UKC

Good evening. 

On a channel 4 series on brain surgery - which is very interesting - I saw something that attracted my attention: Neuroplacticity.

According to the series a different part of the brain does the duty of a damaged part of the brain.

This is the Wikipedia definition:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Does anyone know anything about it?

A course provider, Udemy runs a short course on the subject.

https://www.udemy.com/course/neuroplasticity/?fbclid=IwAR3XQEDU9Y_8KFd2QL1m...

I am considering doing it, would it be worth while doing it? Has anyone else done a thid or a similar course? 

Bye 

MS

It sounds like a very interesting topic. 

Hi. 

Yes, it does seem to be a very interesting topic.

Bye 

MS

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html

Very interesting article. 

I wonder if it has happened to me during lockdown. 

MS

Definitely a fascinating subject. You'll hopefully find research into psychedelics and their ability to promote neuroplasticity interesting. The full study linked in this article is worth the read - https://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2018/06/13/psychedelics-promote-neural-pl...

In what way ?

I have read it. 

So do you think psychedelics should be legalised for medical research and eventually treatment?

This link mentions more compounds.

https://highexistence.com/boost-brain-harnessing-neurogenesis/

I am not sure if 5 HTP - a widely available supplement - will have that property. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Hydroxytryptophan

MS

What post of mine are you answering?

I believe psychedelics should be legalised (with education) full stop, given the immense benefits they offer and their inherent lack of risk compared to drugs which are currently legal and freely available (alcohol and tobacco), or on prescription (opioids). But that's a different topic. I have a feeling this point is going to be controversial here, but I'm happy to have a rational discussion about it.

I'm not aware of any research that would point to 5-HTP being useful in that regard, but if you've seen something then I'd be keen to read it. In general it's a pretty poor supplement to be taking on a whim, as it's a direct precursor to serotonin and can lead to neurotransmitter imbalances. It also has the potential for causing heart valve disease if not taken with EGCG (which is also something you don't want to take long term), or another decarboxylase inhibitor.

I gave up and alcohol altogether this year and I have never smoked - I don't think I have ever used opiods for pain relieve. 

 Is there any truth in Ibogaine being used to treat alcohol and narcotic use? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine

I remember an old episode of Law and Order: SVU that a had heroin user who got treated with one dose of Ibogaine.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1536228/

MS

Television fiction should not be used as scientific reference. Most of the stuff they do on 'CSI' isn't real.

It's just an anecdote. Luckily Ibogaine treatment is very real, and incredibly effective in a single dose.

A bit of neuroplasticity in this, quite a common sense idea i think?

youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0&

Do the course. Even a cursory glance shows the subject to be about as fascinating as it gets with lots of applicable elements to play about with. Anyone who finds this stuff boring is to be avoided.

I'm only an interested dilettante, but have experimented with various tryptamines (I avoid the term psychedelics as they refer to a larger umbrella term and assumed experience), multilingualism and stress inoculation and think there's much to be explored and that a lot of that exploration can be done by informed and motivated people.

On the matter of tryptamine chemicals, I've not tried Ibogaine but have corresponded with a few people who have and it seems it is what the reports say. Not entirely surprising considering the human history of using that family of compounds, but profound nevertheless. One must always have a large bag of salt handy when looking into anything regarding psychedelics, the subject is incredibly culture-bound and prescriptive, unashamedly a religion in some aspects. If you go that route, stick to your scientific guns despite the many lucrative sirens on the way.

As someone who has occasionally done courses divergent to my focus, simply out of curiosity and interest, it's unlikely you will regret it, if only for the others you meet through it.

Not sure if it qualifies as neuroplasticity by the strict definition, but having been born with squint and lack of 3d vision, following extensive research and vision therapy, I was able to switch on the bit of my brain that sees 3d at age of 60. Sue Barrys fabulous book "Fixing My Gaze" is well worth a read. No mind altering drugs were needed, just a lot of work. 

Paul 

With any course provider it's worth looking at online reviews. Google udemy courses review

You'll always get a few complainers, but you can get a feeling from the overall tone of the comments providing there are enough.

