141
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
141 points (97.3% liked)
science
15000 readers
370 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Upvoted for the news that these treatments are speeding towards approval. However, the point that no one knows how these new treatments work seems silly, given my understanding that no one seems to know exactly how antidepressants in general work either (or at least they didn't until recently?), even ones that have been used for decades, like Prozac.
Here's a quote from an article from 2021: I've been making references on this blog for years about how we don't even know how antidepressants work
Hell there are a bunch of receptors in the brain that are called "cannabinoid receptors", because at the time of their discovery the only thing we knew about them was that they were activated by cannabis. Since then, we've developed a slightly wider understanding of their function in the body's normal operation, and yet the name still stands.
I probably should be sleeping. I know this because as I was reading, my eyes lost focus a bit and I read that as "activated by cannibals." Cue the confusion.
Kuru has entered the chat.
https://tenor.com/view/check-please-checkplease-space-balls-gif-26792498
Literally came here to say the same exact thing
I mean, this is going to sound super-oversimplified but hopefully correct: we know that Tryptamines like LSD and psilocybin serve their most novel functions on 5-HT~2A~ serotonin binding sites and there are a lot in the thalamus, which is largely responsible for routing information to other parts of the brain. That would explain a lot of people's accounts of synesthesia.
The circumstances that are necessary to promote neuroplasticity weren't clear when I was in skool, but the fastest way to get a credible answer on the internet is to be wrong about something, so I'm going to claim it was 95.6% magic.
One of the requirements for Brannigan's law is that you can't make it obvious that you're invoking it.
Fuck.
LSD is not a tryptamine, it is a lysergamide.
Lysergemise deez nuts...
But in good faith and context, what are the differences in action potentials? Is it worth writing about? That's an actual question, because (apologies) I'm stoned as fuck.
Also, how is it suddenly not a tryptamine?
It's all good homie lol.
It's not a tryptamine because that's a different molecule altogether. LSD is a lysergic acid, while psilocybin or DMT are tryptamines
Best way I can describe them is that lysergamide is like meeting the universe, while tryptamine is like being one with the universe.
I... I guess because a subclass of psychoactive molecules came into existence after my education, I'm wrong. Just sucks to learn that and make sense of myself thereafter.
I'd like to come back to apologize, I didn't fully understand what you were saying before and wanted to clarify that you are not wrong either.
Lysergamides are not tryptamines, but they do contain tryptamines, however they also contain phenethlyamines which, like tryptamines, are a class of psychedelic substances themselves. Although Lysergamides contain these two substances, scientists agree that they should be classified as a separate class altogether as they have both distinctive enough effects and enough variations under their tree that do not fit anywhere specifically under the tryptamine or phenethtlamine tree. As far as I'm aware, this is distinctly from a chemistry perspective and doesn't incorporate psychonautics into it's classification (although the reverse is usually the case).
I wouldn't say that anything sucks about it though, there is always new information coming out, that's what makes science awesome. We like to think that we have got it all figured out, but there is always something that could throw everything we know off the table. Remember that the scientific method only came about in the 17th century, everything was pretty much theory up until then and that's still a very small amount of time for us to have learned everything we have learned.
Once again, I am sorry for how my tone may have been before. I am told I can come off as accusatory or adamant at times but I try not to be. I hope this makes you feel better, you are not wrong, there was just more to the story is all :).
Yo, I'm just happy to learn new things! Hell, my post was imploring people to criticize it, so you aren't wrong in "well actually"-ing me. Keep killing it and keep sharing good chemistry knowledge! Psychoactive substances are continuously more intriguing to me as I learn more.
I met one of the grandsons of Alex Shulgin (creator of MDMA) in a drug diversion class that I taught briefly at the University of Oregon (meant for kids that were caught smoking weed in the dorms). I only hosted the class for a few months until I got complaints that I was too fascinated with the drug interactions and not with the whole "diversion" part of it.
But hey, everyone learned not to mix central nervous system depressants, which was the largest cause of drug-related fatalities at the UO, so I think I did my job effectively. Wish they would have paid me for it.
You're good people, havokdjfintquuffatcpl.
I mean, they never didn't exist, but... fuck.