Talk:Psilocybin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New section moved here for temporary parking

I've moved the newly added section here for now. Unfortunately, an explanatory note in the same issue as the main article does not quality as a secondary source. Once this study is discussed in review articles, we can add (a shortened version of) it to the article. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"In 2012 researchers in the UK used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the effects of the psilocybin on blood flow in the brain, a widely used surrogate for measuring changes in neuronal activity. Against expectations, the presence of the drug was associated with decreased activity in many parts of the brain including in particular hub regions such as the thalamus, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). The work also suggested a decreased coupling between the medial prefrontal cortex and the PCC . Many of the hub areas involved are part of the so called default network that becomes active when a person is at wakeful rest. The researchers speculated that depression of such activity in the default network may mediate the subjective effects of psilocybin by removing some of the normal constraints on cognition."

That paragraph is undue. Agreed. If someone wants to include information about the primary study, they can look in these two reviews because they have both cited the study: doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.039 and doi:10.1358/dof.2012.37.7.1811776. Is there anything not covered by these review articles that someone thinks is important to include? If so, what? A short sentence that cites the study in the style of WP:MEDREV might work. It could have worked more before the article was cited by secondary sources. Biosthmors (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a commentary by an independent author in a high-quality journal such as PNAS ought to be counted as a secondary source. I agree though that the paragraph gives undue weight to the finding. If it were possible to work in a sentence about it, I don't think that would be unreasonable. If I was writing an article about the effects of psychedelic drugs on the brain, I would definitely make use of this source. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is secondary in a sense, and I've even cited an editorial myself in Deep_vein_thrombosis#Research_directions. (I've kept it simple there though.) It's not independent or third-party, however. So it's not a standard secondary reliable source. But I take your point about different authorship... though it's still the same journal and issue. So it's a bit grey. Biosthmors (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As the person who wrote this paragraph I would ask where does it say in the rules on secondary sources that a review article in the same journal does not count? Also I just noticed another short review article in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/psychedelic-chemical-subdues-brain-activity-1.9878. Does that count? I think you should bear in mind that this kind of research is very rare because of the difficulties in getting approval to study drugs that have been deemed illegal in many countries. I think you are setting the bar too high to expect a plethora of other independent findings that might verify or refute this work at this stage. The fact is the research has been published in a prestigious publication, along with a couple of review commentaries in high quality journals. Ignoring the findings until they've been independently replicated or further reviewed by other groups I think therefore is doing a disservice to readers. As Looie ackknowledges he/she would definitely use this source if writing an article about the effect of psychedelic drugs on the brain. To exclude it from Wikipedia's article therefore makes little sense to me.Julian Brown (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't see a problem with including the material. The study has already been by cited review articles, for example. Go ahead, be bold, and cite a review? Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok but depends on whether the reviews I mentioned count. Sasata already discounted the first one I cited because it was a commentary published in the same journal. The Nature piece is also a news commentary though it does include a couple of references and cites some examples of related though possibly somewhat contradictory findings. I am also not sure about making my paragraph significantly shorter as it's hard to say anything intelligible about this work in less than a few sentences. Two of the sentences, after all, are taken up in explaining fMRI and the default mode network. This research is surely one of the most interesting studies on psilocybin to have been published in a long time so I think it merits a decent explanation. Perhaps it would help to mention the possibly contradictory findings mentioned by the Nature news piece but this would make the paragraph even longer. Thoughts? Julian Brown (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've mentioned any review articles. The only two sources that were labeled as reviews in Web of Science that I found are listed above, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.039 and doi:10.1358/dof.2012.37.7.1811776. Have you seen what they say about this study? Biosthmors (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Injection of psilocybin extracts

