this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
456 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
21941 readers
1483 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm aware of the meaning. I'm not sure what your point is though.
From an outside perspective it's this:
I'm pretty sure that none of the Ayahuasca retreats test for latent psychosis or if there is even a reliable way to do that.
Ayahuasca retreats are a scam to relieve drug tourists of their money. I prefer my psychedelic experiences not to start with an hour of projectile vomiting into a bucket, but some people think they have to "earn" a trip by putting themselves through an ordeal. The reality is that botanicals can be dirty drugs with a high body load just like synthetics can be. Also MAOIs can be unpredictable in the magnitude of their effect, and can prolong trips much longer than you bargained for, based on small details of your body chemistry and recent diet.
As for the "latent" comment: using psychedelics can be a stress test, and (as they say of investments) past performance does not guarantee future results. I've had entirely positive experiences with psychedelics, but also know that they're powerful substances that should be used sparingly. People who advocate "heroic doses" are doing so with no concern over the casualty rate. It will go bad for some people, you can't always predict who, but the odds worsen with dosage and frequency of use. So to me, the "latent" pseudo-explanation is a bit too much like "and if it breaks, it needed replacing anyway." Too self-fulfilling to be credible.