It will be interesting to see how social media giants now try to saturate the market of ideas with rubbish headline grabbing science to create a cloud of doubt as to the harm of their products. Iâ(TM)m so not surprised by these findings. If I watch these fast edit clips or even shows with the same style of fast paced erratic editing - I start to feel anxiety and get serious monkey brain afterwards. It literally feels like they are giving you adhd and anxiety, so good to see science is quantifying the effect.

Some seem to be suggesting that this is a crutch for bad parenting, that parents should be responsible for their childrenâ(TM)s use and access to harmful content, full stop. I would suggest this kind of public ban supports Parents in that responsibility. Parents have to constantly walk a thin line between enforcing or encouraging healthy environments for their children, and allowing their children to conform to social norms so they feel included. If every child has a smart phone by age 10, the choice isnâ(TM)t just about whether giving your child a smartphone at 10 is appropriate, it is now also about whether it is appropriate to risk isolating your child from their social group. You are weighing up the harm of going it alone versus exposing them to a an addictive product. Some may be fine with parental controls on a mobile phone such as screen time and app restrictions, however parents are still caught in an arms race as their peers inevitably have more access and you feel pressured to again not isolate your children. As I lift restrictions due to pressure from the social norms, other parents lift in response to me, and the social norms creep towards further relaxation. When it comes to social media, if we accept it is harmful to children under age of 16, then I think a global ban helps parents immensely. It puts pressure at a societal level combatting the pressure applied by societal norms. I have no issue restricting my kids from social media, I already do. This now makes my kids less socially isolated as the vast majority of their friends have complete unfettered access to their devices and social media. Itâ(TM)s often not that their parents are bad, itâ(TM)s just they didnâ(TM)t want their children to be isolated. This is like enforcing a helmet in a dangerous sport. If the governing body does not enforce it, even those who would prefer to wear one donâ(TM)t, as they wonâ(TM)t be competitive.

Eggs and meat may have been around in our ancestors diets for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions, but nowhere near the amounts we see in typical Western diets today. There is a popular culture myth that âcavemenâ(TM) ate mostly carnivore diets, however that has long been debunked by modern science. With Dairy, we are talking in the thousands of years since introduction. In fact, lactose tolerance in adults is thought to be only a recent evolutionary adaptation. There is a lot of confusion thanks to competing economic interests and poor journalism, however the quality science at this point is pretty clear, a diet high in a good variety of whole plant foods, with small to moderate amounts of fish or lean meat, is the diet that leads to the best overall health outcomes in the long term.

Bang on.. the irony is overwhelming. What a strange world we live in where sometimes it seems like half the population has lost their minds. Then they tell anyone who hasnâ(TM)t yet gone mad that they are actually the crazies, or that they are sheeple, whilst ironically blindly indulging in some bizarre tribal fantasy themselves. These weird conspiracies require the suspension of disbelief equivalent to going along with a modern James Bond movie plot.. how can people be so smart, yet so stupid?

Youâ(TM)re bang on. An algorithm can only confirm the truth of a statement adhering to the framework and parameters it has been programmed and trained on. It still takes a human to determine if statement is in fact true. Given how awful humans have turned out to be of late in discerning fact from fiction, when fiction is so much more exciting, and when it often inflates their individual sense of worth to be the chosen one who understands the chaotic threads of our impossibly complex civilisation, even if it requires a James Bond movie plot level of suspension of critical thinking - then as you say, AI just piles on to become another tool for truth and nonsense equally.

The effect being reported here is a reduction in Migraine frequency after the Psilocybin has left the body, not an analgesic effect of Psilocybin whilst under its influence. Being someone who takes Triptans for relief from the acute Migraine phase, I can testify that there is no broad analgesic effect (at least from this relative to Psilocybin) - even though the Migraine pain rapidly reduces. The relief is believed to be caused by the vasoconstrictive properties of the medication. Traditional analgesics are quite useless against Migraines. Having been given all sorts of strong opiate and anti-inflammatory analgesics in Emergency Rooms in my early Migraine days, I found them to be almost useless in reducing the pain, and if anything made it worse by making me more present in each moment, rather than in some kind of shock induced delirium.

Not sure what dosage of Psilocybin would be required to give someone an experience comparable to anaesthesia, however the moderate dosages cited would not be sufficient to mask even moderate pain, let alone the debilitating pain associated with Migraines.

Not sure where you would find workplace drug testing for psychedelics. At least in my experience working with test providers it has always been targeting THC, Alcohol, Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Amphetamines and Opiates.