I propose to remove this sentence: "In rare cases people have injected mushroom extracts intravenously" (citing Amsterdam 2011). Amsterdam et al cite two cases from the 1980s plus one report from an internet forum, quote: "A report on the internet from 2007 (Shroomery, 2007 [no link given]) refers to more severe acute effects by extracts of mushrooms being intravenously injected (Curry and Rose, 1985; Sivyer and Dorrington, 1984)". You could also find reports of people smoking mushrooms, putting in their butt, extracts in the eyeball, rubbing on the skin, holding under the tongue, etc. There are a limited number of ways that a substance can be ingested. Some injecting drug users will try injecting themselves with almost anything. Injection of homemade "mushroom extracts" is not typical or recommended, there would obviously be all sorts of contaminants and mushroom material in there along with the psilocybin. That a couple of people have tried it and had bad effects is not surprising, but also not notable enough for the Psilocybin wikipage. People have tried injecting coffee extracts, but that is not mentioned on the Caffeine wikipage as a "rare method of ingestion". Likewise, the Tetrahydrocannabinol wikipage does not mention people injecting cannabis extracts. We could add to the first sentence of the Physiology section, "Pure psilocybin has been administered in clinical settings both orally and by intravenous injection." Tova Hella (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it was mentioned in a review article (a secondary source) does indeed make it notable enough for inclusion in this article. Had that source (or other good secondary sources) mentioned the alternate methods of administration that you noted above, then we could have included them here too. We cannot extrapolate by comparing other wikipages, because we have not surveyed the relevant secondary literature for those topics to see if those alternate methods of administration have been discussed; also, those other pages are not featured articles and not suitable examples of what a high-quality drug-related wiki article should look like. Sasata (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Vetted at FAC", FAR notice

Hi, Sasata; always good to see you. Without getting into what "vetted at FAC" means these days, or what it meant in 2012 relative to current medical reviews, this article uses primary sources for health claims, contrary to WP:MEDRS. And LOTS more of the that need to be removed.

Further, I see that a) I did object to primary sources in the FAC, said a closer check was needed (it wasn't done), and that the content I removed (there's still more) was not in fact in the FAC version at all, so this content has not been "vetted at FAC"-- it has been added since FAC.

How many more primary sources have crept in? Let's work on getting the primary sources contrary to MEDRS removed, so a FAR won't be needed here. I think the sources that breach MEDRS or that make medical claims based on primary sources should be easily removed in a day or three, so I'll hold off on initiating a FAR until the beginning of next week.

I hope you realize that these topics have been the subject of recruiting, and that people may make important medical decisions based on primary, unreviewed sources. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, no need to threaten me with an FAR, I'm happy to work to improve the article, like we did at FAC when you passed this FAC two years ago. I compared the two "Medical research" sections, and I don't see much difference between the two versions (promotion vs. now); could you point out explicitly what primary sources have "crept in" since you promoted the FAC? I think I've been pretty good at keeping out non-MEDRS compliant sources in the interim (examples in talk page above). Sasata (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that I'm generally opposed to this hack-and-slash approach that SandyGeorgia has been taking recently, of blanket-removing primary sources and thereby leaving statements with no references at all. I don't think that is a productive approach. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Looie, strawman, that was not done. Sasata, I am not threatening a FAR; I am promising one if we cannot get this fixed very quickly, because people are using this article for medical information. Where should I start; do you know how to review PubMed to determine the difference between primary and secondary sources in medicine, per WP:MEDRS? There are several reviews psilocybin on cluster headaches (see our article, which was just updated and which brought me here); this articles uses original studies, which are not reviews. Let me know if you aren't aware of the distinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the distinction, thanks. Could you please answer the question: "could you point out explicitly what primary sources have "crept in" since you promoted the FAC?" so we can actually get some work done here? Sasata (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I trusted in 2012 that you had done a primary source check after I specifically asked for one, so given that there are primary sources here and I assumed then (and you have confirmed now) that you know MEDRS, what was in the passed version is a problem; I see in comparing the versions that the primary sources haven't crept in, but were always there. Have you looked at cluster headache? This article reports primary studies; shall I go through and flag all the reviews using the type= Review parameter, or shall I let you do that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a primary source check before you asked for one, and I believe those that remain do not violate the spirit of WP:MEDRS (as we discussed at the FAC). I assumed, since you promoted the FAC, that you were in agreement with the use of sources. Let's discuss the specific sentences that you now think need to be removed or resourced. Sasata (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You assume wrong, and I assumed wrong. I assumed that a trusted, knowledgeable editor had done the primary source review I asked for. For example, this is a review:

• Matharu M (2010 Feb 9). "Cluster headache". Clinical evidence (Review). 2010. PMID 21718584. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

while several of those I removed in

• this edit,

are primary sources or laypress sources (have a look there for starters). There are more; we can start work with a more detailed list when you stop removing maintenance tags. I have guests due soon, so will check in later to see what progress you've made. Please do not remove maintenance tags; FAs are not exempt, especially not when the person who promoted it acknowledges it was a mistaken promotion. I've flagged just a few, but let me add that list-defined references makes source checking and flagging extremely time-consuming, since the source is in one part of the article, while the text is in another (the very reason I've always hated list-defined references). This means that flagging sources requires having two different windows open. So, having said that, do you have a secondary review of Psilo in OCD? And there is a review of Sewell's methodology and study; why are you reporting a primary study when a secondary review is available? I will go through more over the next few days, as I have dinner guests tonight. I hope you will address these problems soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll stop removing tags when you stop adding bogus tags with no justification; for example, where's the original research you previously tagged the article with? Let's make this simple: you copy-paste the specific sentences that you now think need to be removed or resourced. That will make it easier for me to determine what needs to be fixed or updated. By the way, list-defined refs makes it faster to verify refs: one knows exactly where the ref is located, one simply needs to have another browser window open for easy access! Sasata (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Sewell is cited to source the fact that the study was published in 2006. The conclusions of the study are cited to the review. Vollenweider 2010 is the review article used for Psilo in OCD (which you tried to remove in your edit?). I can remove the Sewell citation if consensus agrees that it improves the article (I suppose people who want to find out what the original study was can get the review article and dig into the references of the review). Next? Sasata (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• The lay press source is used to cite that fact that the study was the first FDA-approved clinical study with psilocyin since 1970. I think this usage is appropriate. Disagree? Sasata (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• The other lay press source is used to complement an existing citation, providing a more accessible source (i.e. on the net rather than a book) to source the following: "In the 2000s (decade), there was a renewal of research concerning the use of psychedelic drugs for potential clinical applications, such as to address anxiety disorders, major depression, and various addictions." What specifically is the problem here? Sasata (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Husid 2007 (case-based review) is used to source a quote, that cluster headaches are "one of the worst pain syndromes known to mankind." Mark Husid is a neurologist that specializes in CH, can we take his word on this? Sasata (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wilbourn 2003 is a secondary source; I assumed you removed this because of its age, per WP:MEDDATE? I will try to find something more recent to support this (or remove the sentence if I can't). Sasata (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Moreno et al. 2006 is a primary study, but an extremely important one in the history of psilocybin research (the article clearly indicates this context). Note that the conclusions of this study are not cited to the study itself, but to secondary sources (largely Vollenweider 2010). I do not think this contradicts primary source usage as outlined at MEDRS, but am receptive to arguments otherwise. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, dinner guests due in an hour, and it has just occurred to me that I am also busy most of tomorrow, and that when I am able to turn my attention to answering your questions, I find it so difficult to work with list-defined references (where the text cited is disassociated from the cite), that it could be more than 24 hours before I am able to get back to you. (For the same reason, I see I tagged one source wrong-- I hate list-defined references.) Anyway, I cannot in good faith leave an FA written by a trusted and competent contributor tagged when I know I won't be immediately available to work through this, so I'm going to remove the tag (not saying it won't come back, but I doubt that you and I can't work through this).

Briefly for now-- there is no need to cite Sewell when we have reviews, and citing it just for the date doesn't make sense to me, when that could be cited to the reviews. It does make sense sometimes in cases of truly seminal and oft-cited research to cite the primary study along with the reviews of it, but that isn't the case with Sewell, which was an interview of 53 patients and is not highly cited. There are reviews, and they have a lot of disclaimers (please be sure to reflect them, including the one at cluster headache). On laypress, if you're only using it to back medical sources, are you familiar with how to use the laydate, layurl and laysource parameters on the cite journal templates? On the 2003 source, yes, old reviews are always a concern-- if it's important and enduring, there should be mention in recent reviews. On Moreno 2006, I will have a look when I return, but the same applies as to whether it is truly a seminal primary study.

