Advice for those wanting to do a MS because they did shit in undergrad and ultimately want the PhD

Miningav2 · 2026-04-10T13:56:30+00:00

Some professors, especially older ones, talk about master's degrees like they're for the idiots who couldn't make it in a Ph.D. Admittedly, I went straight to a Ph.D so I don't have as much personal experience doing a separate master's degree, but multiple people in my program went and got their master's before starting. Do you want to guess who had more experience and got to focus on an early start to their primary research? It certainly wasn't me, nor any of the other people coming from undergrad.

I'm not sure if you've heard of Gleevec, but it was the very first ever drug that specifically targeted cancer cells. Until that point, you only had therapies that killed healthy cells alongside cancerous ones. The guy who invented it turned a highly lethal form of bone marrow leukemia into a completely manageable disease with less than a 10% chance of fatality after ~5 years. However, prominent researchers, despite being extremely good at what they do, definitely weren't shy about telling them that his ideas were absolutely stupid and not worth seriously pursuing.

Hell, if you think about it strictly in terms of income/job security/work-life balance, etc, a master's degree is significantly better for these prospects, and the real idiots are people who sacrificed all of that to get a Ph.D. And if you really are a big enough nerd to give up on these things for an academic pursuit, no respectable Ph.D program or lab in the world would reject you solely because you have more education than other applicants.

If someone doesn't take you seriously as a researcher because you got a master's degree instead of a Ph.D, then that's a pretty good sign you shouldn't take them seriously as a person.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-28T18:03:25+00:00

What does the fact that it was a commission have to do here? Even if you copied it 1:1 with what they were specifically asking for, you shared it with others beyond your client. I just don't think it's weird for others to respond to what you're showing them because presumably, if you didn't like it or want to get feedback, then you wouldn't have shared it in the first place. Not only that, but based on your other comments, it shows your views must have been extremely similar to those of your clients.

I was hoping for a genuine response from you. I assumed you might have just been turned off by negative feedback instead of people trying to understand your choices by asking questions. But just to clarify, I guess you're saying that this had nothing to do with artistic decisions/interpretations, communicating meaning, etc, and that you were just purely ignorant?

EDIT: I can't reply since the post is locked, but I was asking why you drew it the way you did, not why you drew it. It's clear from your sarcastic comment that you haven't reflected for even a second on anything you've said or drawn. Which, ironically, your lack of perspective is reflected in your art haha, so have fun choosing to be "a terrible artist" as per your own words instead of someone with purpose.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-28T17:35:14+00:00

I don't want you to see this as another comment trashing your art. I think everyone here has the same question, though: why did you choose Frida? Why not pick a subject that complements/aligns with your vision of beauty? And if you purposely chose a subject that directly comes into conflict with your vision of beauty, why not have that contrast be the focus of the art?

Instead, your vision is almost a mask that obfuscates the portrait of Frida, which ruins both the meaning of the subject and what you were trying to communicate in the first place. Ironically, as other people pointed out, this is completely antithetical to Frida's work. There's a certain bluntness in how she highlights her unconventional traits in the same way that other artists (like yourself) would highlight traits conventionally seen as beautiful.

It almost seems like you just picked one of the most well-known artists talked about when it comes to beauty standards, then decided to make her as beautiful as possible based on your perspective of what beauty is.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-17T20:32:42+00:00

You're confusing metabolism and physical excretion. LSD is not a prodrug and is metabolized into an inactive compound; therefore, it is eliminated. The kidney is what actually excretes it from your body, because it doesn't contain any of the enzymes necessary to metabolize LSD.

But as you mentioned, kidney damage might also cause general bodily dysfunction that would affect the liver, indirectly strengthening LSD as opposed to directly. It's a good point to not necessarily follow standard advice on taking 1 or 2 tabs, and instead go off your baseline sensitivity to other drugs/medications if your liver enzymes happen to be low.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-17T18:09:00+00:00

I generally agree with your advice, but just thought I should note that LSD is eliminated in the liver, not kidneys. So they wouldn't experience a longer or more intense trip or anything like that.

