Jump to content

Talk:Psilocybin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early comments

Could include info about other psychoactive substances from the mushroom, their chemistry, effects on the human body and mind, how to find the mushroom and extract the psylocibin, references to Carlos Castañeda or others associated with psylocibin. David 14:28 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

There should be information on maximum safe dosages, consequences of exceeding them, dangers of regular use, etc..
Jorge Stolfi 13:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Castaneda's works aren't very esteemed and are rife with scientific inaccuracies. For example: One cannot "smoke" mushrooms, as Don Juan did. His works are now classified as fiction rather than anthropology in many bookstores. Ix 04:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think many people are thankful for that, and those that are going to be thankful when they are so mad because they tried to smoke mushrooms, thanks to this fool and his inefficient publications based on a simple placebo effect. When will people ever research there drugs before using them? Heat = not good for Psilocybin, people!!!! - 69.251.125.187 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This warning seems almost humorously ambiguous and vague. Are we really suggesting that the reader "should" experiment with psychedelics. And what exactly is "signicant discretion"?: "Experimentation with psychedelics should be done with a lot of information and significant discretion." --LeeHunter 18:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

UK shrooms illegal?

I was under the impression that psilocybin containing mushrooms won't be illegal in the UK until May or thereabouts - Clause 21 (and indeed the rest of the drug bill) hasn't actually been passed yet as far as I know. Can the writer of that part clarify where it came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.48.251 (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2005

I'm not the writer, but there's a timline of psilocybin mushroom law in the UK to be found at Erowid, right here. It's gone back and forth quite a bit apparently. -- — I. Neschek | talk 21:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From what I understand 18th July 2005 is the date which has been set for Clause 21 to become law. --Pappa 4 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
Confirming the above to the best of my knowledge, since it's now a past event. This could do with integrating into the article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.121.88 (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2005

Psiloybin Psilocin content

"In the fruitbody, psilocybin and psilocin tend to accumulate in the caps more than in the stems."

Research by several authors shows this to be true, check http://www.shroomery.org/index.php/par/24313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anno (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 December 2005

Australian laws?

I was hoping someone would know the laws of magic mushrooms in australia? I think it should be included here as its a fairly important country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.186.13 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2006

Shorter LSD Trip?

"Effects of psilocybin generally resemble a shorter LSD trip."

I've done both mushrooms and acid, and it's really not merely a case of shrooms being a shorter acid trip. Acid is much more intense than mushrooms are. The way I compare it is that mushrooms give you more of a dreamy high, you laugh and giggle a lot, hallucinate with your eyes closed, and really just notice slight distortions in the light (things seem as if they're breathing, pulsing, patterns shift a bit). In the dark, you get open-eye hallucinations to some extent but not that much. Those hallucinations consist mostly of color dots flying around, stuff like that. You can more or less function in terms of walking around, speaking semi-fluidly...to an observer someone on mushrooms looks like they're just high on weed. On acid though, the hallucinations become tangible objects, everything is distorted (to me, it looked like the walls were covered in a clear flowing liquid), and you basically have no motor or speaking skills. You can barely even stand because your legs wobble all over the place, and you certainly can't come up with a decent enough train of thought to hold anything even remotely resembling a conversation. Think of the scene from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where Duke and Gonzo first get to the Mint Hotel.

Long story short (I'm rambling now), this sentence needs to be reworded somehow, because a shroom trip is definitely not just a "shorter LSD trip". The Chief 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the effects you are describing are dosage related, not chemical. eat a few eighths in a sitting, or take some weak acid, and you'll see this. In my own experience, i would certainly say that it's the other way around, that acid is much less intense. but these things aren't really possible to quantify like that- i used to get weak acid and take large doses of mushrooms.
Eat enough mushrooms, your motor control is destroyed, and you very well may find yourself going through a full shamanic purge, ala ayahuasca.
These things are difficult to describe . . . but given that psilocybin generally doesn't last as long as lsd, and the effects are certainly comparable, im not really sure how the sentence should be reworded . . . especially keeping in mind verifiability/no original research guidelines.
--He:ah? 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, you're probably right. I think I did have a pretty high dose, I got it off one of my dad's friends who lived in the Hashbury in the 60's (when doses were hundreds of micrograms as opposed to about 75-100 micrograms now), so it's very possible it was similar to 60's acid, and more potent than what you'd typically find today. Perhaps something like "Effects of psilocybin are comparable to those of an LSD trip, although this can vary depending on dosage and mental state at the time of consumption."? The Chief 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to keep in the "shorter" part, qualified of course, but your version sounds good. cheers --He:ah? 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Effects of psilocybin are comparable to those of a shorter LSD trip, although intensity and duration vary depending on dosage, individual physiology, and set and setting."? Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a winner, folks. I'll make the change. The Chief 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this discussion... while the overall effects of classic psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) may not be exactly the same and from some accounts, people claim there are worlds of difference, the bulk of this is due to set and setting. There are differences, but the primary difference is duration of effect. Two different people may experience exceedingly close subjective effects and experiences on two different psychedelics, and the same one person may also experience exceedingly different subjective effects and experiences from taking the exact same dose of the exact same psychedelic on two different occasions. I've heard the same "differences" applied to both LSD and psilocybin as far as subjective effects go. Accounts of drug effects are also often contaminated with use of other drugs -- namely cannabis, sometimes MDMA, alcohol, nicotine , caffeine or chocolate. Scientific study has resulted in minor differences in the styles of visuals between substances, and also mushroom experiences tend to impart more of a "heavy" feeling, or "body load" than LSD. The "coming on" of the two substances is also markedly different whereas psilocybin can start to take effect in as little as 15 minutes, LSD usually takes at least an hour. LSD's effects also appear to come in waves until the peak is reached, whereas psilocybin's peak comes on at such a rapid pace in comparison that any waves are not very prominent (or possible non-existent). --Thoric 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects?

"[Hoffman] first noted that they had adverse effects on the human cerebal system if they were to be used long term, due to their interaction with the body's sodium-potassium ion concentrations" Why is there no other info describing this potentially serious problem? Was his theory discredited? No source is given, so if anyone can expand upon this potential effect, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.187.80 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2006

dunno where your comment went, but anyways read Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for info on that. you can't just reword it, and you can't use it, even if you cite it. --He:ah? 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This section of the page does not contribute any relevant information about the alkaloid psiolcybin. The various trivia should be relocated to more relevant pages, for example, mention Lewis Black's psilocybin experience on his page. Is there any disagreement on this point and why? Wowbobwow12 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It really should be removed and used as the basis for another article, either Psychedelics in popular culture or Psychedelic drugs in popular culture. There's actually a great deal that could be written on that topic, beyond just a list of drug references. I'd like to get some feedback on this (including which title I should use) – I may move the list over there in the next week or so if there are no objections, though I won't have time to write more than a stub article on the topic. Peter G Werner 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with relocation. Ideally article titles shouldn't be longer than they need to be. Since psychedelics is a redirect to psychedelic drug, I would say that Psychedelics in popular culture is plenty long for an article title ;) --Thoric 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the Psychedelics in popular culture stub and have moved the psilocybin popular references to the new page. Wowbobwow12 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. There's lots of room for expansion with stuff about psychedelic influences in music, art, etc. Not that I have time for that, but if anybody's interested.... Peter G Werner 04:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nausea/vomiting/fasting

"Nausea is not uncommon when ingesting Psilocybe mushrooms, but typically subsides within an hour of appearing or less. Sometimes vomiting will occur, though this is rare unless a high dose has been consumed. Fasting before consumption often reduces the likelihood of nausea."

