There's (minimal) research on psilocybin doing just that. One of the tragedies of prohibition is that we just weren't able to study these psychedelic compounds easily for 50+ years.
For sure, and lions mane is one of the three things Paul Stamets has been talking about for years to take in combination with niacin and psilocybin (microdose) to support neurogenesis. Low doses of psilocybin have only very mild perceptual changes, much less than smoking weed or drinking alcohol (for me). But again, there's not much science on it which will hopefully change.
Have any sources? I’d love to read what you are thinking about.
I haven’t used psilocybin in a clinical setting but have gone through an alternative psychedelic-assisted therapy process. Very interesting results and many positives.
There's not a lot, unfortunately. This paper is a literature review and the claims are weak, but there's something there that should be investigated further: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12392120/
Paul Stamets has evangelized psilocybin + lions mane + niacin for years in a microdosing format, but again, the research is lacking largely due to prohibition.
American productions constantly feel like they think their audience are idiots these days. It's nice to watch a European production where they don't assume their viewers are going to also be doom-scrolling and feel the need to summarize what's going on by having a character say the summary out loud every episode.
Much like everything else in the US, products suffer and sink in quality for being sidelined by individual interests.
Marketing needs 4 second jokes to put in the trailer; sales needs a cute pet to sell toys; an actor demands dramatic moments aiming for an Oscar; market research needs a love story, a diverse character, and a specific geographic location to widen the audience; early screenings show that attention drops so story is simplified...
All of these roles should be working to support a product, but they should never interfere with its creation. Instead, they're the main creators. People in the industry genuinely believe that the plot is just an excuse to do all the above, and results show.
We've had decades to do something about it, but if Trump deciding to step into a completely unnecessary war and blundering the entire thing is what makes everyone wake up then I guess that's a silver lining.
Yes, "new research" is a misnomer here. The correct version is "people in lab coats have finally noticed ..."
Reminds me of the studies that say lobsters can feel pain. Like, no fucking shit. What multi-cellular (and even single-celled) organisms do not feel pain? Glad we're giving the western stamp of approval on these highly contested ideas.
I suggest you should drop the patronizing tone. People believe lots of things and a lot of them is completely bogus. That's why we need people in lab coats to evaluate them in systematic way.
And here I am sitting in Brooklyn and haven't had one apartment that has had fiber as an option. I get to pay Spectrum $90/month for "400/20" and in reality get 100/10.
> I've never liked the way meditation makes me feel
This is common. A true meditation practice brings up a lot of stuff, from general body aches and pains to deep emotional things you may be unconsciously suppressing. With time and persistence, and with the right teacher, it becomes liberating though.
Ah, I see, that's also very common. Taken all the way it can develop into nihilism, which is one of the two extreme views in Buddhism [1]. I fell into that early on and abandoned my practice for many years. I found that once I found the Mahayana teachings on emptiness [2] and then the stories of the Vajrayana masters [3] the practice became joyful again and not bogged down by some narrow view of what meditation is.
It could be, but it depends on what you're cultivating. If you're spaced out, day dreaming, then you're practicing distraction. Meditation is practicing the opposite of distraction, to become aware of the mind's true state.
"That gave Matthew Gallagher breathing room to fix some shortcuts he had initially taken, like swapping out the before-and-after weight-loss photos for ones from real customers. Some photos on Medvi’s homepage remain A.I.-generated."
Cool, another scammy internet company preying on people's insecurities. Glad the NY Times spent the effort to tell us about it and didn't spend any time questioning this company [1].
Most of us should be honest and admit we're jealous of this guy.
He basically chose a sector where customers are desperate (weight-loss drugs), slapped a website and an interface for connecting with a drug prescription provider together, did effective marketing, and now his business generates millions a month in profit.
Like, there are a half dozen companies like his running around that essentially offer the same product and prices because they are all customer interfaces stop the same provider.
Just the other day I was downvoted and called out for suggesting that perverse incentives are hard to resist, yet here we are with the Times (apparently) showcasing another such instance.
In this case GLP1's clinical effects are widely understood though, so it is immaterial if an "artist's depiction" (artificial agent's depiction) is of a real person or purely hallucinated.
This is just like when Paypal got started and was basically operating their own bank. Good luck doing that without getting in trouble. This is selling pharmaceutical drugs over the internet. You're playing chicken with going to jail they just happened to get lucky.
I had a few people from my life send me this article because they know I've been a software engineer for 20 years and were thinking "wow, see you could do this too!". None of them noticed they were misleading customers. None of them knew the FDA sent them a warning. All of them thought this person was really smart for using AI to create a company on his own, no other humans involved.
So maybe the NY Times thought it was enough to make people question the ethics of the company to add a sentence or two of "AI-generated images/website", but in reality I think people read this as a positive solo entrepreneurship story and missed the ethical grey area and the fact that this indeed took thousands of unseen humans to build.
My teacher (former gelug monk of 20+ years) said during one talk years ago that Buddhism could be considered a form of Hinduism, as of course there are so many streams of Hinduism and no singular form of it. Buddhism had to be in dialogue with the environment that it sprung from, even if it rejected core tenants of mainstream "Hinduism" of the time (primarily caste, ritual purity, the denial of atman, etc). And of course the Jains were doing similar things in that early period.
So yeah, Buddhism came out of Hindu tradition, and Hindu tradition brought teachings from Buddhists back into their spiritual paths as well (like Hatha yoga in the Amrtasiddhi [1] and even Patanjali's yoga sutras contain a good amount of early Buddhism in it [2]). It's almost as if the teachings on interdependence are correct!
reply