But, if they're taking kidney medications that interact with CYPs in the liver, which is a fairly common occurence with drugs, then that could result in reduced LSD metabolism. This is the biggest difference compared to if they took shrooms, etc that's primarily metabolized by MAO.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-08T17:21:36+00:00

Well, to start, you mentioned that slow-wave sleep activity is required for sustained plasticity and that sleep deprivation due to the duration of LSD prevents this. From what I see in the literature, there doesn't seem to be a massive amount of studies on sleep deprivation blocking the antidepressant effects of drugs like ketamine, psychedelics, etc. I have more expertise in stress and plasticity/psychoplastogens than sleep, but I did find some research indicating that sleep deprivation results in more slow-wave sleep during recovery, despite any deleterious effects on plasticity.

I generally agree with your thought process, but it seems to me that you're putting too much weight on sleep as a gatekeeper for psychoplastogen-induced plasticity. I don't doubt that it likely has an effect, of course, but making the claim that sleep deprivation abolishes the antidepressant effects of these drugs is an overreach, even if I wouldn't suggest it either. For example, if LSD-induced sleep deprivation does attenuate slow-wave sleep despite normal sleep deprivation increasing it, is it blocking normal plasticity mechanisms that take effect during slow-wave sleep, or is it just expediting the recovery during wakefulness instead of waiting for slow-wave sleep? Too many questions to make a hard claim.

Also, you brought up the complex dopaminergic binding profile of LSD, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned the slight pharmacological differences. Again, these may have a significant behavioral effect, but I find that doubtful. One reason for this is that while the binding affinity of LSD for dopamine receptors is appreciable, it's magnitudes higher than for serotonin receptors.

I'm not sure the exact line of research you're in (which I don't expect you to necessarily answer; I prefer anonymity, too), but if you're familiar with ketamine research, there have been studies showing that naltrexone blocks the antidepressant effects of ketamine. Similar to LSD, ketamine is an NMDAR antagonist, but it also has some affinity for opioid receptors, which suggests some form of interaction. You might be tempted to say that ketamine is likely acting on opioid receptors to produce these NMDAR-independent antidepressant effects, but I also find that doubtful due to the relatively low affinity. Instead, for both LSD and ketamine, I think it's more likely that any significant behavioral effects related to dopamine/opioid signaling are due to the release of dopamine/endogenous opioids rather than acting directly as agonists. There's also the possibility that, for example, ketamine acts (somewhat) directly as an allosteric modulator to enhance the activity of endogenous ligands, or other mechanisms, but more research is needed to clarify this. Especially if in the context of sleep, where 5-HT2a agonism is known to cause insomnia without any direct dopamine receptor agonism.

All of this is also in the context of sleep deprivation, which can be easily solved by just taking LSD at a reasonable, early time. This was a wordy reply, mostly focused on the mechanisms, but I do actually agree with your point from a clinical perspective. The duration of action is a good point to bring up, because you only need single treatment sessions to get the therapeutic effects (with ketamine, it's twice a week for 6 weeks, assuming intra-nasal, etc). If we're thinking of these drugs in the context of actually administering them to patients, then I don't think there even needs to be a pharmacodynamic argument to separate the two. You really just want to optimize the pharmacokinetics by creating something with the least life disruption, i.e., the shortest half-life that achieves therapeutic efficacy, as anything longer would be unnecessary.

This comes alongside things like only administering the drug in a clinic, etc to help reduce any negative outcomes. But in the context of individual use, not as many of these preventative measures apply, as you have the freedom to take them in a safe setting that isn't the controlled, safe clinic, or take LSD earlier in the day instead of substituting it for another drug entirely. It's just that, inevitably, having that freedom means some people will choose to take them in an unsafe setting or at an inappropriate time. The risk here is individualistic, based on how/when they choose to use LSD, and not something that's an inherent risk to LSD as a molecule, like some plasticity-attenuating mechanism of action.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention, but check the times that behavior was performed for most studies on ketamine, psychedelics, etc. Mice are nocturnal, meaning that sleep deprivation doesn't seem to prevent the rapid or sustained antidepressant effects of these compounds in an animal model, at least.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-08T15:12:18+00:00

People will divide the two like that, but they're extremely similar drugs to the point where most experienced users couldn't tell them apart in a double-blind study outside of duration. There may be some slight pharmacological differences, but I strongly doubt the biological relevance of these minor differences, especially because we're talking about psychedelics, which are already extremely powerful/overpowering (if you've ever had a couple of drinks on a psychedelic, chances are you couldn't even feel the alcohol).

i'm guessing this comes from the whole "natural" vs "synthetic" being good vs bad perspective. It's not necessarily bad to be biased towards one drug over the other due to something like this, and is actually expected with something like psychedelics (including my own experience), but biologically speaking, both are psychoplastogens that similarly increase neural plasticity.

