Delirium is the most confusing trips or highs you can ever have. I noticed promethazine has a delirium effect when I drank the green cough syrup straight promethazine I started to get diphenhydramine type effects like shadow people distorted voices confused and stuck in a meaningful thought trying to remember reality but at the same time you don't know your hallucinating and the red codine with promethazine was even stronger but I had the codine high enhancing the promethazine so it was a fun delirium trip
Warning, this video has facts and terms simply wrong. The word psychedelic has a very specific meaning, and is used to refer certain drugs that are 5-HT2A agonists (which are a subset of hallucinogens, others being deliriants and dissociatives), although I see the aim here, the term seems to be used in the everyday meaning. But we need to be specific. The mess continue, as mescaline, a Classic 5-HT2A, is listed among deliriants, when it happens to be an a serotonergic psychedelic. Please see Nichols 2016 for a detailed review. After 6th minute, I stopped watching to warn students that all here is not to be trusted.
Yeah bub, doc is right here. "Psychedelic" is not a formal class of pharmacological compounds, nor of a particular type of psychopharmacological activity, nor even of a discrete set of specific substances. Yes, diphenhydramine definitely isn't a psychedelic, and LSD definitely is, but even "5-HT2A (receptor) agonist" is not a formal, rigorous classification of a compound. Drugs are often named for the desirable pharmacological activity they posses, but such activity is seldom, if ever, all they do, and it's not like ergot evolved for us to commune with the forest spirits. It just happens to have an affinity for widely distributed proteins on the surfaces of cells in our brain, it activates them, and it makes us think that plants might be able to think, and who knows, they might! But the issue with your scheme is questions like "is strychnine a stimulant?" don't have a formal answer. In a pinch, like, you know, a warzone, a tiny bit might hit the spot, but any more and it's doing a lot of things, but stimulating isn't one of them. Citing a single literature source is also a pretty bogus way of trying to exercise authority. We can all get on Google Scholar and find a sentence that supports a thought we've had. D+.
@@PaulMerritt That's absolute crap, Nichols, Shulgin, M.E. Trulson, Niemegeers, Denber, Merliss, the list of excellent evaluations and descriptions is very well documented. I don't know where you are getting your data from, but there is mountains of info out there. From pharmacologist's to chemist's and much more, these guys are tops in their fields, so, yeah.
@@kenhaze5230 that's not the point, the point is these compounds are very well classified and understood, from chemical, to pharmacological, to spiritual etc.
@@psycronizer He literally told you his source is the textbook used in the class. Your response to me doesn't make any sense either. "Well understood" compared to what? And in any case, how well they are understood has nothing to do with their nomenclature. Listing the names, and then incorrectly using the possessive, rather than plural form of several technical- or research-related job titles doesn't help you out much either. The uploader of this video has a PhD in psychology. I have a PhD in neuroscience. Like your list of names, though, those credentials are irrelevant to whether or not there is a consensus taxonomic system for "hallucinogens." There is not, and this is revealed by even the most cursory examination of the relevant literature (a cursory examination of the literature is less than the minimum the types of people you listed would do before popping off about even a topic within their domain of expertise). "The classic hallucinogens are generally divided on the basis of chemical structure into two families: tryptamines (indolealkylamines) and phenethylamines." -Bonson 2020 "While the term hallucinogen often refers to different classes of drugs with mind-altering properties, this definition may be overly broad and reliant on terminology that principally involves visual phenomenology." -Kyzar and Kalueff 2016 I could go on, but this alone establishes there is not a consensus. At least one system of hallucinogen classification is based on "chemical structure," per the first reference. At least one other system, per the second reference, is based on "visual phenomenology;" note the usage of the word "often" in this reference, establishing explicitly that there is not, in fact, a consensus. Best of luck in your studies of psychoactive substances.
Thank you, Dr. Merritt. As a medical student, I find this very helpful! Have a nice day!