Recent, relevant book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Livewired-Inside-Story-Ever-Changing-Brain/dp/0307...

The area of nootropics is also possibly relevant I think to your research.    

I think psychedelics should be legal because they're safe and beneficial when used correctly. 

I'd be interested to know where you have been getting your tryptamines from because, unless you are making them yourself, what you are buying on the internet is literally "any old shit".

Based on knowledge of busting NPS producers/suppliers who liberally lace their "product" with random Class A and B in order to ensure it has an effect.

Hi

I was refering to Law and Order: SVU not CSI. CSI wise, I think Miami and Cyber are a bit like science fiction and futuristic. 

Thank you for your insights. The discussion here is about neuroplasticity.

On Trust Pilot there the reviews are mixed.

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/udemy.com?page=2

Improving my Dyspraxia. 

Are you talking about the headshop market? Online suppliers based overseas are a different kettle of fish to the crap that was being sold before the catch-all act came in. 

Why?  Are you struggling to get yourself some decent gear?

Many years a friend of mine, who was an enthusiastic consumer of recreational pharmaceuticals and had an entrepreneurial spirit was offered the chance of buying 3000 tabs of acid. Seeing a way of making several grand he soon had a bag of 3000 tabs in his fridge. LSD has a shelf life which is extended by refrigeration but it still goes off nevertheless.

Anyway, it soon became evident that he'd grossly over estimated the size of his total available market and was having great difficulty in shifting more than a handful a day so he started taking them.

A couple a day. Every day.

Unsurprisingly this did accelerate the development of his personality through the neuroplastic effect. So much so that when the men in white coats with the butterfly net came to take him somewhere quiet for a bit of a lie down he threatened to kill them all by shooting them with a bottle of Fairy Liquid.

So yes, dropping loads of acid can change your personality.

I know. But they're both fiction, and the representation of science is often questionable. As it turns out, in this case, the depiction was accurate.

I confess I was being rather grumpy last night.

Unlikely - that's what evidence lockers are for.

I just think it's funny when people pompously discuss pushing the edges of consciousness and carefully exploring the impact of selected drugs and dosages like latter day Timothy Leary's  when what they are actually consuming is random crap laced with a bit of amphet or other class A/B prescription medication to give a bit of a kick. Literally shovelled out of drum on an industrial estate.

I don't think the market you've seen in enforcement is the same as that selling exotic tryptamines etc. to "psychonauts". The guys shovelling stuff out of drums on industrial estates were selling stuff that was to imitate coke/speed, sold as legal highs with tacky brand names, not the novel hallucinogens discovered by Alexander Shulgin described in TIHKAL. Both termed NPS, but different markets and classes of drugs. 

Most mental health inpatient units usually a number of residents who have been experimenting with non prescribed psychotropic medication. Some get back to reality, a significant number don’t.

True. But psychedelics are a small subset of pyschotropic compounds. The question "are psychedelics associated with mental health problems?" has been studied quantitatively:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747247/

It's a commonly held belief that psychedelics cause psychotic-like mental health problems, but this stems largely from the history of research into these compounds when they were known as "psychotomimetics" before the term "psychedelic" was coined. There is no evidence that there is any material risk for a healthy normal subject taking the classic psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) at the appropriate dose, set and setting.

The research has been done (a lot more than the single study above), the facts are in. Psychedelics are safe.

So I must have imagined nursing people experiencing Psychosis as a result of Psychedelics.

Not necessarily. It's just extremely likely that those cases were not healthy normal subjects taking psychedelics in appropriate dose/set/settings. Most likely they were already prone to psychosis and/or the drugs were used inappropriately. The claim, backed up by the research, is that psychedelics are safe when used by healthy normal subjects at the appropriate dose, set and setting. It is not that psychedelics never cause any harm ever. That claim can't be made about anything.

The fact that something is not a toy and must be used with some degree of caution does not mean it is "dangerous" or "causes harm". 