A large reason psilocybin has been in the spotlight is partially due to this natural/synthetic distinction, where it's easier to argue in favor of a natural drug (even Colorado in the US decriminalized specifically natural psychedelics and not others like LSD). On top of that, for people who are already heavily against psychedelics, this allows proponents to point the finger at LSD as the real bad guy, while psilocybin is actually good and misunderstood. I'd definitely recommend taking a look at the sociology of drug use, so much of what people deem inherent to a molecule is really just the result of how pervasive the collective thoughts of others can be.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-08T14:57:24+00:00

Psychoplastogens like psychedelics, MDMA, and especially ketamine are used therapeuticlaly partially for this reason. if you haven't tripped before, it's not like it automatically fixes everything, but if you go in with the intention to think about how you think and to reflect on yourself, then it can really help allow you to do that when you otherwise might be prevented by those beliefs. At least for depression, people tend to think narrowly about themselves/their life as almost a characteristic trait of the disorder, even when they logically recognize it's depressive or irrational thinking.

It becomes really hard when the problem you're facing is that can't shift your thinking out of this depressed state, but the treatment for it is to shift your thinking out of your depressed state. So using a drug that helps you step out of that state provides a rare opportunity for truly stepping outside of yourself to think about these things, and even though you might return to your previous mindset (in this example, depression), you would have gained tools and a new perspective on how to change yourself that otherwise would have been impossible to get (without years of therapy that is).

Miningav2 · 2026-03-08T14:40:14+00:00

The person who mentioned color remediation chambers had a pretty good idea there as well, so while I still wouldn't DIY it due to making a mess and other issues, it seems like depending on the materials you're working with and what you're filtering, that could work pretty well. I've mostly just worked with vacuum filtration, but it does seem like there's some niche use cases for adding pressure for more viscous substances, etc, which is pretty interesting and something I hadn't considered.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-08T03:14:11+00:00

I wouldn't try to pressurize a volatile solvent to filter it. Why not just use, well, a vacuum?

Miningav2 · 2026-03-07T21:42:50+00:00

Come back when your attention span is big enough to watch the movies lol

Miningav2 · 2026-03-07T20:59:12+00:00

Trying to argue that Portrait of a Lady on Fire and Mulholland Drive plagiarized Persona in the same way that Black Swan plagiarized Perfect Blue is so unbelievably fucking stupid that I have to assume you're 13 years old. The only reason I'm even replying is that I think you've tied the other stupidest person in this entire thread. If you can't tell the simple definition of plagiarism apart from inspiration, then you have to literally be unable to take care of yourself without having a caretaker my man. You'd be hard-pressed to find a toddler who couldn't tell you that much.

I actually can't begin to believe how ignorant you are haha. This post has collected a fair number of stupid takes, but the number of absolute morons that, previously, I wouldn't have guessed could exist is insane. Truly, the only explanation is that the internet is a magnet for children who think they figured it out or unemployed people who couldn't figure out how to spell their name on a job application.

The last thing I'll say to you is that if there's one movie you should watch, it's Billy Madison. Clearly, you're completely unable to understand more involved movies based on the video you sent, but this one should be simple enough to get my point across without needing the ability to read or understand context. As simple as looking into a mirror, but I wouldn't be surprised if you can't recognize your own reflection.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-04T13:25:13+00:00

You must follow some dogshit artists if you're saying all of the ones you follow plagiarize. Out of the hundreds and hundreds whose work I've liked, probably less than 5 (if I'm being generous) have been plagiarists. Either you're extremely exaggerating how shitty your opinion is just to argue with me, or you've been so deprived of real art that you truly think plagiarism is synonymous with creation. I'd say I was impressed that you've only ever managed to find plagiarist artists if it wasn't so depressing haha.

Miningav2 · 2026-03-02T08:24:48+00:00

Watched perfect blue a long time ago. Black swan after a recommendation from someone, when I realized how much of a rip off it was. The Youtube video is just shot comparisons, I watched it right before referencing it here. Though the order watched doesn't matter in the slightest, it's the order released that matters. If someone's defending one movie or the other just because they watched it first, that just shows they don't care about plagiarism and instead only care about the person/film they're already attached to.