Then I need to look at the other sections of the article, and ... please reassure me I don't have to check all the shroomy articles for MEDRS. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed Sewell 2006, and replaced the 2003 source with a pre-existing review from 2011. I disagree that the following sentence evens falls within the purview of MEDRS: "The first clinical study of psilocybin approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1970[148]—led by Francisco Moreno at the University of Arizona and supported by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies—studied the effects of psilocybin on nine patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD).[unreliable medical source?][149][150]" This sentence merely introduces this important study (without making any medical claims); conclusions about the results of the study are given in the following sentence, sourced to a review. I do not see where this usage contradicts the following from MEDRS: "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above". Sasata (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have initiated a broader discussion at WT:MED (really more about other condition articles than this article) and have separately apologized to Sasata for the misunderstanding over (mostly) Vollenweider PMID 20717121. It is not listed as review in PubMed because, although it is in a review journal, it's an opinion piece. When I thought Sasata had added new primary sources, I rudely and unnecessarily "promised" a FAR for this article; on closer examination and reflection, not only had he not done that, but knowing that he is a conscientious and thorough and collaborative editor makes my apology even more called for, and a FAR certainly not called for. I again sincerely apologize to Sasata for my uncalled for response. There are still issues to sort out wrt psilocybin, the Vollenweider article, and text more of a concern at cluster headache, OCD, and the other articles mentioned. I want to make sure we're all in sync on the sources, although what we might say (due weight) in a medical research section in the psilocybin article itself is different than the weight we might give in individual conditions using it as treatment. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

> This was due in large part to a wide dissemination of information on the topic, which included works such as those by author Carlos Castaneda

How influencial was Carlos Castaneda on mushroom use? There is very little in his books on mushrooms. He says that he smoked them, sounds unlikely. Mushrooms had already gotten lots of attention before Castaneda. Suggest to remove reference to Castaneda. Tova Hella (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Psilocybin seems to increase interregional brain communication according to new study.

I just read this newsarticle, which links to this scientific article. Maybe worth writing about this in the text? 84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's a primary source using a technique that hasn't yet been extensively validated, so I don't think it is ready for use in a Wikipedia article. Our general practice is to wait until material appears in a secondary source, i.e., a review article. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psilocybin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsir.gr.jp/past_journal/2901/0047-0058.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Psilocin mimics the effects of serotonin?

Currently the article states: "Psilocin has a high affinity for the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor in the brain, where it mimics the effects of serotonin." There's no such thing in Psilocin article and it states instead: "Psilocybin is rapidly dephosphorylated in the body to psilocin which acts as a 5-HT2A, 5-HT2C and 5-HT1A agonist or partial agonist. Psilocin exhibits functional selectivity in that it activates phospholipase A2 instead of activating phospholipase C as the endogenous ligand serotonin does." (Same goes for LSD) So doesn't that mean that psilocin does not mimic the effects of serotonin, but does something different to the receptors? See also: [2][3].--Custoo (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The source for this statement is pretty dated. If the information on the psilocin page is more recent (and from a MEDRS) this page should be updated. Sizeofint (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Should future contradictions be prevented by just directing to psilocin article since current knowledge seems to be that psilocybin is just prodrug for psilocin and it's all about psilocins pharmacology? Now two articles needs to stay updated about psilocins pharmacology.--Custoo (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. An analogous case would be Lisdexamfetamine, a prodrug of Amphetamine. There we transclude a lot of content from Amphetamine. Sizeofint (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If selective transclusion of psilocybin's pharmacology section to psilocin is appropriate, I could set it up fairly easily. @OP, yes, it's saying psilocin and serotonin interact with their common 5-HT receptor target(s) differently (their signal transduction differs). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Psilocybin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/drug_toxicity.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205125434/http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf to http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Psilocybin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Bwd3BqRP?url=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/85192141/2011-amsterdam.pdf to http://dl.dropbox.com/u/85192141/2011-amsterdam.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405121903/http://www.museocivico.rovereto.tn.it/pubblicazioni.jsp?ID_LINK=111251&area=3 to http://www.museocivico.rovereto.tn.it/pubblicazioni.jsp?ID_LINK=111251&area=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429075012/http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v3_num34/journal_v3_num34_pg8.html to http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v3_num34/journal_v3_num34_pg8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psilocybin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109030153/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bin/s/m/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bin/s/m/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psilocybin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222180141/http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument%3A28280P/%24FILE/Misuse%20Of%20Drugs%20Act%201981%20-%20%5B06-e0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement to http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument%3A28280P/%24FILE/Misuse%20Of%20Drugs%20Act%201981%20-%20%5B06-e0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Psilocybin vs. psilocin