What are the sources for this information. A lot of this is starting to sound like original research, a no-no on Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this point. How should we deal with this paragraph? I doubt anyone will step forward to offer citations, so should it be deleted? Wowbobwow12 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, and have just done that; in fact, I got rid of most of that paragraph. If I come across something on the somatic effects of psilocybin, details on different methods of ingestion, etc. in any of my books, I'll type something up on that and give a cited reference. Peter G Werner 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen quite a few references to fasting for both reducing nausea as well as increasing the effects of the drug. Unfortunately most of these are in FAQs, Erowid experiences and Shroomery message boards. I'll take a look through my books as well. --Thoric 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that states:

"Many people...find fresh mushrooms considerably less digestible than dried ones...[experiencing] cramps, indigestion and general [digestive] discomfort for much of the voyage. Drying them seems to eliminate whatever factor produces these effects."

This citation is from p. 160 of Psilocybin Mushroom Handbook: Easy Indoor and Outdoor Cultivation ISBN 0932551718. I'm not certain if this is enough of an academic-type source, but I thought I'd offer it. Wowbobwow12 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Removal

The sentence I just removed seems like original research:

"A non-physiologically induced dreaminess is present up to 24 hours following administration, presumably representing the need to reflect and integrate the content of a profound hallucinogenic experience well into the next day."

Maybe if there was some citation or precedence for this is would be okay to put back in, in some form. Wowbobwow12 01:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopharmacology Article

The recent (11 July 2006) articles added as external links refer to an article in the journal Psychopharmacology, DOI 10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5. The title is "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance" by R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, U. McCann, R. Jesse. This journal article might be useful to someone that wants to edit the Wikipedia page. In my case I needed a university library ID to view the journal online. --Ryandontforget 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My school has a subscription, so I just downloaded the PDFs of the article and responses to it. I'll read over it and add something in the next couple of days. Maybe I'll even add something really brief later tonight. Peter G Werner 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also added a bunch of links since this is considered a newsworthy topic. A password-free link to the original article can be found at a Johns Hopkins webpage here. Peter G Werner 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Google news reports

I saw major headlines about this topic in Google news. Given the nature of the coverage and the current nature of the topic I wanted to categorize it as a "current event" Nattu 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event

This page is listed as a "Current Event" because of the Johns Hopkins study. I've added some appropriate text at the head of the article directing interested readers to the relevant parts of the article. How long should the "Current Event" box stay up before clearing it? A week? Peter G Werner 02:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took it down yesterday. Since there were no new developments, three weeks was more than enough time to have it listed as a "current event". Peter G Werner 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology

Currently section states drug is a partial agonist at 5-HT2A. Recent article "Psilocybin for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder" in J Clin Psychiatry 67:11, Nov 2006, states that drug is agonist at 5-HT1A, 5-HT2A, and 5-HT2C. They reference 2 articles one being from 1984 and one from 1990. Should this information be included or is recent article relying on old sources?--Psychofarm 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trial

I find it odd that they're doing a clinical trial - or even that they're legally able to - on psilocybin. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00302744?order=24 69.85.162.64 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it odd? Some of these trials, as detailed in the article, had very interesting and encouraging results as far as helping people with terminal illnesses and religious people goes. The bigger question is, why would anyone wonder why it's not legally allowed, and why isn't it allowed on marijuana, MDMA and other substances that have been used for therapeutic studies in the past and now basically aren't allowed by the government? Perhaps a section addressing this could be included.--76.182.88.254 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

Reference number 7 is a 404 page. ^ NLM (click on "toxicity" on the left side)

Psilocybin Chemical Structure

I've checked out the chemical structure of Psilocybin from other sources such as Erowid, and there is no third hydrogen atom on the amine group of this tryptamine derived compound. Someone please update the image of the skeletal structure of Psilocybin, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.41.152 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

psilocybin is not an alkaloid

psilocybin does not make the jump back and forth between salt and freebase, it is not an alkaloid.

i dont know how to sign -matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.252.45 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid-base extraction can often be used to purify or enrich alkaloids, but it is clearly not what defines an alkaloid. Many alkaloids have additional functional groups (such as acidic groups) and properties (such as highly lipophilic or highly hydrophilic) that interfere with this procedure. There is nothing special about the amino group of psilocybin, it does "jump" between charged / protonated / ammonium / salt form and uncharged / freebase / amino form in a pH dependent manner, see also zwitterion. Сасусlе 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send a lot of this article over to "Psilocin" article?

"Psilocin is the pharmacologically active agent in the body after ingestion of psilocybin or psychedelic mushrooms." Therefore, a lot of this information is better represented in the psilocin article, not this one. --1000Faces (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However the drug is consumed as psilocybin, as psilocyn is generally unstable. Therefore a detailed discussion of psilocybin is warranted. Halogenated (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Vomiting

I would like to see a source cited that says vomiting soon after ingesting mushrooms will not affect the trip. I know of several instances where someone who has eaten a recreational dose, started feeling sick, and vomited, and subsequently did not get high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.88.154 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2006

Im pretty sure it depends on how long its been since ingesting the mushrooms. obviously if you vomit immediately after swallowing the mushrooms, your body will be unable to absorb the active ingredients. if they sit in your stomach a little longer than they have time to absorb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.128.185 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV and cleanup

This article is in major need of a cleanup. I removed a lot of info that was strongly advocating or instructional in the use of psilocybin. This is entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Also, I removed info that detailed psilocybin mushrooms - this article is about psilocybin itself, and continued reference to mushrooms is not appropriate.

Much of what I added is not cited either. I added it from previous reading on the topic from various sources, some more POV tainted than others. However it all needs to be cited, and a more scientific POV presented. Discussion of spirituality and entheogenic properties are not very relevant to this article, which is about the compound psilocybin, not an extended how to guide on its use as a psychoactive drug. That is something for a separate article.Halogenated (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the strong connection between the neurological effects of psilocybin and spiritual experiences is highly relevant. The field of social neuroscience is growing, and we need to correlate neuroscience to psychological phenomena. Actually, I wish there was much more information in this article, about how the neurological effects of psilocybin in the brain causes spiritual experiences. --Zanthius (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Function in the mushroom

One thing that I was wondering about was why these mushrooms synthesize psilocybin,etc in the first place. I looked around online for a bit but couldn't seem to find anything on it at all. I guess the obvious answer is to deter animals from eating the mushrooms, but we can't be sure about that maybe it plays some sort of hormonal role. For example auxins are basically tryptamines with the amino group replaced with a COOH and they act as hormones in plants. Maybe its even something the mushroom excretes to inhibit the growth of other species of fungi. The point is I don't know and thats something that should be added to this page if anyone can find research on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.64.109 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe psilocybin works as some kind of electromagnetic receiver/transmitter in the mushrooms, for some kind of a collective mushroom consciousness.--Zanthius (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures

Why can't I find any info anywhere about thermal breakdown of psilocybin? Everybody says heat degrades the stuff, but nobody cites any sources.

Any help appreciated. :-) Tsmith7057 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybin as an hypnagogia inducer and extender

There is nothing said about the psilocybin easing a the subject to reach hypnagogia and stay in this state long without falling asleep. The effect would be similar to the long lasting state that people trained in meditation can reach. This is just the result of my own speculations, I didn't search yet any source confirming this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.188.38 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Effects and Damages

{{helpme}}

I researched LSD before looking at this and there was some information on the physical side effects of using such a substance, but I cannot find any information one would see as trustworthy for psilocybin. I have read that psilocybin-containing mushrooms make your brain bleed (in fact my cousin who is majoring in Biology said it does). I would love to know whether or not it does make your brain bleed, as well as other negative physical effects that may undercome anyone who ingests "magic mushrooms" oraly.