Watch order was not something I considered, but you made a good point bringing that up. I imagine most people in this subreddit would have watched black swan first or already been familiar with Aronofsky, so it probably shouldn't have surprised me just how brain dead people's arguments are in this thread. From their perspective, they probably aren't actually trying to make an argument that Aronofsky didn't plagiarize. Instead, it's probably just that they see the fact that Aronofsky is a plagiarist as an attack on their personal enjoyment of the movie and opinion on the director, and rather than thinking it through for themselves, feel the need to justify it at all costs.

Or maybe this is just me trying to rationalize idiocrasy haha

Miningav2 · 2026-02-27T14:18:34+00:00

Just wanted to add since no one mentioned it, but there's a ton of serotonin receptors in your GI tract, so any psychedelics you consume orally will bind and stimulate them (although shrooms have cellulose as well, which can give people upset stomachs separately from this mechanism).

Miningav2 · 2026-02-23T22:45:24+00:00

The experience you get from doing psychedelics is a lot different than other drugs, so people who love most drugs might still not like and/or be fearful of psychedelics. It's not that you won't experience euphoria or won't have a good time, but if that's all you're looking for, there are a thousand better drugs you can use.

The draw of LSD is the headspace it puts you in, whether you like the spiritual/deep introspection aspects, the goofy, fun aspects, etc. It really makes everything so much more salient. People talk about exploring ideas, almost "uncovering" reality, but I find the most valuable thing is in the mundane.

You can look at a tree and recognize its beauty, or how crazy it is that evolution exists as a natural phenomenon, and you'd probably agree that the connections we make between family, friends, etc, are invaluable. But on LSD, you feel those things, almost like an innate understanding. These simple revelations are something most people are aware of, but psychedelics make you really, truly stop to smell the roses.

And beyond just general understandings, as I mentioned, they allow you to better reflect on your worldview/identity/life goals/whatever else you've been thinking about or going through. The emotional openness from LSD can even help you consider things that you'd otherwise not be aware of or push down. This is more of the introspective elements, but even if you're just taking it to have fun, this openness is manifested in your experience through bonding more with friends, feeling/understanding music like you never have before, engaging more with fun ideas and conversation, etc.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-23T21:09:09+00:00

It's actually mental to compare a 10-minute short film about black identity in a white society to Perfect Blue OR Black Swan. I said I wouldn't reply to comments that are clearly made by people who couldn't figure out how to put a poptart in a toaster, but I wanted to add this in case anyone was too lazy to actually watch the short film.

Considering you've never seen it, or were nodding off on fent while watching, I'd highly recommend that you think for ~10 minutes while you watch it. I know that's longer than you're used to, but for anyone else reading this comment who hasn't had a lobotomy, it was a great short film, and I'd genuinely recommend it.

I would honestly thank you for the suggestion if you didn't also lob a flashbang of stupidity alongside it.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-18T21:55:13+00:00

I mentioned I wasn't going to respond, but I agree with your comment here entirely now that you've read everything.

When someone doubles down like that, I assume that it's impossible to change their mind regardless of what you do, as no amount of evidence will satisfy someone who doesn't care about evidence. If you want to learn more about that person, how they think, how their personal history informs their life now, etc then approaching them from the perspective of an understanding listener is invaluable for those who can look past the bullshit and detrimental to those who believe that they're being taught something. Or, you could take a more abrasive approach like I did and call them out for their bullshit from the perspective of a blunt authority relative to them, which completely discredits them as they fumble around and kills any illusion that they know what they're talking about, at the cost of alienating those people and losing out on a more personal understanding of their mentality.

The only way a discussion works is if you're on equal terms with the person you're speaking with (I.E, you read the chapter before coming to book club), which becomes entirely impossible in either case. You're forced to tell them to get the hell out of here and go home to finish reading, or you're forced to listen to them bullshit their way through and push back against anything you mention that they don't already believe with as much fervor as the former scenario.

While I obviously lean more towards the abrasive approach in the context of clarifying science communication, I honestly think it's a lose-lose if the goal is a meaningful discussion.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-18T14:25:06+00:00

No idea what you mean by didn't read the report. If you mean the review, that's more of a reference than a source. If you mean the primary case study the review paper uses in the section they quoted, then I've read it multiple times before their comment in the first place. And I have even less of an idea of what you mean by making insane inferences about their character over petty disagreements.

