Posts by Bradley Fisher20

Come on, just admit you were actually interested in the schizophrenia stuff 😉.
As for Ibogaine, I don't know man. It's been ages since I looked into it. Just did a quick surf online and apparently, it’s nothing special. Dammit, I forgot the link...

Regarding how it works, it's not bad. For the first part of methadone detox, it hits pretty hard. They say over 90% of people don't even feel the craving for drugs for more than three days. The second part of getting clean is when you actually have to offer a better alternative. And that's where Ibogaine alone can't save you. It's just a tool. That's where we fall into those shamanic "guru" vibes that only hippies usually go for. But why can't this start using actual scientific methods? Why hasn't it become real science yet?

And about the schizophrenia thing... I honestly think psychedelics would only help doctors who realize that behaviorism isn't the holy grail 🙂.

Sophia Johnson43 said:if you're only looking at it from one angle. i don't know how much you actually know about Ibogaine, but it isn't harmless and its effects aren't always good, and the consequences can be more than nasty...
so go ahead and explain your hypothesis if you actually want a discussion.

haha. "Schizophrenia" is such a commercialized term. If I hadn't brought it up, this whole thread would've just sunk to the bottom. anyway, how much do YOU actually know about Ibogaine? What do you mean by "harmless"? Of course it’s not harmless. Nothing is. Not even cytostatics. But look, we're talking about something that—according to some data—has cured people of addiction in 30% of cases. That is an incredible success rate, especially since mainstream American medicine hasn't managed to cure anyone of addiction. So yeah, 30% is way higher than 0%.

It's something you shouldn't just ignore. Especially if someone is working in psychiatry, psychotherapy, or anything like that.

Schizophrenia was the bait. Good bait. I'm interested in schizophrenia too, but I can't exactly sit here and claim I know everything or that I can cure it. But looking at the data, it seems to me that psychedelics have a great foundation for being used in treating—or masking—the negative side effects of schizophrenia. Now I'm gonna rattle off some parameters that might or might not hold water...

To me, schizophrenia is basically just a plain old personality split. But it's a split that keeps that trend going. It doesn't allow for a re-"synthesis" of consciousness. It reminds me of what happens when someone finally snaps after overdoing it on dangerous drugs. Just a basic split. In the early stages, it can definitely blend into a healthy personality. But because people don't know how to deal with it—mostly because they get zero support from the people around them—they fall into this cycle that eventually totally wrecks them. A good shaman could definitely help a young schizophrenic avoid snapping 🙂. These are just some ideas I have about the whole thing. All rights reserved.

Schizophrenia is such a massive buzzword these days. Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon with it, which is why I brought it up. Plus, I’m convinced there’s a way to handle it. Or at least, you can learn how to live with that specific edge before it spirals into full-blown schizophrenia... if you're in the right environment. Trying to shake it once it hits? That's a much harder fight, especially later on. But honestly, that's not even the main point here...

There’ve been plenty of attempts. But honestly? Big Pharma just didn't see the money in it. A cured patient equals zero profit... nothing...

Now you've got Ibogaine being used to pull junkies off the heavy stuff. And back in the day, Ecstasy was actually being looked at for treating mental issues. It fell off the map because nobody was interested in making a buck from it. Meanwhile, you look at places in Latin America where tribes have been using mushrooms, cacti, and all sorts of stuff for millennia to cleanse themselves of evil spirits...

It's all done through rituals. Obviously.

Let's be real—everyone knows by now that the standard medical approach to mental health isn't getting any actual results. It’s high time we start looking at some "new" old methods.

What she’s saying about Ibogaine is just one example of how much potential hallucinogens really have. Addiction is a brutal disease. Or more accurately, a psychological disorder. Just like schizophrenia... it's all the same stuff. And so on...

Anyway, anyone else here actually interested in this field?

Look, none of us are perfect. It's just that constant, nagging feeling of "not being enough" that keeps driving me crazy. And honestly? If you don't have that drive, you can't even get started. Or maybe you can... I don't know, that whole idea is just way too out of my league.

So, is having stuff actually a problem? Or like, how are you even supposed to function if you don't have anything? And how do you even tell when you finally have enough? Like, once you hit that point where you just... exist? I mean, having things is nice, sure. But having more? That feels way better. At least, that's how it looks from the outside...
So seriously, how do you know when you've got enough?

I mean, I’m pretty much right there with anyone saying we’re gonna be dead for the rest of eternity anyway... just waiting to see what it’s like to have zero things and be absolutely nothing.

And while we're actually breathing? It's all just a massive waste of time.

Bradley Fisher20 said:Maybe it's actually the other way around, Bradley Fisher20...?🙄

So who gets to decide who deserves what rights? You? Or the Bible? Look, sorry if I'm talking nonsense here, but I honestly don't get where you're coming from.

I just get this vibe that you're trying to strip rights away from gay people just because you don't like them... like you're trying to play God. And God isn't a fan of that...

Bradley Fisher20. I don't even get what you're asking... You trying to say that having equal rights doesn't actually make people equal?

Actually, it’s the exact opposite—Nietzsche says you gotta fight, take ownership of your own damn fate, and be brave enough to face yourself. If you do that, you aren't gonna go around threatening people with your "superiority." > In fact... you'll actually end up lifting them up.

man, that’s the whole damn foundation I’m talking about when it comes to political activism. 😉.

when I brought up relativism, all I meant was that everything has to be looked at through its own context and relationships. but since I'm always the one doing the looking, I guess you could say I'm the absolute. or better yet... my own personal absolute.

anyway dream, major props this time for that killer vibe.

