Tim R

Oh my god, why all this elitism about "do you even trip, bro?" in the psychedelic community?... Really unpleasant to be honest. "Oh you haven't done 5-MeO-DMT at least 100 times? Well then you're full of shit and you don't understand the deepest spiritual insights." What a stupid game, it's embarrassing... Also, how can people argue about the ineffable?? It never fails to make me chuckle when I see people argue about this attainment or that understanding, and how your insight is still not the deepest insight and on and on and on... One-Upmanship at its best ?

Excerpt from a book that discusses possible interaction between the two: Homoerotic experiences? And further: Both the later philosopher and the later dictator remained known throughout their lives for the bizarreness of their behaviour, for their absolute inability to have normal, uninhibited contact with other people. The philosopher had two homosexual brothers who committed suicide; he himself was homosexual and more than once pushed later lovers into situations (for example, participation in the Spanish Civil War) that led to their deaths. Cornish probably falls a little short here when he only touches en passant on the question of the dictator's sexuality. Was Hitler homosexual? Was he what is known in English as a "closet gay"? (So was he a "concealed gay" who possibly kept his "true nature" shamefully hidden even from himself - "in the closet")? Is it not striking how the dictator dealt with homosexuals in his own movement? Röhm and other gay followers of the SA, who had initially backed the "Führer" but could have become "dangerous" to him later, were liquidated. Residents of the men's homes in Vienna who knew him from his younger years were systematically investigated and eliminated. And all his "normal" sexual relationships, even when he was already in his prime, took place with almost boyish, barely twenty-year-old young women, who were consistently driven to suicide in the course of these relationships. (The same applies, in a modified form, to the relationship with Eva Braun). Curious? Certainly. And was there perhaps a particular experience that could be used to pinpoint the beginning of this development? Cornish believes it was the encounter with Wittgenstein. He had already had a relationship with Pepi, the son of his Linz host parents, which in quick succession included "infatuation", "rupture", "half reconciliation", "semblance of innocence", "reconciliation" and "tenderness" (according to the diary notes). "Tenderness" of this kind may have been commonplace at Haus Wittgenstein, the finest address in the cultural Vienna of those days, with two older brothers experienced in the matter. In Linz, this seems at least questionable. Among pubescents there may well be occasional moments that one later prefers to sweep under the carpet of a gracious oblivion. But how would it have been if there had been "tenderness" between these two teenagers? lol

@Leo Gura Will you also tell us about how you do research on new psychedelics? I'd find that a lot more interesting than you just telling us about the psychedelic because it's pretty risky to experiment with completely unknown substances.. So I'd really like to know how you figure out which substance to experiment with

I guess that's just part of the identity he has built around his channel, just imagine him suddenly making "woo-woo" videos on "everything is consciousness and you're god"...

As if this made it any easier to understand??

If you're assuming that your past is imaginary, then there is nothing for you to deconstruct.

@Someone here What do you mean by "deconstructing memories"?

Did I? I'm not anti substance and I know that you're not either? I'm just saying that substance abuse is really fucking difficult to handle. We are all fools. And we are all hurt. Some of use more foolish and more hurt than others. That's when things become problematic. Yeah, easier said than done.

Substance abuse* Substance abuse is already the hell, not the promise. Alcohol or opiates promise heaven and if you feel like you're in hell, that's what creates the promise in the first place. And then comes the abuse. Well that's kinda the problem? if you aren't wise yet, you will get fooled by substances.

Yes. Substances promise heaven but deliver hell. Fooled.

You misunderstood what was said. I didn't say that I prefer people die and suffering, of course I don't. Don't strawman me like that. I said I think it shows a lack of compassion to laugh about people dying because they were stupid, afraid and didn't know any better. These videos won't prevent people from being idiots, that's completely naive to assume. If you're an anti-vaxxer, these videos are the last things that will convince you to take the shot, instead, they will drive you even deeper into antagonism because you hate to admit that people die because of ignorance and you hate that people laugh about it and make memes. Granted, maybe there's a few people who will be convinced to get vaccinated because of this, but that's a minority.

