Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AllanfromWales1 t1_iwp9lkp wrote

I remain to be convinced that voluntary participation in a self-reporting survey is the best way to obtain data on the frequency of side effects of a recreational drug. Those for whom the effects were positive are more likely to volunteer for such a survey than those for whom they were not. They are also more likely to emphasise the positive effects if they have bought into the culture around Ayahuasca.

> “These results are consistent with previous studies, with regular users reporting that most adverse physical effects seem to not be serious and do not compromise health,” Perkins and colleagues explain.

Could this be because those who have serious adverse effects don't become regular users?

76

Medit8or t1_iwpq3ce wrote

It’s selection bias right from the start.

There are also no controls for context - how it was prepared, dosage given, variation in ingredients, etc.

How can you compare data from first-timers with those taking it for the 100th time? Or compare those who took a relatively low dose with someone who took a much higher dose? Or those who had it last week vs those who last had it 5 years ago.

In other words, the research protocol is very shaky which makes the findings highly questionable.

On a side note, I know two people who seriously struggled with suicidal ideation afterwards.

On another note, calling ayahuasca “tea” is hilarious. The one time I had it, it was thick and nasty.

18

OwnDemise t1_ix8lphb wrote

Dosage is somewhat secondary and the required amount often varies, depending on the ceremony. "Measuring" Ayahuasca is additionally complicated by the spiritual aspect - every brew needs intention to work properly. On a side note: traditionally, only the shaman drinks.

As for comparing the data: usually, ayahuasca comes with one or multiple purges of some kind. The only real differentiation that seems viable is before/after final purge. Either you are looking for guidance/healing or you are not - at this point, ayahuasca becomes interesting in a recreational setting.

Considering your side note: People feeling a major void or even drifting towards nihilism usually happens if they journey without a guide. This is one reason, why both pre- and postceremonial integration are critical. It can be difficult if not impossible to recover from an egodeath. Sometimes people want their bodies to follow their minds.

As for your last note: While there are some cultures that brew it thick like a vegetable soup, others actually prefer a thin and nasty tea. Although the nastiness fades once one has shed their burdens. it becomes rather tasty after that point.

1

Medit8or t1_ixaiyej wrote

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

I’d appreciate your feedback on another question/idea.

In terms of plant medicines, I see a disconnect between the traditional shamans as lineage holders and those “shamans” who have taken the medicine out of the context and offer it to whoever shows up.

Something is lost in this process. The traditional shamans ability to “assess” the seeker/drinker is one of them. The other is (or at least it seems to me) tribal kinship and support for those who are challenged by longer term healing and integration.

Do you agree? Disagree?

1

OwnDemise t1_ixcoit1 wrote

I agree with what you call disconnection. There are many who forfeit the traditional ways. Then again, it is a lot easier to just serve the medicine, than to actually do a ritual and to work on and with those who came looking for help. Then again, the ayahuasca-tourism is vital for many communities to stay connected with modern days society. There are tribes that have retreated back into the depths of the jungle, but for most this is not an option. Selling and serving ayahuasca is a great way to both teach a way of living, but also allowing interaction with our capitalistic culture.

There is nothing lost, but not everything is meant for the public. There was a time, when Shamans showed much more of our skills. But there was also a time when people hunted tribes down for their gold. There was also a time when we burned witches.
A shaman is typically an advisor - our connection with the other side helps to see and listen. In shamanic tradition, there is a big element of healing and guidance. But, first and foremost, a shaman is connected to an aspect of reality that is not meant to be described with words.

Then again, many call themselves Shaman, although they never finished their training.

1

reckonthedead t1_iwpn5k4 wrote

Got to start somewhere. And, nearly 70% of participants reported negative side effects ...

6

AllanfromWales1 t1_iwpq5fk wrote

Only the vomiting which is seen as part of the experience. Far fewer reported anything else.

15

Tikaped t1_iwqdeh8 wrote

> Those for whom the effects were positive are more likely to volunteer for such a survey than those for whom they were not. They are also more likely to emphasise the positive effects if they have bought into the culture around Ayahuasca.

You seems pretty confident that is the case. Since this is /r/science I am sure you will provide links to prove you point.

2