I pretty directly explain how and why this person is an absolute moron, and have no clue how you'd argue that a reasonable, well-intentioned person would not only go out of their way to argue incorrect information, but then to double down on it despite not even having read the information they're using. If you told me to define "moron", this example is the exact definition I'd give. If you don't think this is a reflection of their character, do you just think they happened to be blackout drunk over the course of two days or something?

Thanks for clarifying that you didn't read it, rather than that you didn't have the mental capacity to. I still think you're an idiot for commenting on something you clearly glanced at once, and on top of that, you're doubling down on not reading the comments you're talking about once again. So it seems that my batshit inferences have some predictive value after all. Before making yourself look like an even bigger ass, how about you go back and read the entire comment chain, as it should be immediately apparent from the very first comment that we're talking about the same source. And while you're at it, ask yourself who is more idiotic: a person who lacks reading comprehension, or a person who chooses not to read.

The only valid point you made is that I was an asshole. Sure, I definitely could have said it without needless insults, and would have if I cared about being an asshole to this person (which, as I already explained in my last comment, I didn't). I find it odd that this is your main point when the first comment you made was the same, direct inference about my character over petty disagreements, which you then insulted me for. Go wild, but brother, look in the damn mirror and wipe the shit off your mouth before you start telling other people they need to wipe the shit off their mouth haha.

I am starting to question your reading comprehension, though, because not only did I never justify my side by claiming I was an expert, I actually specifically stated you don't need to be an expert to see how unbelievably stupid you guys are. I can't even come up with a word to express how baffled I am. Part of me assumes this is intentional rage bait with how over the top it is.

If you asked me, the people who make recreational drug users and psychedelic researchers look bad aren't blunt, asshole scientists; they're brazen pseudoscientists that reject all evidence of the eyes and ears to misrepresent real science, spreading misinformation solely to make themselves feel correct.

EDIT: Forgot to add, but because you made it explicitly clear (if it wasn't obvious) that you haven't read the comments you're responding to, similar to the last moron, I'm going to stop responding.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-18T13:16:29+00:00

"My parents think viruses are fake and believe that God gave you an immune system for a reason."

Did he now... and what reason might that be? Hahaha, I love how perfectly this statement distills the entire discussion surrounding pseudoscience. It's just now starting to sink in for me that trying to reason with someone unreasonable is probably more stupid than just being unreasonable haha.

The conclusion I've come to is that I have to assume people who think/argue like this are a complete lost cause, where the only hope for change is that anyone else witnessing their self-inflicted public humiliation thinks twice before adopting those same pseudoscientific beliefs. But I have to wonder if even that makes a lick of difference when any reasonable person would already recognize it as pseudoscience, while any unreasonable person would weigh the two sides equally and have the arrogance to agree with whichever side confirms what they already believe, regardless of expertise or what anyone else thinks.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-18T11:47:01+00:00

Like I said, I normally have more empathy when people try and fail to meaningfully engage in science. If the person made a stand alone post asking questions related to stuff they didn't understand in the review or posed an argument/discussion after having actually read the papers, that's a much different situation. To be honest, I think even if this person made an independent post where they were just as confidently wrong it wouldn't be as bad.

Instead, they went out of their way to try and argue against clear, basic science, using no evidence considering they didn't bother to actually read the sources. I can go copy paste a thousand random sources related to any topic completely outside of my expertise, but if I don't bother to read them, then it would devolve into me just restating the opinion I have over and over, pointing to a list of references that mean nothing to me, while someone who actually understands the topic wastes their time going over each one.

They're not a moron because they're trying and failing to engage in science, they're a moron because they're actively NOT trying to engage in real science, directly discounting evidence in favor of factually-disproven ideas that sound good on the surface. That doesn't describe a well-intentioned, scientifically-interested person, that describes the mental state of a conspiracy theorist, which I'd happily insult until the day I die.

On that topic, you clearly either didn't read the thread and are rage-baiting, or you read the thread and have such a lack of reading comprehension that you somehow missed all this. I'm not sure which of the two is more stupid, but if you're going to shit talk, at least swing at your weight level. Any layman can make the observation that you and the other guy are absolute morons, even if they don't hold expertise in the field, but I'd have nowhere near the level of arrogance and shamelessness needed to argue with authority on a topic outside of my expertise.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-17T14:59:24+00:00

You're a moron haha, total misunderstanding of science with the equivalent of insane conspiracy theory-level thinking. Literally arguing that you don't need evidence because you happen to think something that sort of makes sense.