How do you know it’s extremely likely those cases were not healthy subjects. How do you define a healthy subject, is that physically healthy or mentally healthy or both. Our mental health is subject to many things and in general it isn’t clear what cause a mental health crisis at some point in ones life. So do you take the risk that something you take might expand your mind or cause it to implode.

Because when you start with the population of people who take psychedelics and ask "how many also have mental health problems?" you get the answer "no more than in the population at large". So the likelihood of a healthy normal becoming mentally unwell because of the use of a psychedelic is extremely small.

The relevant factor is whether there are any pre-existing mental health diagnoses. Psychedelics are physically non-toxic so it doesn't really matter whether a subject is in good physical health or not when it comes to  risk

Personally, I look at the evidence and evaluate the risk.

Look at the numbers in that study I posted: it's a huge sample size, carefully analysed. If there was any material risk of taking psychedelics 

If you worked in a fracture clinic, and had no information about bicycles other than the prevalence of cycling injuries in the clinic, would you ride a bike or consider it too risky? In order to accurately assess the risk, you've got to know how likely you are to suffer a bad outcome if you engage in a certain behaviour. If you decide to use psychedelics, you don't put yourself at additional risk of mental health problems. However, if you already have certain mental health problems (psychosis rather than depression/anxiety) then you may be well-advised not to use psychedelics. 

As I say, a really good amount of research has been done on the risks and benefits of psychedelics, so anyone can look into the facts for themselves and ,make an informed decision about what compounds to put into their body.

Anecdotally from my own experiences there were a significant number of people who developed psychosis from taking Psychedelic drugs who had never been seen by mental health services. They could have had undiagnosed problems or maybe would have gone on to develop psychosis without taking drugs.

you clearly are capable of making an informed choice about using said drugs, not everyone is so able.

I am not going to experiment with psychedelics. 

Agreed. That argument is a no-brainer and hasn't been part of the neuroplasticity ideology for decades. It's the exact reason why the term 'psychedelics' is avoided.

I find the subject of neuroplasticity through multilingualism far more interesting, though it too is compromised by commentators with no functional experience who think the cheapest, laziest, least informed of language acquisition is on the same page as the real thing. There's a dabbling new age scene that honestly think the uptake of Berlitz-level phrasebook tourist language will effect neural adaptions.

In my opinion multilingualism is the most bang for your buck as it has the greatest gains alongside any intended plasticity and it allows parallel reference to the current pathways. It's also not related to being therapeutic, freeing it of a lot of the narrow focus that can necessarily bring with it, though I've had the change to experience it for medical use after injury and it's fascinating. I've been told it has been investigated with people who have brain injury affecting taste, that tastes identified from other cultures can be initiated where learned tastes remain frozen. 

It's fascinating to observe true full multilinguals switch through linguistic channels to shift their abilities. Having a modicum of mulitlingualism (+/-5% both general and specialized) and feeling it across various experiences including very high and prolonged stress it's a very observable thing. With a multilingual child it's also remarkable to see.

It does raise all sorts of new questions of course, like what actually is language and how it functions in far more ways than is superficially apparent.

A valiant effort Jon Stewart, but it's no different to trying to get the MAGA crowd to wear masks.

Neuroplasticity is fascinating.

Some interesting readings for anyone interested in learning more:

How to change your mind by Michael Pollan

The Brain that changes itself by Norman Doidge

The Biology of Desire by Marc Lewis- this book explores addiction in a "radical" manner. 

On the subject of psychedelics which have been discussed later in the post- it is fair to say that drugs such as LSD, psilocybin etc. are a lot safer than many other commonly used substances (tobacco, alcohol). However they are far from safe.

David Nutt (famously sacked by HMG for telling the truth about relative risk) explores this in his book Drugs without the hot air.

Many individuals have suffered severe harms from psychedelics and bad trips can be fatal. Many users do not have any diagnosed psychiatric illness and a pre-disposition to a condition (psychosis) may be undisclosed. (Much of the cannabis-schizophrenia debate has been caught up in this chicken-egg hypothesis.)

Happy reading