This isn't really the right place for this sort of question; perhaps you could try the reference desk. --  Chzz  ►  03:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Psilocybin brain bleeding is probably an attempt at an urban legend by someone high on meth. Meth and aspirin can both cause bleeds and as such are easily googled. You should ask your biology major cousin for his source for your answer and bring it here so it can be included in the article. I disagree about the reference desk being a place to ask this question. I doubt it will be appropriate there either. The "helpme" tag was probably unnecessary. Rephrasing the question so that it is focused on the article's needs rather than your own is the wikipedia way. - Steve3849 talk 03:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Further to discussion here,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Psilocybin regarding WP:NPOV and WP:DUE where I raised concerns about the article playing down adverse effects and promoting benefits of drug. I have tracked down some references for editors here to consider and add to this article.[1] and full text. Another, [2] and [3], [4] and [5] as well as full text. Searching google books is probably also worth while.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited feedback

I will place some notes here as I read: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mind altering effects of psilocybin typically last anywhere from 3 to 8 hours depending on certain variables - the last four words seem a bit of a throwaway clause and should be either clarified or dropped.
  • In the lead - psilocybine - does anyone call it this anymore? If it is only a minor name, i think I'd drop it to an etymology bit.
  • Actually, psilocybine isn't mentioned in the article - any story about how or why the name changed might be good in the history section.
  • The lead is a balancing act - the trick is to ensure the emphasis is on the chemical not necessarily the 'shrooms.
  • I think better (i.e. peer reviewed or book) sources are required than the erowid ones (though erowid is great for pointing one in the right direction)
  • Psilocybin is a naturally-occurring compound found in varying concentrations in over 200 species.. - this sentence would be great followed up by some discussion of relationships between them - i.e. is it a monophyletic group (unlikely but interesting...), or how different taxa clearly nested within this group are not now containing psilocybin.
  • This chemical reaction takes place under strongly acidic conditions,... - like in the stomach presumably (??) - worth mentioning if it can be reffed.
  • The Analytical methods section - be good to know if the tests cheap or expensive, can be done simply or require a complicated setup etc.
  • The structure of the effects needs some organising as we have some related material in different bits. eg. Pharmacology subsection and Physiology section. Will have a tinker maybe...

The use of "selective enforcement" should be changed because it links to a dubious article. "...as well as a strong element of selective enforcement in some places..."

76.181.75.73 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merger idea with Psilocybin mushroom

I was musing on this as I was thinking of the challenge in keeping the focus in this article on the chemical rather than the fungi (only because there already is an article on Psilocybin mushroom). As far as I am aware, the term "Psilocybin mushroom" itself is not a notable one (although the 'shrooms obviously are). Would it be better for the article Psilocybin mushrooms to be broadened to all psychoactive fungi (which could then parent links to Amanita muscaria and other species with hallucinogenic activity (this allows us (I guess) to be more generous with psilocybin mushroom coverage here)? Upon thinking about it, Magic Mushroom is a notable term, however. Anyway, what do y'all think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tough question. There is quite a bit of overlap between Psilocybin and Psilocybin mushroom, but it looks to me like much of that could be fixed by removing the psilocybin-specific stuff from the mushroom article, and replacing with a summary and pointer to this article. I personally think the Psilocybin mushroom article should stay (and to me, it's equivalent to "Magic Mushroom"), but it should focus more on the biology of the mushrooms, and should be complementary with List of Psilocybin mushrooms. Would not be opposed to an article rename to "Psychoactive fungi" or something similar, but off the top of my head, other than Amanita muscaria, I can't think of other example species it would apply to. However, I'm open to other interpretations, and now rather than later would be a good time to organize this related content from the top down. One thing that comes to mind, is that it's gonna be pretty hard to do anything substantial with the psilocin article without duplicating a lot of stuff from here. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other pschoactive fungi are indeed few, but include Weraroa novae-zelandiae and possibly Gymnopilus junonius (?? Japanese Laughing mushrooms??) and Boletus manicus from New Guinea (the researcher actually sent me some material on this one as it is a bit of a mystery), so we could broaden the article and gives us scope to cover psilicybin fungi in more detail here I think....Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two examples you give are psychoactive because of psilocybin/psilocin, so technically they fall under the purview of the Psilocybin mushrooms article (which is really "Psilocybin-containing" mushrooms, e.g. compare List of Psilocybin mushrooms with List of Psilocybe species), although the article currently doesn't seem to mention the non-Psilocybe genera. Having thought about it some more I'm leaning towards keeping this article focused on the drug with only brief discussion of the fungi, but mostly because I anticipate expanding it by another 20k or so (largely by going into more detail about the 1960s experiments). What I should probably do is work on both articles at the same time, but alas there's only so many hours in the day. The magic bolete I didn't know about... will start a stub. Sasata (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that about the first two. Good points, I was ruminating more than advocating anyway.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be broadened to include other hallucingens and the two psilocybin articles do not need to be merged. The two articles stand on their own. NOT a tough question. There is more detail available for each article you have mentioned independently. Plenty of wikipedia articles are smaller than these (so size does not matter). Some overlap among articles is common in wikipedia. Summating on the less specific page is appropriate. In this case Psilocybin - the chemical - should have a medical-like physiological effect focus and then Psilocybin mushroom - the fungus - should bear the anthropological and cultural weight of the topic. No merge. - Steve3849 talk 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC) PS: With more discussion I could support an article move of "Psilocybin mushroom" to "Hallucinogenic mushroom", but I don't think it is necessary. Reference to other hallucinogens can be mentioned briefly in a section. - Steve3849 talk 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we pretty much agree then. While you're here, any suggestions on how to make this article better (future FAC in mind)? Sasata (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not the best editor to seek FAC advice. However, I'll offer these ideas. First, this might be a useful guideline: Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria and second I see that LSD, THC, MDMA, Mescaline, Heroin, Morphine - all well known psychoactive drugs - have not been FAC yet. It appears to me this article as a FA might involve some ground breaking. - Steve3849 talk 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford references need fixing

They are almost certainly from Psychedelics Encyclopedia but a later edition than I have. The one mentioning CY-19 and CZ-74 would be page 236 in my 1977 edition but includes reference to Hoffman synthesizing them which isn't on that page and I suspect the relevant paragraph in my edition has some other revision. I'm not sure the preceding quote is in my edition. Certainly not on a very close page and Hoffman has too many index entries for me to see if I can find it somewhere. I checked in edit mode and the references for Stafford are missing the essential information about what is being citing. Should be a quick fix for anyone with the edition of Psychedelics Encyclopedia used here. Moss&Fern (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The article is due for a expansion and reference cleanup, so hopefully these issues (and other) will be addressed. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It may be more complicated than I thought and better to just find proper cites. Alternate possibilities include somebody may have been using a (later edition?) of Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered by Grinspoon and Bakalar than my 1981 edition and citing from the text plus to to book(s) from the footnotes on the page as though citing from the original book(s). Frankly it's a geussing game with these two sections sounding like the may be a mixed paraphrase of material from 3 books that have all appeared in revised editions. Unless the original editor can straighten it out I'd suggest citing as appropriate from sources that verify reliably, perhaps reworking the material based on what soures you use. The Third book I have in mind is one of the Schultes and Hoffman collaberations [maybe Schultes, Hoffman and Raisch (sp?) in latest editon). It's hard to keep track of what's familiar from where when using a lot of reference books which often have quotes from each other or journal articles that were later incorporated into books and may have been published in multiple revised editions. I know I'm going to be more thorough about including ISBNs in my citations than I have in the past because I'm noticing how much room there is for confusion. Moss&Fern (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Why? Removing this because it is not relevant to the article.--Genobeeno (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Grams to Kilograms

The math was wrong in the toxicity section: if LD50 in rats is 280mg/kg, it would require 16.8 g of psilocybin to reach this level in a 60kg person, which would require 1.68 kg of 1% potency mushrooms.