Stop identifying yourself as an "INFP". It's not a personality trait and it is not a valid psychometric classification.

I think it's deeply lacking in compassion to find amusement in the deaths of those who were misinformed, afraid and therefore lacking in trust and courage to do the right thing and save themselves and their love ones.

What are you trying to say?

Holy crap 7 more hours? God damn, Curt deserves some serious credit for being so open-minded. That's nuts. He is a paramount example for the future scientist. Hats off to Curt??

Yeah just avoid the subject. There's no reasoning with extremists of any kind. You did the right thing?

I did never say that it was "entirely man-made". But it's mostly man-made and there is just no credible research that says otherwise. First of all, people who "don't buy into the narrative of man-mad cc" are a minority. Secondly, yes, I think that most of them are either somewhat deluded or don't know how to conduct proper research and are extremely gullible for pseudoscience. I don't know what "research" you have done, but I can guarantee you that it goes against around 97% of scientific consensus. And that's a pretty damn bold stance to take, especially if one hasn't had any deep academic education in this field or even any scientific education at all. I'm not a climate scientist or ecologist, I'm a biologist. And if I am not a researcher in a certain academic field which is not at the frontiers of science itself (like for example research on consciousness or quantum physics would be), there is almost no good reason for me to believe that the petty "research" I have done on my own is in any way trumping that of hundreds of thousands of much, much more educated people than myself who have been studying this topic for more than a century. So please don't try to intellectually gaslight me with calling me dogmatic. Of course science isn't always right. Of course science can be dogmatic. Of course one has to be open-minded. But after a certain point you really have to ask yourself whether your opinion has any footing. As they say, "be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out".

Again, I don't know how viable/realistic that is. If I'm at let's say mostly stage green, it's difficult enough to even embody stage yellow in a healthy way, not to mention stage turquoise. That also applies to fragments of yellow/turquoise. Edit: I would worry that if I tried to embody, even fragmentarily, a value system that was too high for my current stage of development and didn't fit me, I would both lose integrity and adopt the values of the higher level in some corrupt way. I think that's a realistic risk.

You gotta ask yourself how realistic that is. I'm not saying you shouldn't do or try to do it, but I would rather worry about properly embodying the stage I'm at. Not to mention that at stage coral (whatever that would even look like), there's probably no more talk about "stage coral" or "spiral dynamics".

I do see the nuances and I do recognize if they have something valuable to say. But it doesn't really matter if they have 1 or 2 decent points in their whole 230 page Parteiprogramm and 10 absolutely reprehensible and or regressive ideas. This is spot on. They are stage blue through and though with some stage orange so as to not be completely backwards. Well in that case this discussion is pretty much over for me. Climate change is almost entirely man made and if your denying that, you might as well deny climate change itself, not to mention that you're denying decades worth of science on this issue. Please understand, I'm not being dogmatic on this - I couldn't care less whether it is man made or not, but I choose to side with science on this issue and it is clear. @peanutspathtotruth I suggest you give this a go: https://www.wahl-o-mat.de/bundestagswahl2021/app/main_app.html When you get to the last page, scroll all the way down and tick the box to select all the parties.

@Roy How do you want to know that Teal doesn't know anything about crypto currencies?

Lmao?? you say Die Grünen are deluded and ideological? but consider AfD to be stage green or yellow?!! "even if there's some dogma". Uh-huh.. they are racist and sexist and a threat to democracy. They are not diverse. There hasn't been a party as regressive as the AfD in Bundestag since, oh I don't know, probably NSDAP. AfD is a bunch of crypto fascists. Sorry für das dezente Ausrasten aber die AfD ist schlichtweg für die Tonne