Honestly, I’m loving this. It’s about damn time I ran into a philosopher who actually gets straight to the point without all the extra fluff. Most of these guys just ramble on in a million different directions only to drop some incredibly questionable take at the end. Kant is my go-to example of a "philosopher" who just talks in circles.

Nietzsche was already laying out the whole idea of principle relativism way back when, and honestly, a hundred years later, it’s still the only thing that actually holds up against the test of time.

Bottom line? Nietzsche is king.

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Bradley Fisher20 says:

If you were thinking about that New Zealand movie by Lee Tamahori about the Maori people—and let's be real, you probably were—it's called Once Were Warriors.
Just saying...

total slip of the tongue...

I don't have a top five, but if I absolutely had to pick the absolute best of the best, I'd definitely go with

Once Upon a Warriors - some social drama
In the Mood for Love - the romance one
What We Do in the Shadows - basically a parody of every parody ever.

Still way better than having Kusash in charge. 🙂.

The world has gone totally insane. But hey, we gotta fix this mess somehow.

Look, darkbison81, listen to your story and you’ll see exactly why I wouldn't even dream of signing up to donate my organs. I'm not about to gamble my own life just to save someone else's. Period.

Btw, I actually started looking into all that crap myself back when I was thinking about signing that donor card, right when...

Honestly, the question is rhetorical. But fine, I'll answer it. We’re regressing. We're falling behind because everyone around us—except for our neighbors in the North America—is absolutely crushing it. It's wild... even people from Canada are starting to show up here just to go shopping at places like Target.

khm. RDA stands for Recommended Dietary Allowance. So, we aren't talking about absolute minimums here.

Regarding Vitamin C stability, I honestly don't think it's that unstable. Its active forms work in both oxidized and reduced states. It’s basically a stable redox system. As for food processing tech, I don't have the hard numbers right in front of me, but the data definitely isn't as catastrophic as what you're implying...

So, when you weigh everything up: the vitamin amounts recommended by the RDA are just way too low for today's standards—this number hasn't moved in decades, even though the atmosphere and food quality have tanked big time—and at best, we're only getting the bare essentials from our diet.

The RDA is the total recommended intake; it doesn't change based on how you choose to eat.

Basically, don't overgeneralize. You gotta look at more factors than just that...

Generalizing is exactly what Kenneth Hernandez67 is doing with those principles—principles that might be fine on paper, sure. But let's face it: nowadays, even if people are functioning slightly below some theoretical "vitamin optimum," they're still absolutely crushing it. Seriously, if you look at the actual facts, modern diets are actually way more balanced than what people were eating 500 years ago. And just like 500 years ago, people today are holding up just fine... MOST of them, anyway.

Same goes for this—if you train your body to expect massive concentrations of vitamins, like doses that are 10x higher than normal, then once you stop taking them, you hit this imbalance. Add some stress to that, and it can actually be way more damaging and dangerous than if you hadn't done it in the first place. You can literally get "hooked" on vitamins. And it’s totally unnecessary. Honestly, it's bad news because you're usually dealing with amounts way above the optimum, and in my book, the real optimum is a regular healthy diet --->> doses even below the RDA.

One last time: only take vitamins during acute issues, high-stress periods, or if you've got an actual deficiency. If you're using supplements as a daily replacement for food, check your dosages and don't go overboard. The RDA is already plenty, and frankly, most people are going way, way past it.

When it comes to vitamins or any supplements, I just follow common sense... basically, the more you cram down your throat, the less they actually work. It’s the exact same deal with antibiotics, painkillers, or sedatives.

Totally sound logic. Way more "yes" than "no" here. I'm definitely on board with this principle.

Joseph Jones85, look at those RDA numbers. But did you actually check the levels in actual fruit and veggies? Let's break it down: if you add up all the nutrients from eating tons of produce—assuming it's actually high-quality stuff—you still end up way below the RDA. Even with what we call a "healthy diet" (loaded with vitamins, fiber, whatever), it technically falls short of the RDA. And honestly? That's just not right.

But even if we pretend the RDA is some holy law we have to follow at all costs... just look at these supplement bottles. Seriously, look at the dosages. They're like 3 to 20 times higher than anything we could ever get from a "perfectly balanced" healthy diet. Once you train your body to expect those massive amounts, it doesn't even process them properly anymore. We're talking about pharmacologically active substances that mess with your body's entire equilibrium. The end result ends up being the exact opposite of what you were aiming for.

And let me tell you something else. Nobody's dying today because they're low on vitamins—I mean, we aren't living in Columbus's era—but plenty of people *are* dying from vitamin toxicity.

Bottom line? One multivitamin a week is more than enough if you're actually eating RIGHT. If your diet is garbage, don't bother masking it with pills; just fix what you're eating, because vitamins are a double-edged sword just like everything else. Even then, I wouldn't touch more than 2 or 3 multivitamins a week.

At the end of the day, vitamins should only be used when there's an actual deficiency or during crazy periods of intense stress. Anything beyond that is pretty much just harmful.

Basically, yeah.