Delirium is the most confusing trips or highs you can ever have. I noticed promethazine has a delirium effect when I drank the green cough syrup straight promethazine I started to get diphenhydramine type effects like shadow people distorted voices confused and stuck in a meaningful thought trying to remember reality but at the same time you don't know your hallucinating and the red codine with promethazine was even stronger but I had the codine high enhancing the promethazine so it was a fun delirium trip
Your mic is horrible, but this was really helpful for my report
Warning, this video has facts and terms simply wrong.
The word psychedelic has a very specific meaning, and is used to refer certain drugs that are 5-HT2A agonists (which are a subset of hallucinogens, others being deliriants and dissociatives), although I see the aim here, the term seems to be used in the everyday meaning. But we need to be specific.
The mess continue, as mescaline, a Classic 5-HT2A, is listed among deliriants, when it happens to be an a serotonergic psychedelic. Please see Nichols 2016 for a detailed review.
After 6th minute, I stopped watching to warn students that all here is not to be trusted.
This is how the text is use classifies them. In fact there is no widely accepted way to classify these compounds.
Yeah bub, doc is right here. "Psychedelic" is not a formal class of pharmacological compounds, nor of a particular type of psychopharmacological activity, nor even of a discrete set of specific substances. Yes, diphenhydramine definitely isn't a psychedelic, and LSD definitely is, but even "5-HT2A (receptor) agonist" is not a formal, rigorous classification of a compound. Drugs are often named for the desirable pharmacological activity they posses, but such activity is seldom, if ever, all they do, and it's not like ergot evolved for us to commune with the forest spirits. It just happens to have an affinity for widely distributed proteins on the surfaces of cells in our brain, it activates them, and it makes us think that plants might be able to think, and who knows, they might! But the issue with your scheme is questions like "is strychnine a stimulant?" don't have a formal answer. In a pinch, like, you know, a warzone, a tiny bit might hit the spot, but any more and it's doing a lot of things, but stimulating isn't one of them.
Citing a single literature source is also a pretty bogus way of trying to exercise authority. We can all get on Google Scholar and find a sentence that supports a thought we've had. D+.
@@PaulMerritt That's absolute crap, Nichols, Shulgin, M.E. Trulson, Niemegeers, Denber, Merliss, the list of excellent evaluations and descriptions is very well documented. I don't know where you are getting your data from, but there is mountains of info out there. From pharmacologist's to chemist's and much more, these guys are tops in their fields, so, yeah.
@@kenhaze5230 that's not the point, the point is these compounds are very well classified and understood, from chemical, to pharmacological, to spiritual etc.
@@psycronizer He literally told you his source is the textbook used in the class. Your response to me doesn't make any sense either. "Well understood" compared to what? And in any case, how well they are understood has nothing to do with their nomenclature.
Listing the names, and then incorrectly using the possessive, rather than plural form of several technical- or research-related job titles doesn't help you out much either. The uploader of this video has a PhD in psychology. I have a PhD in neuroscience. Like your list of names, though, those credentials are irrelevant to whether or not there is a consensus taxonomic system for "hallucinogens." There is not, and this is revealed by even the most cursory examination of the relevant literature (a cursory examination of the literature is less than the minimum the types of people you listed would do before popping off about even a topic within their domain of expertise).
"The classic hallucinogens are generally divided on the basis of
chemical structure into two families: tryptamines (indolealkylamines) and phenethylamines."
-Bonson 2020
"While the term hallucinogen often refers to different
classes of drugs with mind-altering properties, this definition may be overly broad and reliant on terminology that principally involves visual phenomenology."
-Kyzar and Kalueff 2016
I could go on, but this alone establishes there is not a consensus. At least one system of hallucinogen classification is based on "chemical structure," per the first reference. At least one other system, per the second reference, is based on "visual phenomenology;" note the usage of the word "often" in this reference, establishing explicitly that there is not, in fact, a consensus.
Best of luck in your studies of psychoactive substances.