Donâ(TM)t be too surprised. This is nothing completely new, just science catching up again. LSD, which is a close relative of Psilocybin (the active ingredient in Magic Mushrooms) was discovered studying ergot fungus, which also happens to be the source of most abortive Migraine medications available today. As someone who suffers Migraines, these medications are a life saver. Prior to these medications, I would have done anything to stop the pain. Anything.. Many years ago I knew a Cluster Headache sufferer who discovered weekly Psilocybin dosages was the only way he could stave off the debilitating condition. This is a well known anecdote in Psychedelic user circles, many of which were drawn to psychedelics to find an alternative treatment avenue for Cluster Headache and other conditions. Anyone who has experienced Migraine will be able to attest to the debilitating and new-pain-limit-defining properties of the acute Migraine phase. I wouldnâ(TM)t wish it on anyone. Taking psychedelics to prevent them would be inviting only a minor side effect compared to the alternative for many. Would be interesting to see modern research into the negative psychological effects of Magic Mushrooms. Weâ(TM)ve all heard the stories of âthat guy from schoolâ(TM) who lost his mind on Shrooms. Would be good to know what the the risk factors are for psychotic or schizophrenic style reactions before we start encouraging more people to use these kinds of therapies (which no doubt articles like this one will inevitably do).

Make Slashdot Great Again?

Ayahuasca as a therapy reminds me of an old Bill Murray comedy from the 90â(TM)s. Bill Murrayâ(TM)s character âBobâ(TM) is cured of his many neuroses by a series of haphazard and dangerous experiences - the climax being tied up in rope with an explosive attached, as a now-psychotic therapist tries to blow Bob up in an effort to escape Bobâ(TM)s unrelenting and unwelcome presence on a family vacation. Bob narrowly misses being blown up by figuring out that the rope represents his tangled and knotted personality, and that by untying each knot, he frees himself of his condition, and of impending doom simultaneously. In a similar way, powerful psychedelics have us dancing with a psychological grenade in an effort to unravel our deepest complexes, traumas and the unrelenting defences of the ego, which in itâ(TM)s attempts to protects us from our own insecurities - simultaneously blocks our growth. For some the grenade may go off and and leave us forever in pieces. If someone has even the slightest tendency towards something along the lines of schizophrenia, the intense visions will more than likely be enough to tip them over the edge. For others we find a metaphysical rebirth as we delve deep into ourselves and the incredible mysteries of existence to one day emerge âhealedâ(TM) or at least improved. Personally I was lucky enough to experience the latter. So would I encourage others to drink Ayahuasca? .. no, absolutely not, for most people and their issues - it is a sledgehammer, when they need a scalpel. However if going on in your current state is more dangerous than thrusting your conscious self into the unknown world beyond the comfort of your ego - then the stakes may be worth it, and the reward will outweigh the risk.

I see a lot of comments referencing the âeggs are badâ(TM), âeggs are goodâ(TM), âeggs are neutralâ(TM) carrousel.. Ask yourself this - if science is not giving us clear signals, could science be getting corrupted by competing interests? Using the clarity of hindsight we can now see that the science demonstrating the harmful effects of tobacco smoke were being published as early as the 1950â(TM)s, however society went on a âsmoking is badâ(TM), âsmoking is goodâ(TM), âsmoking is neutralâ(TM) carousel for several decades afterwards. Hell, my father still argued that smoking was ânot badâ(TM) up until the day he tragically died of bowel cancer, and that was 2010. One of his best friends who was a Heart Surgeon used to say that it was a conspiracy to erode public freedoms. If a Heart Surgeon can be convinced smoking was not bad for your health, what hope did anyone else have? Mind you he also was a smoker.. Why did this happen? Well, for one the people we trusted to provide us with unbiased clear signals relating to health and nutrition were likely smokers themselves, and grew up with role models who were also smokers. Secondly, industry poured a ton of money into protecting their products and ultimately their profit margins, something their investors expect them to do in order to protect their investments, and as a society we expect them to do to protect the overall contribution they make to our economies through the jobs they create in their supply chains. These interests corrupted our ability to have a clear view on whether tobacco was good or not for our heath. Have we adequately removed these forces from our systems of knowledge or do they still exist today? Ask yourself this - if money, conflicted interests and cultural bias can distort science, which side of a scientific debate should you weight more heavily when there is confusion and conflicting results? The side that has industry lobby groups, employs thousands of people, has large supply chains, billions invested and furthermore is backed up by a cultural context that makes their products ânormalâ(TM) to the vast majority of us? .. now I am not saying these forces in isolation are necessarily evil - I am just presenting an argument that when we see conflicting messages about nutrition and health, exercise caution before you assume both sides have an equal weighting and thus cancel each other out. Otherwise we might be using that hindsight again in the future and scratching our heads as to why we were so confused.