EthanLeduc (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacokinetics

I think a pharmacokinetic or metabolism section or subsection would be relevant and important info to understanding the substance. I don't have the proper knowledge to start such a section. Theguy0000 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

It is said that death is unheard of, but this report suggests otherwise: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204029.pdf Any comments? 178.97.31.242 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a remarkable coincidence that the victim was subjected to violence prior to death. His behaviour also reminds me of someone who's taken some kind of a drug cocktail and not just psilocybin. If there's any more info about this case, I'd be very interested in reading about it - if the death was indeed caused by psilocybin alone, it's a historical event. 83.253.245.178 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse plagiarism

While researching sources for this article, I found the following text from the 2010 book "Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs" (Springer, isbn=978-90-481-2447-3), in the chapter "The Mushroom Psilocybin with Psychedelic Properties " by Enno Freye:

"The toxicity of psilocybin is relatively low; in rats, the oral LD50 is 280 mg/kg, approximately one and a half times that of caffeine. When administered intravenously in rabbits, psilocybin’s LD50 is approximately 12.5 mg/kg [138]. However, rabbits are extremely intolerant to the effects of most psychoactive drugs. The lethal dose from psilocybin intake alone is unknown at recreational or medicinal levels, and has never been documented; psilocybin makes up roughly 1% of the weight of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms, and so nearly 1.7 kg of dried mushrooms, or 17 kg of fresh mushrooms, would be required for a 60 kg person to reach the 280 mg/kg LD50 rate of rats."

The wording is almost identical to the Wikipedia article. Worried that this was a copyvio, I checked the article history, and found that the Wikipedia text has been there since 2006—long before the publication of the book. I further checked their citation #138, Passie et al. (2002) "The pharmacology of psilocybin" Addiction Biology 7:357-64 (PMID 14578010). This source does support the LD50 of 280 mg/kg in rats, but does not mention one for rabbits. Note that the rest of the Freye paragraph is not cited. Thought I'd throw this out here in case in comes up in the future. Sasata (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have now documented this using the {{Backwardscopy}} template in case this talk get archived at a later date. Sasata (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC to-do

Thinking out loud—stuff to do before FAC (please add): Sasata (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • verify all statements against their cited sources (in progress)
  • lit review for additional sources, emphasizing recent review articles (in progress)
  • trim or eliminate "Further reading" & "External links" sections by incorporating as sources
  • make diagram showing breakdown of psilocybin into various metabolites, based on the one in Passie, 2002
  • figure out how much summary info to put in the drugbox template (is a chembox better?); compare serotonin article. Get advice from WP:PHARMACOLOGY and WP:Chemistry
  • need to keep track of and compare content with related articles: psilocin, psilocybin mushroom, Psilocybe, Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms, Harvard Psilocybin Project. In an ideal world, these will all get developed simultaneously... we'll see how it goes.
  • Some suggestions from Casliber (talk · contribs) in archive 1:
  • In the lead - psilocybine - does anyone call it this anymore? If it is only a minor name, i think I'd drop it to an etymology bit.
  • Actually, psilocybine isn't mentioned in the article - any story about how or why the name changed might be good in the history section.
  • The lead is a balancing act - the trick is to ensure the emphasis is on the chemical not necessarily the 'shrooms.
  • I think better (i.e. peer reviewed or book) sources are required than the erowid ones (though erowid is great for pointing one in the right direction)
  • Psilocybin is a naturally-occurring compound found in varying concentrations in over 200 species.. - this sentence would be great followed up by some discussion of relationships between them - i.e. is it a monophyletic group (unlikely but interesting...), or how different taxa clearly nested within this group are not now containing psilocybin.
  • This chemical reaction takes place under strongly acidic conditions,... - like in the stomach presumably (??) - worth mentioning if it can be reffed.
  • The Analytical methods section - be good to know if the tests cheap or expensive, can be done simply or require a complicated setup etc.
  • The structure of the effects needs some organising as we have some related material in different bits. eg. Pharmacology subsection and Physiology section. Will have a tinker maybe...

The list of genera containing species of psilocybin mushrooms offered in this article is inconsistent with the main list (which could do with some love- I think a reformatting would be helpful). For instance, the main list contains Weraroa novae-zelandiae. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some others- Leratiomyces squamosus (listed under Psilocybe), Panaeolopsis (unidentified species). J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found unused refs

Tried to comment out unused refs, but apparently don't know how to use... ref name=Giannini1997>Giannini AJ. (1997). Drugs of Abuse—Second Edition. Los Angeles, California: Practice Management Information Corporation. ISBN 978-1570660535.</ref
ref name=Attema2007>Attema-de Jonge ME, Portier CB, Franssen EJF. (2007). "Automutilatie na gebruik van hallucinogene paddenstoelen". Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (in Dutch). 151 (52): 2869–72. PMID 18257429. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>
Jim1138 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, everyone

I could not find this much cited information anywhere else. Not even in a drugs textbook (the one I checked at least). Moreover, this page is quite well written from top to bottom. A wicked page.-Tesseract2(talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition sentence in lead

The reference given seems to only show import/export prohibition, and even then only in a small number of countries. It does not back up the claim "Possession, and in some cases usage, of psilocybin or psilocin has been outlawed in most countries". Furthermore, this claim implies possession is more commonly outlawed than usage, which, if true, is counter-intuitive Jebus989✰ 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

I'm thinking of picking up the review here, but the first paragraph of the article scares me: it worries me to see a GA nom of an important and popular article where the first paragraph is sure to be almost totally incomprehensible to the great majority of readers. I have learned to be reluctant to do reviews of articles by editors whose views of appropriate writing are very different from mine, so I would like to see whether this can be changed to something that seems reasonable to me. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take up the review, I promise to totally rewrite the lead :) It's a remnant of the old article before I started expanding it, and I agree it needs an overhaul. Sasata (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Psilocybin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC) My initial impression is that the article has the makings of GA but needs some tweaking, especially copy-editing. I would like to go through it by parts, starting with the lead, which is my highest priority, because I believe that many readers of articles like this only look at the lead. It ought to be be understandable and hit all major points -- in particular it ought to avoid jargon insofar as possible, and any jargon it uses ought to be explained. Right now it misses that goal pretty badly. The first paragraph, I believe, should get the gist of the story across, which as I see it is that psilocybin is a psychedelic drug, with effects similar to those of LSD and mescaline, occurring naturally in several types of mushrooms belonging to the genus psilocybe. Can we start by working on this? Looie496 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this review, Looie496, I appreciate your expertise. Will start working on a new lead tonight. Sasata (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a whack at the lead, and the first paragraph is along the lines of what you've suggested. Made some changes to the rest of the lead too, but am reluctant to spend too much time fiddling yet before we agree on what the content should look like. Sasata (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much more like it. I have taken the liberty of copy-editing your text, but please feel free to change anything that you feel is suboptimal. Much of what I did was to drop some detail that seemed more suitable to the body than to the lead. I am satisfied with this at least for now, and will move on to the rest of the article if you think it's okay. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I think the article's probably long enough to warrant a four-paragraph lead; I'll aim for that for FAC, but it's sufficient for now. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • It isn't clear to me that the order of sections is optimal. I don't feel strongly enough about this to ask that it be changed, but the issue may arise if this goes to FAC. See for example the LSD article for an alternative.
 Done Good enough.
  • I disapprove of using "fungi" where mushrooms are meant. Fungi include molds, yeast, and some other weird stuff -- if the article means mushrooms, it should say mushrooms.
 Done
  • The infobox has an entry with a red X -- can that be fixed?
 Done Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • The first sentence seems misleading. My understanding is that it was an interest in mushrooms that led Wasson to look at religious practices, not the reverse as the sentence suggests.
 Done The History section is excellent now, FA level in my opinion.
  • Although I personally agree that "LSD hysteria" is justified, I think the article should try for a more neutral wording.
 Done
  • Although Carlos Castaneda's books were eventually recognized as fiction, they were widely thought at the time to be factual, so the wording in the article is somewhat misleading.
 Done
  • The reference to San Antonio's technique needs to be clarified, or put in proper wiki-format.
I think that would be a good thing to do -- the reader should be given a straightfoward way of getting more information here. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to replace entheogen with hallucinogen in the last sentence.
Sorry, I don't know what you are asking me to see. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • I would like to see some history extending beyond the 1970s, if possible.
  • I added a paragraph, but kept it short, as much of the relevant post-1970s history is covered later in the article. I have to try to keep the emphasis on psilocybin rather than the mushrooms containing them, but the balance is tricky. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Occurrence

