it up, and the statistical power increase you get could be offset by that (eg if a person gets it they may not be motivated to come again for the placebo). On the other hand ppl may be more motivated if they know they are gonna get it at least once so dunno.
3. Placebo with hallucinogens is always tricky. I would use psilocybin as (extra or only) control, esp if you test for little ppl. This way you can test if they report more tiny ppl in the new mushroom vs psilocybin.
neuroplasticity and neurotoxicity aren't mutually exclusive, and its not a phenomenon in of itself that has some positive meaning. for instance, all addictive substances "induce neuroplasticity"
Is the argument that even if you'd do such an experiment with consent of the participants, it'd be unethical? Or are we just assuming this will be done without the consent of the participants?
It's a common misconception: the ethics board isn't the committee deciding whether the trial is ethical, it's the instrument they use to punish you if they decided it wasn't and you decided to ignore them.
There’s nothing unethical about self experimentation. There are many notable examples of it in the history of science. Most notable is probably Barry Marshall’s decision to self-dose with helicobacter pylori, in an effort to prove that the bacteria caused ulcers. They did, he treated himself with antibiotics, and he was later awarded a Nobel for the research. Werner Forssman also won a Nobel for work partially derived from self-applying a cardiac catheter.
Barry Marshall's story is so iconic that I read it every time despite knowing it very well.
That being said one claim here would be that allowing self-experimentation would pressure people into self experimenting due to how our academia and labs are structured these days i.e. a junior scientists could be pressured into self experimentation by their superiors. So this is definitely not as clear-cut as one might think.
> Barry Marshall's story is so iconic that I read it every time despite
As someone who suffered badly with ulcers in my teens I'm particularly grateful for his work. One course of antibiotics and I never had that problem again.
More so for him and his collaborator having dinner each year when the Nobel prizes were announced in anticipation of the call from the Nobel Prize Committee. Legends.
> There’s nothing unethical about self experimentation.
If people get rewarded for self experimentation, either directly with prices or indirectly with fame and success, more people will try do it. That certainly does raise ethical concerns. It worked out for people you mentioned but there will be many others who might harm themselves doing it.
evidently you are unfamiliar with experimental science or clinical trials, like it or not self experimentation and the consumption/administration of psychoactive substances is considered unethical, rightly or wrongly.
In the case of self-testing it raises concerns of objectivity, not just in terms of perception and observation but with regards to bias and intent, throwing into question the results and reasons for the study.
I'm not sure what ethical considerations come up when testing a medical hypothesis by self-administration. Famously Barry Marshall overturned decades of medical doctrine when he ingested helicobacter pylori, and demonstrated its role in gastritis (and I think providing evidence for peptic ulcers).
That's the feeling I got, that they've tried it out on themselves, but (understandably) neglect to mention it. Which is a shame, because the self-censorship isn't helpful in regards of getting to the bottom of this.
Self-experimentation allows one to conduct science without the imprimatur of the IRB. IRBs, in the name of ethics, fashion themselves as the sole arbiter of what science may be done. Ergo, any loophole that circumvents their authority is prima facie "unethical".
What's unethical about it? It sounds the locals consume it anyway. If the experiment is blind you can even tell the participants what is it about beforehand without losing too much validity.
I don't know much about standard ethical frameworks used in these kinds of experiments, but giving hallucinogens with unknown long term health effects to participants feels somewhat unethical to me.
Also, to get stronger results you would probably want to conduct the experiment on participants who don't have an expectation of seeing little people, so that rules out locals or people who heard of or eaten the mushroom before.
There were some very questionable experiments done in the name of science that lead to development of ethics guidelines. Being respectful of other people is hardly pearl clutching
Ethics is what people agree on. Not doing unnecessary harm is usually easily agreed on. Don't exploit people who know less it's also on the list. Doesn't mean we didn't learn something valuable from KZ camp experiments, we just don't think it outweighed the costs. And we don't like, or want to encourage, people who think it did.
There are very strict rules for scientific experiments _because_ we know that without them, just guided by "common sense" or "be reasonable", someone would get blinded by ambition or "the potential" and go further than the majority want to accept.
Anyone can "experiment" without it being an accepted scientific experiment. But then they're personally responsible for any and all bad outcomes. If you follow the rules and get the experiment pre-approved, you'll likely be covered by your employer's insurance and free from criminal liability .
That's a very good incentive.
But people don’t agree on ethics. That’s the whole reason you have ethics boards. Otherwise the scientists wouldn’t need one since they already thought the same.
I agree there ought to be rules, but ethics is just a word to make things sound fair when it’s just an authoritative decision, often taking bad arguments (like religious ones or public misconceptions) unnecessarily into account.
> Domnauer has yet to try the raw mushrooms himself
Coward, basically. I have no idea why on earth you'd travel the world looking for a specific hallucinogen and then just try to sequence it and toss it, and then waste everyone's time writing papers saying you essentially have a hunch about the mushroom's effects.
Surely the most straightforward way is to undercook the mushrooms and run a blind controlled experiment where participants eat the shrooms and report on hallucinations.
What stopped them?