Psilocybin converts into psilocin when consumed, so psilocybin is not itself a psychedelic drug, or even a psychoactive drug. Psilocybin is rather a prodrug to psilocin, which is a psychedelic drug. This article talks about psilocybin as if it is psilocin and is thus misleading. I think this entire article should be trimmed down and much of the content should be moved to the psilocin page. The current psilocin article is much shorter than this article, which is inappropriate, as most of the content is about the psychedelic effects of psilocin, to which psilocybin is, again, merely a prodrug, or precursor. —Michipedian (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Merging would make sense from WP:OVERLAP, but questions arise about which is the right "home" for encyclopedic information. Psilocybin is the parent (arguably the more recognizable) story, and has 821 abstracts retrieved in PubMed whereas psilocin has 162 abstract mentions. Since psilocybin is the drug of abuse and appears to be the drug of most research interest, one could argue that it should be the parent article with psilocin occupying most of the content. You should proceed with a merge proposal. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Am I wrong to think the scientific community inaccurately refers to psilocybin when they mean psilocin? That seems odd and unlikely, but from what I read about the two substances, it seems clear that psilocin is the psychoactive one, as both occur in mushrooms but only one affects the mind. Michipedian (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If we say that psilocybin is not psychoactive I’m not sure what is gained besides confusion, since psilocybin automatically converts to psilocin into the body. In fact, even scientific studies refer to psilocybin as being psychoactive: “Psilocin and psilocybin are psychoactive components of mushrooms of the genus Psilocybe and many others…” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631713 Furthermore, the recent Michael Pollan book How to Change Your Mind says: “The blue pigment is in fact evidence of oxidized psilocin, one of the two main psychoactive compounds in a Psilocybe. (The other is psilocybin, which breaks down in psilocin in the body.)” Swood100 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the recent addition about toxic delirium

here is a quote of the recent addition: "While many recent studies have concluded that psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance, not all the medical community is on-board. Paul R. McHugh, formerly director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at Johns Hopkins, responded as follows in a book review: "The unmentioned fact in The Harvard Psychedelic Club is that LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, and the like produce not a “higher consciousness” but rather a particular kind of “lower consciousness” known well to psychiatrists and neurologists—namely, “toxic delirium.”"

This paragraph seems wrong. The first sentence talks about mystical and spiritual experiences, then appears a "disagreement" by Paul R. McHugh, but in his citation he does not say anything that contradicts the first sentence, he only says the kind of consciousness produced by psilocybin is "low" and not "high". Where is the disagreement here? no one ever claimed that the consciousness type is "high". besides this, i see no difference between a "low" or "high" consciousness or "toxic delirium" induced consciousness, these are only names that don't matter at all. the effect of the experience is still the same even after you call it something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreniko (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, describing it as a “mystical-type experience having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance” is different from describing it as the run-of-the-mill delusions characteristic of the symptoms of delirious patients that doctors are called to treat in hospitals every day. From the article:

University of Chicago psychiatrist Daniel X. Freedman has identified this aspect of delirium and hallucinogenic states as the “portentousness” feature of the intoxication. He described “the sense that something—even a trivial platitude—is fraught with a cosmic significance too profound to be adequately communicated.”

So McHugh’s point is that yes, a person on psilocybin can experience a feeling of great insight. But whether a person would want that experience probably differs depending on whether there is in fact great insight or whether it is only the same feeling as is experienced by delirious psychotics. McHugh adds:

Every neurologist and psychiatrist has a story about some patient suffering in these ways and reporting his or her experiences in a memorable manner. I recently heard of a gifted elderly woman I much admired who while in the hospital during her terminal delirium from lung disease was asked by her doctor if she knew where she was. “Why,” she replied, smiling, “I’m shopping in Bergdorf-Goodman’s.” How wonderful, I thought, to be ushered out in such a happy state of mind. But this was not her in a “higher consciousness.”