  • It would be nice to say something more specific about which parts of the world mushrooms with pharmacologically potent levels of psilocybin are found in.
  • Added "Psilocybin mushrooms occur on all continents, but the majority of species are found in subtropical humid forests. Roughly 40% of the world's known psychoactive mushroom species are found in Mexico." Sasata (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • I don't like "it is not likely to be uncommon". If it is so basic, why is it only found in certain mushrooms? This strikes me as weasel-worded and unconvincing.
    I have commented out this sentence for now; I need to locate the original paper (Benedict 1962) the review (Wurst 2002) is citing, and won't be able to draw general conclusions about the microtopic of psilocybin biosynthesis without first digging up some other studies. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm happy just to have it left out.
  • The second paragraph suddenly starts talking about alkaloids, which have not previously been mentioned, nor their relationship to psilocybin explained.
 Done
  • Does the second paragraph really need so many references?
  • I assume you're referring to the triple citations after "The spores of these mushrooms do not contain psilocybin or psilocin." and "Many species of mushrooms containing psilocybin also contain small amounts of the psilocybin analogs baeocystin and norbaeocystin". I haven't yet come across a secondary source that explicitly says these things, so have resorted to citing multiple primary sources to support the statements. I realize that's not ideal, and am still looking for a single source to replace these. In the meantime, would you prefer if instead I formatted these as a single citation (similar to how I've done ref #103)? Sasata (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my preference would be to pick the best one, probably the latest since it will probably reference the others. But really I'll leave this up to you, as far as the GA process is concerned. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I won't push this.

Chemistry

  • (ortho-quinone) This compound readily undergoes electron transfer, a feature that is thought to play a crucial role in its physiological activity -- What physiological activity? The article about it gives no hint that it has any.
  • I changed the sentence to hopefully make it more clear that the ET capabilities of o-quinone (an enzymatic breakdown product of psilocybin via psilocybin->psilocin->o-quinone) contributes to the biochemical effects of psilocybin. Perhaps the chemistry section should come later in the article until after the effects are covered? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic methods

  • I don't think this is the right place for a picture of the serotonin molecule -- this section does not refer to serotonin at all.
 Done
  • There is lots of info here about a variety of methods, but it would be nice to give the reader a feel for whether methods exist that are cheap and easy, or whether all the methods are sophisticated and expensive.
  • I worked over this section by pruning some excess primary references and reorganizing the presentation. In the process, I mentioned that the chemical spot tests are simple and commercially available. I haven't explicitly mentioned the costs of the analytical tests for the later material, but am hoping that contextual clues like "modern analytical techniques", "forensic toxicology", and the availability of links to all of the methods mentioned will make it obvious that this is high-tech chemistry performed by labs with a budget. I could prune the primary refs more, as all of these techniques are summarized and discussed in recent review articles, but I'm not sure it's necessary or desirable to do that for this section. I'm open to suggestions for further improvement. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Pharmacology

  • Serotonergic receptors interact with pyramidal neurons in the cerebral cortex, which are thought to be involved in the perception of pain and anxiety. This sentence is pretty far off the mark. It would probably be simplest for me to fix it myself if that's okay with you (this falls into my line of work).
 Done Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psilocybin and analogs of psilocybin have been used to help model the structure and function of the 5-HT2C G-protein-coupled receptor. It doesn't seem to me that this sentence accurately portrays the content of the cited sources.
My recollection from when I looked at them is that those papers were purely computational and did not actually use psilocybin at all, only modeled its effects -- but I'll take another look.
 Done Good enough. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use as medicine

  • How about titling this section Use in medicine?
 Done
  • I think the first paragraph here should point out that as a consequence of the legal situation, the number of studies since the 1960s has not been very large.
 Done
  • Very few of the references given in this section are compatible with WP:MEDRS -- the exceptions are Prosser, Vollenweider, and Johnson. I don't want to be pedantic, but I think the section ought to make it clear that the cited sources of information are pretty weak. Ideally this section would be based on a secondary review rather than primary clinical studies, but I realize that no such review probably exists.
  • Sun-Edelstein 2011 is also a review article. I have tried to be careful with this section, by only citing the primary sources to acknowledge their existence and making it easier for the reader to find the original study; any conclusions drawn from those primary studies are now cited to reviews (sometimes as a secondary, supplemental citation). Essentially, there isn't anything said in this section that's not also confirmed in Vollenweider, so while it would be possible to eliminate the citations to primary studies completely, I think that would be a disservice to the reader. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good enough

Physiology

  • Mental and physical tolerance to psilocybin builds and dissipates quickly. Ingesting psilocybin more than three or four times in a week (especially on consecutive days) can result in diminished effects. Tolerance dissipates after a few days, so frequent users often keep doses spaced five to seven days apart to avoid the effect. It isn't clear to me whether these statements are derived from any of the cited sources, or if so, which ones.
 Done

Effects

  • Larger groups (composed of more than eight individuals) were seen as rejecting and less supportive by the subjects -- I don't understand precisely what this means.
 Done
  • Recent studies into the effects of psilocybin on time interval reproduction may shed light on qualitative alterations of time experience in experimentally-induced altered states of consciousness, mystical states, or in psychopathology. "May shed light" is meaningless. If this sentence can't be revised to actually say something, it should be deleted.
 Done
 Done
  • Latent psychological issues may be triggered by the strong emotional components of the experience. In other words, a sufficiently good or bad trip can have effects even after one has come back. This is vague -- can it be made more concrete?
  • I have removed this statement; I don't have access to the source, so cannot verify it. Besides, it seems to me that the overall message is covered by the mention of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder later in the "Possible adverse psychiatric effects" subsection. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Mystical experiences

  • This section needs to start out by explaining briefly what constitutes a mystical experiences. I expect most people have a general intuition what this means, but you need to make it more specific.
  • Not quite sure how to go about this. I added an initial sentence about Pahnke's criteria for the "mystical experience" with a citation to his 1966 paper. That paper describes 9 categories by which a mystical experience can be evaluated. I'm reluctant to give a one-sentence definition of "mystical experience" for fear of oversimplifying, but on the other hand I don't think I should list and explain all the categories. As a compromise, I could expand the linked section (mystical experience) and explain Pahnke's criteria there (where it belongs). How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, it is clearer now.
  • The last two sentences read incoherently. Doblin first seems to criticize the experiment, then praise it, with no transition to warn the reader of the flip. At the very least, the last sentence needs a "nevertheless" or something. Also, it might be helpful to give the reader some clue who Rick Doblin is.
 Done
  • I have some discomfort with a couple of things here that come across as too enthusiastic to feel neutral. I suggest dropping the sentence about Huston Smith and the quote-box by William A. Richards. A lot of readers will simply be made suspicious by statements like those.
  • I do want the article to be neutral, but on the other hand I like quotes as they add flavor and make the text more interesting. Huston Smith is a well-known (in his field) religious scholar and author of textbooks on religion, so I thought his quote gave an interesting perspective. The quote box adds some visual variety, and (IMO) pretty accurately sums up the psilocybin experience. What would you think about adding another quote from David E. Nichols, for counterbalance: "If you take psilocybin and go watch 'Friday the 13th,' I can guarantee you won't have a mystical experience"? Sasata (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept Huston Smith if you add a phrase to indicate to readers why he is notable, but I just don't like that quote box -- it comes across as evaluating the experience rather than describing it. A quote that was descriptive -- even in flowery language -- would work much better in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the quote box, but added a different quote from that paper elsewhere in the article (I wanted to keep that recent review article as a source somewhere). I may add a different quote along the lines of what you suggested later, but need to think about it some more. Also added a few words about Huston Smith. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • The fourth paragraph ("The effects of...") is poorly written and incoherent. It seems to pack two clashing messages into one paragraph. I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but whatever it is, it doesn't work.
 Done
  • The final paragraph again has an unduly promotional tone. This needs to be toned down or even dropped from the article -- parts of it seem to repeat earlier points.
  • I reorganized and trimmed the final two paragraphs of this section and combined them into one. I removed the clashing message, and a "promotional" testament from one of the 2011 experimental subjects. Sasata (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Related research being conducted by this group is investigating whether mystical experiences in volunteers given psilocybin can help with anxiety and poor mood due to cancer. I think this should be removed -- the fact that somebody is investigating something is rarely of encyclopedic importance.
 Done