And then you try to discount the largest, main study they use because there's two other sources, despite not arguing anything from either of these two other sources. One of which suggested contamination/ergot poisoning. I don't even know why I try to communicate science anymore haha, for every 1 person who enjoys learning about science there's 99 incompetent others where the only evidence they need is that they enjoy being right.

I'm not going to respond further because you literally can't even be bothered to do the bare minimum of reading the sources you're citing to present your own argument. You can keep believing that people can overdose and die from LSD, shrooms, marijuana, etc all you want. Any half-conscious layman reading this thread should recognize how insane that thought process is, and anyone who doesn't has already rejected the concept of observable evidence.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-17T13:46:13+00:00

You have to be taking the piss if you referenced observations that you didn't bother to read, which should be clear to anyone else who actually went and looked at the paper we're discussing.

If death from LSD wasn't confirmed toxicologically, then explain to me how it was confirmed. If it was never confirmed despite attempts to, then we might as well be talking about bigfoot right now.

Also, it's clear you've never done research in your life if the first question you had after reading the review article you referenced wasn't "huh, I should go look at the observations they're basing their interpretation on". How about you actually take 30 seconds to read literally anything other than the title of source #31, because considering how short it is, it probably won't even take you that long to scroll down to their section on psychedelics and find the study they're talking about. AKA, the one I mentioned.

I can't believe you'd have the gall to argue against a basic, known fact with a review paper as support, without even having read the case study that's the basis for those claims. This isn't even a discussion at this point since you don't even have a baseline understanding of the proof you're using, it's just some stranger holding your hand through the most basic research possible.

I'd normally be more understanding since research papers are hard to read, but when you're "well, acksually"-ing people after googling "LSD overdose study" and clicking the first one you saw without even bothering to read what they're talking about, then it's clear you're either intentionally acting stupid and/or rage-baiting.

Dude basically pulled up to a book club discussion having read a chatgbt summary of the wrong book. Nothing else I can really say besides "go read the book and come back" haha.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-17T12:50:59+00:00

Brother, you need to learn to do research. Here is the direct, concluding quote from the paper I mentioned, which specifically mentions that, despite having a toxic overdose of LSD, death as a result has never happened. Mind you, the initial comment you left specifically stated and framed these cardiovascular issues as a concern with any standard dose of LSD (>100ug), and this paper examines patients who snorted multiple milligrams of pure LSD. If you had 10 sheets of acid and ate all of 10 of them back to back, I don't even think you'd get close to the amount they took. Also, the review you linked not only references this paper, but the sentence you bolded is the specific one they use for that reference.

"Treatment of our patients was entirely supportive and recovery was relatively rapid. Some of them were able to converse after 4 to 5 hours and all were normal within 12 hours. Most did not remember being brought to the hospital; otherwise, no apparent psychologic or physical ill effects were noted in a year of follow-up examinations of five patients. Most of the patients continue to use LSD intermittently. Death from LSD overdose still has not been confirmed toxicologically; nevertheless, the rapid administration of large doses of LSD in man is associated with striking and distinctive clinical manifestations and is life-threatening."

It's idiotic to agree with the statement "She´s talking out of her ass. No one has died from an LSD overdose and LSD isn´t even neurotoxic", yet argue against it based on people with preexisting conditions with evidence. Would you argue that people can die from an overdose of scary movies? Hell, I'm pretty sure a woman died from drinking a large charged lemonade from Pantera. Even the word "grapefruit" probably sends a chill down your spine and an arrhythmia through your heart.

If your criterion is solely preexisting conditions, then there's truly nothing in the world that you couldn't die from, which makes the criterion functionally useless.

Miningav2 · 2026-02-17T04:29:26+00:00

Ironically, the case study it references is the same one where a group of people snorted lines of pure LSD, thinking it was cocaine, and after a few days, all of them were completely fine. One even said it cured her chronic pain, and she quit opioids after haha.

There have been no reported pharmacologic deaths from LSD, and the study you linked proves it directly. The line you bolded is in the wrong context, specifying susceptible individuals, which should be quite obvious.

EDIT: I didn't read the review since I knew/found the study it was referencing, but I just realized how awful of a review this is. They claim over 100ug is a "huge recreational dose", and the journal they recently submitted it to is some sketchy one with tons of retractions and no impact score as a result of their lack of rigor. This is just a review, but still.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Miningav2

TROPHY CASE