McHugh is contradicting those who claim that psilocybin allows access to a kind of truth that is normally inaccessible. He is saying that the access is only to the feeling, just like the woman who is happy that she is shopping in Bergdorf-Goodman’s. I think the difference in the way of looking at this experience is worth making though I am open to different ways of expressing it. Swood100 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if psilocybin works the same as delirious psychotics, that doesn't say there is no value in the experience. it may say that you can achieve the same experience also by delirious psychotics. but the experience itself is still valuable. Regarding the story about the elderly woman, this is only anecdotal evidence that can't be taken seriously. if you want to claim anything different about the experience, you must cite a study about the experience itself that shows different results. Regarding your last point, access to a feeling or to higher truth is indistinguishable. even when i am talking to you, one could claim that i am not really talking with you, but only to a feeling in my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreniko (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you and have added this point to the article. Did I capture it properly? I think, however, that McHugh’s opinion is entitled to recognition since he is a prominent expert in this area. Swood100 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

the problem with McHugh's opinion is that it is not backecd by a study. take his quote: "The unmentioned fact in The Harvard Psychedelic Club is that LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, and the like produce not a “higher consciousness” but rather a particular kind of “lower consciousness” known well to psychiatrists and neurologists—namely, “toxic delirium.”" how can one claim "facts" about types of consciousness? whether an experience is of a certain type of consciousness or another is not a fact because it is impossible to scientifically prove if any consciousness is of the same type of any other consciousness . consciousness itself is one of the most elusive concepts known to man, i don't how anyone can claim factual arguments in this field. all we can claim is how people responded statistically to a certain substance. what goes on inside their head is beyond science for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreniko (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the state of the art of psychiatry doesn’t allow us to have much confidence that we have a handle on how one state of consciousness differs from another at a fundamental level. However, they have made some progress based on the characteristics of various conditions. For example, the symptoms shown by the paranoid schizophrenic differ greatly from the symptoms of ordinary neurosis and so it might be legitimate to assume that the underlying consciousness of the two conditions is different in certain fundamental ways even if we can’t say much beyond that. If so, then it is meaningful to say that the underlying consciousness of two paranoid schizophrenics more closely resembles each other than either one resembles the underlying consciousness of a neurotic. How closely the underlying consciousness of a patient suffering from toxic delirium resembles that of a person on psilocybin may also be something that can be usefully characterized in order to achieve greater insight into both conditions, even if we are limited to a very crude understanding. You may believe that our knowledge of the underlying consciousness is so crude that we know nothing useful at all. You are entitled to your opinion but I think that many psychiatrists disagree, so your opinion is not entitled to be stated as fact.

You say that the problem is that McHugh’s opinion is not backed by a study. Unfortunately, that is true of almost all of psychiatry. The causes and cures for most psychiatric conditions have not been ascertained through formal studies. Rather the progress has come as a result of theories developed by practitioners based on insight gained in interacting with patients and observing the effects of different types of treatment. In this milieu the opinion of prominent psychiatrists and psychologists as to the true nature of the underlying condition is basically the best we can do currently. McHugh believes that the underlying psychological condition experienced under psilocybin does not differ in important ways from the underlying psychological condition experienced by people undergoing toxic delirium. He is qualified to make this judgment because of his years of clinical training and experience, even if such a judgement must have a very great margin of error. If we deny that judgments of this kind can have some amount of validity then we must similarly discard most psychological theories to date, but my understanding is that psychiatrists and psychologists find them to some degree valid and useful. Swood100 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You have some good points there, but lets say that McHugh is right and psilocybin induced consciousness is the same as toxic delirium. how does that make the experience of less value? or how does that contradict any of the findings that were shown in the studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreniko (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If McHugh is right, then the experience of the person on psilocybin who feels that he has achieved some profound insight has no more validity than a similar experience of a person suffering from toxic delirium or paranoid schizophrenia.

~response inline by oreniko: you assume that toxic delirium insights have no validity, but that claim has no basis. ~end response.

Yet people report extraordinarily positive gains as a result of their experiences on psilocybin and no such gains from the other conditions. How could these be reconciled?