Use in medicine

  • This whole section makes me uncomfortable, as none of the sources are at MEDRS level. Given the dearth of information I am prepared to accept them, but I think you should add a sentence to the introductory paragraph emphasizing the preliminary and tentative nature of all these studies. I have some doubts that that solution will fly when you take this to the FA level, though.
  • I have reorganized this section a bit, and removed or replaced a couple of refs. Having just reread the WP:MEDRS, I think the section is compliant and uses primary and secondary sources in the manner described by the guideline. Please point out any specific instances where you disagree, I'd really like to get this right. I think the use of the strategically placed phrases "pilot study", "preliminary results", and "Despite flaws in the study design" should suffice to indicate the quality and nature of the studies. I disagree that "none of the sources are at MEDRS level" (what's wrong with the reviews Vollenweider 2010, Halker 2010 (newly added to replace a 2000 review), Husid 2007, and Sun-Edelstein 2011?), but am interested to hear why you disagree. Sasata (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I overstated this a bit. Normally in a top-level medical article, pilot studies and case studies would not be cited at all, only review papers. (I agree with you, though, that the ones you mentioned are proper secondary sources.) Primary sources would instead be cited in a subarticle such as Pathology of foo. Anyway, I'm prepared to accept this as it is now, but don't be too surprised if the issue comes up again at FAC. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Although this isn't strictly a medical article, I agree this specific section needs to conform to WP:MEDRS standards. Before FAC, I'll solicit the opinions of some med-types to get some more eyes on it and make sure my assessment of MEDRS compliance is accurate. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it needs work on sourcing. While it is often possible for articles to dodge or debate the requirement for secondary sourcing it is nearly always a bad idea to do so. Virtually anything worth saying on the topic should by now be available in a review or other high quality secondary source. It's not as if the subject was obscure. As a start, I'd go through each of the refs in that section and flag any non-review sources with {{primary-inline}}. Then go looking for usable substitute refs. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LSD, thanks for your comments. I have tried to be very careful with the primary sources in the "Use as medicine" section. The primary source that you tagged is being used only to verify its existence, not to support any medical claims; it's my understanding that this is an appropriate use of primary sources per WP:MEDRS. It's an important paper (even though primary) and I wanted to be sure the reader would have a way to get to the source easily by citing it in that section (as opposed being further down in "Further reading"). All of the medical "claims" in this section have been cited to secondary reviews. I welcome further comments on the sourcing for this article. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, in many national, state, and provincial drug laws, there is a great deal of ambiguity about the legal status of psilocybin mushrooms and the spores of these mushrooms, as well as a strong element of selective enforcement in some places. A reference needs to be cited to support this statement -- if any of the listed ones does, it is not clear.

Further reading

  • Are all the links for the Hopkins experiment useful? If they are all hashing over the same ground, would it be possible to pick the best and reduce the number?

Final points

  • Once the listed points have been addressed, I will be ready to promote the article. As a reader, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any information that differentiates psilocybin from other hallucinogens such as LSD and mescaline (beyond the obvious source and potency differences) -- but I realize there might not be any information available. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify for myself, do you mean differences in the nature of the "trip" (subjective experiences of users) or differences in pharmacology (what receptors each interacts with)? Sasata (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added this: "Other than the duration of the experience, the effects of psilocybin are similar to comparable dosages of LSD or mescaline. In the Psychedelics Encyclopedia, author Peter Stafford noted "The psilocybin experience seems to be warmer, not as forceful and less isolating. It tends to build connections between people, who are generally much more in communication than when they use LSD."

Excellent; I have promoted the article. (I added it to the Pharmacology section on the GA page -- feel free to move it to a different section if you like.) Let me say that I think this is a very nice article at this point, and I look forward to supporting it at FAC. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review, Looie496. I'll probably wait a while and let the article sit a bit longer before FAC, but I feel more confident about a smoother ride now. Sasata (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution? Reason for occurrence?

Does anyone know why Psilocybin evolved in mushrooms? I know they're fungi and not plants, but was it similar to Plant defense against herbivory? Some sourced info in the article would be awesome. Grant M (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little bit to address this; it doesn't directly answer your question, but does offer an explanation of why its there. Sasata (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

history

I think the history section needs a couple sentences talking about pre-1957/pre-Wasson use of psilocybin. Since the article is focused on the chemical (rather than, say, psilocybin mushrooms) it can be brief, but it seems pretty odd to not have anything at all. If no one else takes a crack at it, I will at some point next week - may take me a bit, because I'll need to review the sources available about such. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to leave most of the pre-1950s stuff to where it should be covered (in the psilocybin mushroom article, as you point out), but will add a couple of sentences to fill out the story a bit. Sasata (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph to summarize prehistoric and historic use; think it's sufficient? Sasata (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New?

Has the study here been covered and should it be? Be——Critical 16:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not mentioned yet, but should be. It is however, very recent, and a primary study at that, so I'll have to think carefully about how to add it (this article is heading towards FAC and claims like this need to be WP:MEDMOS compliant). Thanks for the note! Sasata (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that a rather lengthy presentation has been added to the article. My personal feeling is that since this is primary research that has not yet received secondary coverage, it should get at most one sentence in the article -- and that one sentence should be referenced to the paper in Psychopharmacology, not to a Science Daily piece about it. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Just noticed this discussion. Feel free to modify the content I put, but do note that the ideas are also covered by Time, which lead to a Globe and Mail article, and are also covered by Discover Magazine.

I've trimmed the addition to a short paragraph in the "Effects" section. This is a fairly significant research find, and I suspect we'll hear more about it in the near future (at which time we'll be able to properly expand the coverage). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on History section

  • "In the Unites States, rules were introduced to restrict the use of the drug in human research" -- the drug is vague, is it LSD or psilocybin?
  • Does a reliable source describe Jonathan Ott as a ethnologist? I didn't see one his page. Perhaps remove the word, source it, or pick another like author?
  • "the backlash against LSD usage swept psilocybin along with it into the Schedule I category of illicit drugs in 1970" Having a sentence on what caused the LSD backlash seems relevant enough to psilocybin to warrant a sentence.

Jesanj (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you make it more clear how the rock murals provide evidence of the prehistoric usage of psilocybin mushrooms?
  • Is the long quote from Florentine Codex necessary? It is a bit repetitive and could be summarised instead.
  • Are there no reports of people using mushrooms in the West until '57? It seems strange that no one in Europe ate liberty caps and realised they caused hallucinations.

SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a short paragraph to address this. There's a lot more that can be said about all of these historical aspects, but that information is better suited to a different article. Sasata (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pKas and numbering

The figure of the psilocybin molecule has been draw showing a zwitterion but the pH is not specified. Is the figure meant to represent the protonated form at pH 7? The article doesn't list the pKas of the functional groups. I failed to find experimental values with a quick google search. The Hazardous Substances Data Bank gives estimated values: "pKa1 = 1.3 (1st phosphate oxygen); pKa2 = 6.5 (2nd phosphate oxygen); pKa3 = 10.4 (tertiary amine) (est)". This would suggest that the predominate form at pH 7 would be with both protons dissociated from the phosphate.