This is Leo in 30 years?? I love Osho

I just came across this Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ I suggest you read all the points I selected from this study. If you don't want to read all of it, at least read the sections conclusions, discussions and the end; summary. Let me know what you think. Background: After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials. Areas of Uncertainty: The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses. Data Sources: Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns. Therapeutic Advances: A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns. Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. DISCUSSION Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates. In the context of ivermectin's long-standing safety record, low cost, and wide availability along with the consistent, reproducible, large magnitude of findings on transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and mortality, widespread deployment in both prevention and treatment has been proposed. Although a subset of trials are of an observational design, it must be recognized that in the case of ivermectin (1) half of the trials used a randomized controlled trial design (12 of the 24 reviewed above) and (2) observational and randomized trial designs reach equivalent conclusions on average as reported in a large Cochrane review of the topic from 2014.81 In particular, OCTs that use propensity-matching techniques (as in the Rajter study from Florida) find near identical conclusions to later-conducted RCTs in many different disease states, including coronary syndromes, critical illness, and surgery.82–84 Similarly, as evidenced in the prophylaxis (Figure (Figure1)1) and treatment trial (Figures (Figures22 and and3)3) meta-analyses as well as the summary trials table (Table (Table3),3), the entirety of the benefits found in both OCT and RCT trial designs aligns in both direction and magnitude of benefit. Such a consistency of benefit among numerous trials of varying sizes designs from multiple different countries and centers around the world is unique and provides strong, additional support. The continued challenges faced by health care providers in deciding on appropriate therapeutic interventions in patients with COVID-19 would be greatly eased if more updated and commensurate evidence-based guidance came from the leading governmental health care agencies. Currently, in the United States, the treatment guidelines for COVID-19 are issued by the National Institutes of Health. Their most recent recommendation on the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 was last updated on February 11, 2021, where they found that “there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against ivermectin in COVID-19.” For a more definitive recommendation to be issued by major leading public health agencies (PHA), it is apparent that even more data on both the quality and quantity of trials are needed, even during a global health care emergency, and in consideration of a safe, oral, low-cost, widely available and deployable intervention such as ivermectin. Fortunately, large teams sponsored by 2 different organizations have embarked on this effort. One team, sponsored by the Unitaid/WHO's ACT Accelerator Program and led by the University of Liverpool Senior Research Fellow Dr. Andrew Hill, is performing a systematic review and meta-analysis focused solely on ivermectin treatment RCTs in COVID-19. Although a preliminary meta-analysis of 17 RCTs was posted to a preprint server in February, it is expected that by March 19, 2021, results from approximately 27–29 RCTs including almost 4500 patients will be presented to the WHO Guidelines Committee and that the epidemiologic studies reviewed above by Chamie et al were already presented to the committee in early March (personal communication with Dr. Andrew Hill). It is important to note that on February 5, the WHO Guidelines Committee announced that they had begun a review of the accumulating ivermectin data and expected to arrive at their own formal treatment recommendation within 4–6 weeks. If the above benefits in clinical outcomes continue to be reported in the remaining trials, it is hoped that this almost doubling of the current supportive evidence base would merit a recommendation for use by the WHO, NIH, and other PHA's would be forthcoming. Because of the urgency of the pandemic, and in response to the surprising persistent inaction by the leading PHA's, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel was recently coordinated by the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd to more rapidly formulate an ivermectin treatment guideline using the standard guideline development process followed by the WHO. Made up of long-time research consultants to numerous national and international public health organizations including the WHO, they convened both a steering committee and a technical working group that then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. On February 12, 2021, a meeting was held that included an international consortium of 75 practitioners, researchers, specialists, and patient representatives representing 16 countries and most regions of the world. This Recommendation Development Panel was presented the results of the meta-analysis of 18 treatment RCTs and 3 prophylaxis RCTs including more than 2500 patients along with a summary of the observational trials and the epidemiologic analyses related to regional ivermectin use. After a discussion period, a vote was held on multiple aspects of the data on ivermectin, according to standard WHO guideline development processes. The Panel found the certainty of evidence for ivermectin's effects on survival to be strong and they recommended unconditional adoption for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. SUMMARY In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

@Paulus Amadeus As I (and now also Leo) said, you won't be able to think your way out of solipsism. The only way to realize the unreality of solipsism is through direct realization of no-self. Which is the same as realizing no-other. Which is the same as realizing that solipsism is false.