~response inline by oreniko: first you assume that psilocybin experience and toxic delirium are caused by the same consciousness, and then you say that people report they cause different responses, and then you ask how come they cause different responses? obviously because it is not the same consciousness. this finding is contradicting your own assumption. ~end response

Some people believe that the benefits realized as a result of the short-term experiences under psilocybin and ketamine come at least in part from a “reset” in the brain which allows the person to escape from his usual constraints in thinking. Johns Hopkins researchers also stress that the positive results seem to appear only when the experience is conducted in a certain controlled way. Maybe benefits are limited to a toxic delirium that only lasts four or five hours, that is within a certain range of intensity, that is something that the person invites to happen and expects good things from, and during which he feels under the protection of a trained person who coaches him in how to negotiate various obstacles encountered during the experience.

Under this view the feeling of profound insight or oneness with the universe under psilocybin is illusory to the same degree as the same sensation under a toxic delirium resulting from some other substance (maybe they both contain elements that are not illusory), but when the experience is conducted under specific conditions there is a benefit from a kind of “reset” that allows the person to think about things differently after he recovers from the experience. An analogy could be to the relief some depressed patients have reported after undergoing electroconvulsive therapy. It seems to work under certain conditions but nobody knows why – perhaps from some kind of reset. Swood100 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

~response inline by oreniko: all of that doesn't contradict the findings of the psilocybin studies. ~end response

No, I didn't assume anything. I said that "if McHugh is right" then psilocybin insights have no more validity that those from toxic delirium. Below that I was open to the idea that they both have validity.

The finding of the psilocybin studies is that they result in long-term benefit when conducted under certain conditions. I don’t think that it was a finding that a sensation of profound insight reflects actual profound insight, but rather that it is seen that way by the user and leads to beneficial change. (Maybe you are arguing that a feeling of profound insight is by definition actual profound insight.) Apparently McHugh believes that such a sensation under psilocybin and under toxic delirium are alike illusory. I don’t know what his response is to the reported long-term benefit, but that benefit could be real even if the immediate sensations do not reflect reality. It could be that garden variety toxic delirium would produce similar results if it were conducted under the same conditions. The studies have shown that the good results under psilocybin don’t come when those conditions are not met.

McHugh gave the cited opinion in 2010 whereas in 2006 Griffiths published the study titled “Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance” so McHugh had to be aware of it and made his statement anyway. It’s been made clear to the reader that Griffiths disagrees with him but even Griffiths, according to Pollan, admits that the participants may be encountering a "temporary psychosis," which seems not entirely congruous with the description "profound insight." McHugh is too illustrious to be ignored as a crank. I just sent an email to him asking if he has published anything that responds to the Johns Hopkins studies. I’ll let you know if he replies. Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity

[4] [5] [6]

There seems to be some evidence that psilocybin could increase neuroplasticity. What do you think? Benjamin (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Lab research, conjecture, and a small clinical trial years from completion are primary research, which - however intriguing at this early stage - are years or a decade plus from being encyclopedic. Review WP:MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDREV. --Zefr (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't suppose it'd be useful, nonetheless? Benjamin (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDREV: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." --Zefr (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AfD comments (Psilocybin mushroom)

Some of the comments from the closed AfD discussion for Psilocybin mushroom appear to raise reasonable concerns regarding this article, namely content duplication with Psilocybin mushroom. Editors may consider implementing solutions suggested by these comments. Juliette Han (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cluster headaches

I tried to make the following contribution to this article:

In a 2006 study, psilocybin was found to have aborted cluster headache attacks in 22 of 26 cases. It was further concluded that cluster remissions were extended in 18 of 19 cases.

The contribution was undone with the following comment "Primary research, unconfirmed, needs a WP:MEDRS review" - in light of this undo and suggestion, could someone please look at the following for a more suitable inclusion of my contribution?

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6982362_Response_of_cluster_headache_to_psilocybin_and_LSD
• https://n.neurology.org/content/66/12/1920.abstract
• https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-cluster-headache-to-psilocybin-and-LSD-Sewell-Halpern/e9aec20b22da4b258365f1e21d17ac3c62a48899
• https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060911/full/060911-5.html

The point is arguably quite relevant to the research section of this article. Furthermore, it is also referred to in the research section on the cluster headache article. Whether or not controversial, it is obviously a point that could be of interest to people who are reading about the research on psilocybin on Wikipedia.

