Talk:Psilocybin

FA Review
I think this article needs to be delisted as an FA. In addition to the sourcing issues mentioned in the section above, quite a bit of the article seems off-topic in that it's talking about the effect of psilocybin mushrooms which is not necessarily the same thing as psilocybin effect (the mushrooms have a distinct article). Alexbrn (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

History "Further backlash against LSD" misinformation. It was all Nixon
I have changed in History section, Modern subsection: "Further backlash against LSD usage swept psilocybin along with it into the Schedule I category of illicit drugs in 1970." -It was specifically the actions of the Nixon administration that put psilocybin in Schedule I. This previous wording makes it sound as if there was a vote, or process in Congress, or some similar input from the public. There was no vote. There was no "backlash" involved in the legal regulation, except in the sense that Nixon made all known psychedelic substances into "Schedule I: no accepted medical value" all at the same time. Perhaps the public acceptance of this can be attributed as part of a "backlash", but it was Nixon's decision alone. Cuvtixo (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A source would be needed. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Research - Psilocybin and LSD can be classified as psychoplastogens
Hello @Bon courage,

Last month, I attempted to add the below passage to this article within the Research section but you removed it citing WP:MEDRS. I have found a new source for the passage, which I believe meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Do you agree? The source is https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-recent-resurgence-of-psilocybin-is-it-here-to-stay. Thank you in advance for your time!

Passage: Researchers have discovered evidence that psilocybin and LSD can be classified as psychoplastogens, which are compounds that HHA LTP (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This and this would be better sources to use. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Smartse. It's much appreciated. I will go ahead and add back in the copy with the two sources you recommend.
 * Best, HHA LTP (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Seizure on co-use with lithium
Regarding this edit, I think the source used in the revision can be used as a secondary source for the provocation of seizure under co-use with lithium because it reports another primary study. And information in Introduction section is an accumulation of several studies.

Another source that summarizes a primary study is:

So I think since we are not using the results analyzed by these papers but rather summaries of other studies that they accumulated, this qualifies as a secondary source for co-use with mood stabilizers. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A secondary source (that summarizes the Nayak study): -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 23:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed source analysis. MEDRS cautions using introductions as secondary sources and for good reason. The answer here is surely to cite Nutt's book, but the main takeaway I get from that is that there is still a lot of uncertainty, which is not conveyed in the text you added. It's not surprising that Nutt takes that view when the actual source of the information is self-reported trip reports. This is another high-quality source which cites Navak and again cautions drawing any conclusions:
 * If those are the best sources available on psilocybin and seizures, it is probably best left out of the article for now. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If those are the best sources available on psilocybin and seizures, it is probably best left out of the article for now. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor
— Assignment last updated by ChasYoung4 (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent large changes
Re this. Medical content should be based on high-quality sources. Non-MEDLINE indexed Frontiers Media journals, and in particular Cureus, are suspect. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * While I see your point about Cureus, all of these articles were acquired through PubMED and are all from peer-reviewed journals. ChasYoung4 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDFAQ. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)