Actually I'm suspicious of the estimated pKas given in the HSDB – dimethylethanolamine has a pKa of 9.3 (I've added the value to the article) and I wouldn't expect the tertiary amine in psilocybin to be very different. I'm less sure about the phosphate. I know that phosphotyrosine has two negative changes at neutral pH (the pKa of the second proton is 5.5 or 5.8) – but psilocybin has an indole and not a benzene ring. I don't know how much difference this will make.

The atoms of the molecule are not numbered in the figures. Nevertheless the article mentions N9 and 4-hydroxlation. Aa77zz (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pH is only relevant in aqueous solutions, but the figure in the infobox shows the proper zwitterionic form that will exist in the pure solid state so I don't think anything needs to be changed there. As for the numbering, I agree that it should be included in one of the figures. I can add numbering to the image I created, File:Biosynthesis of psilocybin.svg, which is used in the same section as the use of "N9" and "4-hydroxlation". Would that work for you? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please add numbering to the psilocybin structure in this diagram, thanks Edgar & Aa77zz. Sasata (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I think that numbers on one of the figs would help the article. In my comments above I had overlooked the fact that the molecule would crystallize as the zwitterion and had foolishly assumed that the figure represented the form in solution. Also I now realise that I was wrong to assume that the pKa of the amino group would be similar to that of dimethylethanolamine. The negative charge on nearby phosphate moiety would almost certainly raise the pKa of the amino group. I came across a paper that reported using nmr to determine the pKa of the amino groups of psilocin (pKa=8.47) and bufotenin (pKa=9.67). The molecules appear to only differ in that the hydroxyl group is attached to C4 in psilocin and to C5 in bufotenin. Aa77zz (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll add numbers to the last chemical structure in File:Biosynthesis of psilocybin.svg. (I probably won't be able to get to it for a couple of days, though). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added numbers to the image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS compliance in "Use of medicine" section?

Two editors have expressed concern about the sourcing in this section. To make sure it is sourced properly, I have prepared the following sentence-by-sentence source analysis; the source type is indicated in parentheses after the sentence, as well as my thoughts on their appropriateness: Sasata (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Psilocybin has been investigated as an experimental treatment for several disorders. In 1961, Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert ran the Harvard Psilocybin Project, carrying out a number of experiments concerning the use of psilocybin in the treatment of personality disorders and other uses in psychological counselling."(PMID 19744846 a case study (primary), used to source a historical fact)
  • "In the 2000s, there has been a resurgence of research concerning the use of psychedelic drugs to explore the nature of the mystical experience, or for clinical applications, such as to address anxiety disorders, major depression, and various addictions."(newspaper report)(book)
  • "In 2008, the Johns Hopkins research team published guidelines for responsibly conducting medical research trials with psilocybin and other hallucinogens in humans. These included recommendations on how to screen potential study volunteers to exclude those with personal or family psychiatric histories that suggest a risk of averse reactions to hallucinogens."(review)
  • "A 2010 study on the short- and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin administration in clinical settings concluded that despite a small risk of acute reactions such as dysphoria, anxiety, or panic, "the administration of moderate doses of psilocybin to healthy, high-functioning and well-prepared subjects in the context of a carefully monitored research environment is associated with an acceptable level of risk"; the authors note, however, that the safety of the drug "cannot be generalized to situations in which psilocybin is used recreationally or administered under less controlled conditions."(A meta-analysis (I think, am I using the term correctly?)--not sure if this is considered primary or secondary)
  • "A pilot study 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)." (1st cite is to an announcement of the study by the research group conducting it; second cite is to a primary, but no medical claims being made)
  • "The study found that in a controlled clinical environment, the use of psilocybin was associated with substantial reductions in OCD symptoms in several of the patients."(review)
  • "This effect may be caused by psilocybin's ability to reduce the levels of the serotonin-2A receptor, resulting in decreased responsiveness to serotonin."(textbook=secondary)
  • "In addition, psilocybin has shown promise to ease the pain caused by cluster headaches, often considered not only the most painful of all types of headaches(review) but "one of the worst pain syndromes known to mankind.""(review)
  • "In a 2006 study,(primary study, not being used to support medical claims, only to verify existence of study) most cluster headache patients who used psilocybin reported that the drug successfully aborted the attacks and extended the length of the remission period."(medical claim sourced to review)
  • "Despite flaws in the study design, the results suggest that psilocybin merits further study for use in the prevention of cluster headaches—only subhallucinogenic doses of the drug are required for effective treatment, and no other medication has been reported to stop a cluster headache cycle."(review)
  • "Two current studies have investigated the possibility that psilocybin can ease the psychological suffering associated with end-stage cancer. One study, led by Charles Grob, involved 12 subjects with terminal cancer being administered the hallucinogen or a placebo in two separate sessions."(primary source, but no medical claims are made … "have investigated the possibility")
  • "A second study, led by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins,(study announcement by ClinicalTrials.gov) administered psilocybin to people "with a current or past diagnosis of cancer who have some anxiety or are feeling down about their cancer"."(primary, press release/announcement, but no medical claims being made)
  • "Preliminary results indicate that low doses of psilocybin can improve the mood and reduce the anxiety of patients with advanced cancer, and that the effects last from two weeks to six months."(review; also note that per MEDRS, "Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability." I think this is met with the qualifier "Preliminary results indicate")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Two current studies..." and "A second study...", I'd suggest that inclusion of this should be backed up by the review which shows these two studies to be notable. Otherwise choosing to include them is wp:UNDUE weight. Perhaps the text of PMID 20717121 has a quotable sentence which might suffice? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On its face, this section looks much improved, though I won't be able to read all of those sources in detail myself. I'd still prefer to have more reliable sources in lieu of the newspapers, but the assertions they are used for are not too much of a stretch for news coverage. Is there nothing better available? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the best I can find, but I'll keep my eyes open for something better. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead: "In the 2000s, there has been a revival of scientific research into the potential therapeutic benefits" yet this is nolonger the 2000's, if we mean a decade, but the 2010's and this year PubMed seems have but one review article in March looking at alternative approaches for headache - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21352222 - this is no "revival" which might imply an exponential buildup, or at least a uniform stream of new works... instead at best a treading water, and realistically seems a total lack of interest from reliable sources. I've toned it down a little.see edit David Ruben Talk 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I've reworded "revival" to "renewal" (changing your "small amount" in the process), as I want to express the idea that the research has sort of picked up where it stopped in the 1960s (but with better scientific methodology). Sasata (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, this pioneering work, published in a very high impact journal, was neglected (please add?): "Pilot study of psilocybin treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer". Grob CS, Danforth AL, Chopra GS, Hagerty M, McKay CR, Halberstadt AL, Greer GR. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;68(1):71-8. Epub 2010 Sep 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.92.202 (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