JulianParge (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@JulianParge: The revert was correct as we shouldn't be citing primary pieces of research, particularly in the way you did which suggests that psilocybin is an effective treatment. The way the research is mentioned at Cluster_headache#Research_directions is better, as it uses this review. Given that The study was unblinded, uncontrolled and limited by recall and selection bias. I doubt it is time to mention it here in any detail, although the review could be used to support it's use for treating cluster headaches as another potential in the list at the end of the first paragraph (drug dependence, anxiety or mood disorders.) This review would also be useful to provide more info in general, e.g. it mentions potential for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder too. SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The research on cluster headache is years out of date (WP:MEDDATE, possibly indicating it is not a critical research topic at present) and had weak studies and results too vague to mention. This is a PubMed listing of current publications on psilocybin and headache, showing that the topic coverage is sparse, remains outdated, and has not been widely adopted by physicians or clinical neuroscientists. By WP:UNDUE, it is not worth mentioning. Zefr (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How reliable is Samorini's article?

I'm talking about note [140] I cannot find him on Scopus and he has a really low score on ResearchGate Digressivo (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Digressivo: i think that argument is very speculative. The identification of mushrooms in archaeofungical representations in art should be accompanied with bioarchaeological evidence of the species in the territory. Have you seen the discussion in Tassili n'Ajjer? Those kind of arguments shouldnt be in an article about psilocybin as they weaken other arguments, maybe it should be present in an article related to 'magic mushrooms in history'. Cheers, --Cbrescia (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

INTEGRATION - Journal of Mind-moving Plants and Culture, doesn't sound like a particularly reliable source. Unless there are other sources discussing this, or the work is cited by other scholars, I think the information should probably be removed. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smartse: I have not found any other sources discussing this. I did a Google Scholar search to see if the article is cited by other scholars and it is, but these works don't seem very reliable. What seems most reliable is the first article that Google Scholar shows, but it quotes Samorini's article saying that: "Representations of Amanita mushrooms, most probably A. muscaria, have been reported in polychromatic rock paintings in the Sahara (Samorini 1992); such works date from the Palaeolithic 9000–7000 BC (Heim 1964, Festi 1985)." So even the one that seems more reliable mentions Samorini about Amanita mushrooms and not Psilocybin ones. Digressivo (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Samorini's article quote from the page as there were no factors that made it reliable.--Digressivo (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Article headings, including 'Adverse effects'

Why are beneficial/therapeutic effects described under the heading 'Adverse effects' in the article? Shouldn't these be separated out? It doesn't read well. For example:

Adverse effects ... An analysis of information from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that the use of psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin is associated with significantly reduced odds of past month psychological distress, past year suicidal thinking, past year suicidal planning, and past year suicide attempt.

On that, why is there not a section describing findings from research to-date on the therapeutic effects of psilocybin? Many if not most scientific and medical papers on psilocybin appear to include both; it seems odd to only have a section on adverse effects.

Thanks

Dmcilveen (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Binding profile chart in article is for psilocin, not psilocybin

In the binding profile chart under "pharmacodynamics," the binding potentials listed are for psilocin, not psilocybin (and the reference is for psilocin). Looking for input on how to address the incorrect binding potential being listed. I feel that at a minimum, it needs to be noted that the binding potential in the article of psilocin. I feel that also adding the actual binding potential of psilocybin in addition could be helpful. -Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added a note to the table. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

None of those values in the binding profile are correct. The source that's cited doesn't even include all of those receptors. More accurate binding data is available at doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009019.s005. Hunterboerner (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Research - depression treatment

Concerning this edit and revert, the source is questionable and the conclusion stated in the article unwarranted not only because the journal is an MDPI publication red-flagged on WP:CITEWATCH as predatory, but also because the psilocybin research was thin in this article, Table 1. Only 6 early-stage studies on psilocybin were reported, all low in subject numbers (12-51). The concluding sentence in the Research section gives too much weight to such preliminary research. The concluding sentence of the first paragraph could be modified to include just the reference to depression, and read, Psilocybin has been tested for its potential for developing prescription drugs to treat drug dependence, anxiety, mood disorders or depression (include ref here). Zefr (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence in regards to low sample size. Machinexa (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Original research and poor sourcing

Much of the biomedical content of this article seems to be original research confected from obscure/unreliable primary sources. I've done some tagging but it's going to need a good going-over with the filleting knife to get a reasonable basis for future improvement with better sources (if they exist). Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)