  • Reads like an advertisement. Suggest to add a section dedicated to the many people that died in car accidents, murders, suicides, and panic attacks. Stress that its still illegal.
  • Similar to the above it would be good if something could be found to explain, or at least suggest, why mushrooms contain psilocybin. I've looked on WoK and GS but can't find anything, has anyone got any ideas where something might be found?
  • Is it worth mentioning that the fact that the spores of MM do not contain psilocybin that they are still sold legally? (Can you find a source?)
  • "Other related indole-containing psychedelic compounds include mescaline, found in some cactuses, dimethyltryptamine, found in many plant species and in trace amounts in some mammals, and bufotenine, found in the skin of psychoactive toads" Should there be semi-colons after cactuses, mammals etc?
  • In 'Pharmacology' can you include some Ki values for the receptors? It may be best in a table if you can find the space.
  • "Although the 5-HT2A receptor is responsible for most of the effects of psilocybin" should this (and other future uses) not be effects of psilocin"?
  • If The pharmacology of psilocybin contains a suitable diagram, could someone make one for us showing the metabolites? I think it would be better than the LSD structure which is currently in the physiology section but isn't really adding anything.
  • Showing the structure of psilocin next to serotonin might be useful as well - I think you'd need a new version though as the one in the article is drawn in a different way to serotonin pic in this article.
  • Continuing the theme, I haven't checked all of the images, but some need |alt= to be added.
  • "In contrast to LSD, psilocybin and psilocin have no affinity for the dopamine D2 receptor." Presumably LSD does bind to serotonin receptors as well as dopamine - you might want to point that out.
  • LD50 should probably be explained for the lay reader.
  • If one of the deaths has been questioned, should we include it? Through OR I would guess that they ate some other type of poisonous mushroom. Also the source questioning the death says that it was the first reported case - was the other one in the 2011 review since '96?
    • I checked up on the other death referenced to Buck, R. W. (1961). "Mushroom Poisoning since 1924 in the United States". Mycologia. 53 (5): 537–538. doi:10.2307/3756309. JSTOR 3756309.. All it says is: "1960. E. L. McCawley, Portland, Ore. Personal communication. One death in Milwaukie, Ore. Psilocybe baeocystis." I don't think this is really reliable - if the death occurred today and this was all the evidence it wouldn't be included so I don't think it should be different 50 years after the death. SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the case if I was directly citing Bück 1961 as a source, but in this case I'm citing the 2011 review article which thought the 1961 report was notable. These older fatality cases have been reported in older reviews too, so it wouldn't be right for Wikipedia to ignore them; I think the reader is better served by mentioning them, as well as the study which disputes the conclusions reached in one of them (done here in a footnote so as not to digress from the main presentation). Sasata (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deaths are mentioned, should it be balanced by statements indicating the likelihood of usage leading to death?
  • I've added a sentence about increased dangers with concomitant alcohol usage, shuffled some other text, around, and think that the concluding two sentences of the first paragraph of that section now clearly indicate that this likelihood is low. Sasata (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should indirect harms resulting from usage be mentioned? Presumably a fair few people have died as an indirect result of usage?
    • These from the 2011 review should do:

The experience of a bad trip is probably the main reason of users of magic mushroom to visit emergency care facilities. In such cases, the intoxicated individuals are usually severely agitated, confused, extremely anxious, and disoriented with impaired concentration and judgment. Acute psychotic episodes may occur in serious cases, including bizarre and frightening images, severe paranoia and total loss of reality, which may lead to accidents, self-injury or suicide attempts.

However, attention should be paid to the infrequent occurrence of flashbacks and accidents. More specifically, in the absence of proper surveillance of the user the panic attacks evoked by magic mushroom use may lead to severe and sometimes fatal accidents.

  • I've added a couple of sentences paraphrased from the above to avoid the impression that it's being glossed over in the harm section, but these aspects are covered in more detail in the "Possible adverse psychiatric effects" subsection later. Will keep my eyes open for a source that could be used for quantification. Sasata (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acetaldehyde, one of the primary breakdown metabolites of consumed alcohol, reacts with biogenic amines present in the body to produce MAOIs related to tetrahydroisoquinoline and β-carboline" - interesting stuff! Is it mentioned in alcoholic beverage?
  • "Potentiated" is a bit of an obscure word - should we just say "more powerful" instead?
  • Is the effect of tobacco caused by nicotine or just smoking in general?
  • "At low doses, hallucinatory effects may occur." - this makes it sound as if hallucinatory effects stop when the dose is increased, but the next sentences suggest that this is not the case.
  • "At higher doses, the altered state of consciousness afforded by psilocybin" the italicised part seems superfluous and clumsy - why not just get rid of it?
  • "Open-eye visuals" - hallucinations should probably replace visuals.
  • Not sure whether "Changes in personality were assessed using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, which describes people's personalities according to five factors: neuroticism, extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness" is really necessary about the 2011 study - the detail seems too much for one study and could bring up claims of recentism.
  • I've trimmed this a bit. I too feel a bit uneasy about including this study (Looie had a similar opinion in the GA review as well), but it has been reported in the popular press and is therefore notable. Depending on feedback at FAC, I may just note this part out and wait for a review to cover it. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any better sources for physical effects? A 50 year old study of 30 individuals isn't ideal. I'll see if I can find anything in the mixmag surveys. This might help.
  • You could add |legal_status and |routes_of_administration to the drug box.
  • Related to the above, the 2011 harm review mentions that some people inject pure psilocybin - the article doesn't mention this.
  • I know hard it is to summarise the legal status of drugs in articles, but it would be good to have some examples of the legal status outside of the English speaking world. You should definitely mention that it is listed on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 [6]. As part of that article explains the situation is pretty complicated and the article should at least attempt to address this.
  • I've mentioned it for now, but I still need to do some more on this section. I may work on the daughter article to help bring myself up to speed on the global legal situation. Sasata (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The further reading should be removed - I don't think it's really adding anything to the article.
  • Ok, I reread all the linked articles, and I agree with you. Plus, the links appeared in retrospect to be too overly-promotional (regarding the Hopkins studies). Chopped. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed 2 ELs. I'm unsure about whether the Dutch risk assessment is really relevant or not too, but I think the other two count as sufficiently unique resources to be included.
  • Some authors in the references have two initials, whereas others only have one. Not sure if this is something to be worried about or not.
  • I've seen a reference format used in other articles that will link "Stamets" in references like "Stamets (1996), p. 38." to the full citation for the book - not sure how to do it, but it is quite useful.
  • Yes, I was introduced to that format when working on the various Slow loris articles; I'm not sure it's worth all the extra effort (and increased complexity of formatting) to save readers a potential mouse click. I'll think about it again later next time I'm in obsessive-compulsive mode and in the mood for formatting minutiae! Sasata (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall though, I think the article is in great shape!

SmartSE (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff Smartse, much appreciated! I will ponder your comments and revise over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new sources

This in The Guardian today discusses two new studies: This is an MRI study - I can't see any others in the article and another coming out on Thursday will discuss possible uses to treat depression. I'm not too hot on the ins and outs of WP:MEDRS but they might be worth a brief mention somewhere. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery about adding hot-off-the-press primary studies per MEDRS. I'll read the papers and see if maybe they can be distilled to a sentence or so each, but it might be better to wait for a review to come out. Sasata (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters also did a piece referencing the recent PNAS paper. Wingman4l7 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot study of psilocybin treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Grob CS, Danforth AL, Chopra GS, Hagerty M, McKay CR, Halberstadt AL, Greer GR. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;68(1):71-8. Epub 2010 Sep 6.

Similar to the comments regarding my suggestion, because this is a primary source per WP:MEDRS we should wait until secondary sources are published before including it. Thanks for your suggestion though. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAS number

Why is the cas number unverified, with an ugly red x next to it? The NIST webbook says that the number (520-52-5) in the box is correct, and SciFinder also confirms the number in the infobox is right. It seems that it doesn't show up in Common Chemistry, so this is probably the issue. However, that doesn't make the number wrong.98.71.50.61 (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It is misleading to report effects that happen in 90%+ of cases in the same breath as effects that happen in .05 % of cases without clarifying the relevance. I notice there is no citation for the claim that the mushrooms "cause" nausea. On most other drugs in Wikipedia, articles do not pull up the entire MSDS findings on rare side effects and splash them in the headline chapter equal to the common effects. The writers are showing their bias and not backing it up with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.43.243 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "nausea (44%)" in the "Physical effects" subsection, and the corresponding citation. Sasata (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psilocybin/Archive_1&oldid=1137102797"