I'll be counted in.

Brief background:  episodic for 33 years, usually 2 cycle a year (May and October) for 8 to 10 weeks each time.
O2 responsive, using ergotamines only when I cant get to the O2.

IMO, I've successfully aborted 4 or 5 cycles with entheogens, the "best" was in 4 days.  For me this was unbelievable, better than I could have hoped for.  The last attempt at busting a cycle was in January this year, for some reason nothing was effective.
I've now begun an attempt at prevention, treating just prior to my expected May cycle, it's now June and so far it would seem I've avoided the expected return.

At this stage, this treatment may not be for everyone, due to medical and/or personal issues.  I respect the choices anyone makes for themselves.  Life is a choice, treatment is a choice.  Make yours for yourself based on information and what is right for you.

Over the last 5 or so years I've been rather quiet about my treatments publicly. (my medical doctor is well aware of my choices and has offered his support and understanding)
I've declined newspaper and TV interviews on this treatment for "personal and professional reasons", yet I admire greatly those that are able to and do speak out.

Where will this treatment go?  Who knows. 
Science and medical advances arise from observation, then asking the question "why and how".
We don't have the answers right now, we only have case studies and observational reports.  It's a start and in my opinion a damn good start.

Often when dealing in medications, the answers to how and why are unknown, the human body and it's response are varied and irregular, in most any condition and often in CH.

Just for fun, I looked up acetaminophen (tylenol) or rx.list.com, how does it work and why does it work. 
Their answer to that: "Although the exact site and mechanism of analgesic action is not clearly defined, acetaminophen appears to produce analgesia by elevation of the pain threshold"

Appears to.  How???  Observational evidence only. 
I don't raise this to perpetuate the argumentative potential of this thread, I wish to stop that before it develops.
Instead, lets ask the question "how and why" the entheogen treatment   works and continue to gather the evidence as it arises.  Going forward in search of the answers.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Science (in part) as:
   1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
   2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
   3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Those than have and are able to join in this search for the science of entheogenic treatment of cluster headache are to be commended, as are those that are also unable to do so for whatever reason.

We're all in this together and together we may find the answers.
Questions, with respect and caring. 
And always honor the choices that other make for themselves.

Regards
Doug

(PART_1)
Bobw (Pinkfloyd)
Quote:
“None of these things, including Imitrex and oxygen, have the success of psychedelics in the treatment of clusters. You can believe me or not. Believe the dozens of people that have testified to their effectiveness, or not. They've been talked about here for YEARS and the effectiveness remains the same....75-80% of people using them, BREAK their cycles early. People that have been chronic for years, are now episodic and happy about it. Episodes they can control or eliminate.“

form
The Lancet Neurology
Volume 5, Issue 9 , September 2006, Page 732

“John Halpern (Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, Belmont, USA), who is instigating studies on psilocybin and LSD for cluster headaches with study lead Andrew Sewell…..
Halpern and colleagues did a questionnaire study of 53 people taking psilocybin or LSD for cluster headaches. Although Halpern says that speculation on mechanisms is premature before efficacy studies are done, 22 of the 53 patients reported partial or complete efficacy from subhallucinogenic doses. If proven in rigorous studies, such efficacy might lie in the serotonergic action that characterises most hallucinogens…… “

22 out of 53 that is “only”  41.82% (which is good by itself) and it was not a study just a questionnaire……..
Bob where do you get your Numbers, have you ever seen a study that supports your claim, a study that
was done by an independent person or institute? or “just” what you have collected? even so I would
like to believe it, some in the medical world say differently……. (see below “The Guardian”)

Bobw (Pinkfloyd)
Quote:
Ya know, I look at the list of subject headers here and I see people extolling the virtues…. Suboccipital injections. Worried about side effects,
I am worried, I think I am doing every thing one can do to try and find out what are the potential side
effects of the “injection” and for that I (the hospital) use very modern equipment and the knowledge of the hospital
I am a treated at, and the will and dedication of good people trying to help me find out all the
information possible, and that as a case study, that can help some of us find relive from CH,
and I still didn’t see the light, I am on my way, I hope, but I see the light on the end of the tunnel,
but its not the only light, just one more (possible) way to battle CH.
Bob can you point me to one Study that was done in the modern time (past the 1980) about “Lysergsäure-diethylamid” or better known as LSD and its possible (or not)  adverse effects on the humans. A study and not testimonials.

Mark Honigsbaum  The Guardian, Tuesday August 2 2005 .
“Peter Goadsby, professor of neurology at the Institute of Neurology, University College London, and the world's leading expert on cluster headaches, is sceptical about the mushroom therapy.
He argues that the relief reported by some patients may be a placebo effect or owing to natural remission.

AussieBrian wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 3:04pm:


Thanks Brian,
As I've said all along, skeptics are as essential (if not more so) to the research process as those that support that research. Without questions, there are no answers. It takes passion on both sides of the equation to come to the best possible answer, in the end.

Bobw

Thanks Babe

wildhaus wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 3:31pm:



This information wasn't collected by me or clusterbusters. It was collected by researchers at Harvard Medical School. The process for publishing a case series like this is very much different than my collecting data. The process of collection and the findings are approved by a peer-review board.

Don't you find it interesting and a bit odd that there isn't an avalance of studies about the bad side effects of LSD and psilocybin?
If you can't find any studies outlining the adverse effects of psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin, there is a good reason for this.
The only people spending any money researching these things, other than the few regarding clusters, OCD, PTSD and a few others, are the government. The government has spent millions trying to find out the dangers. They don't spend much time publishing the reports that advertise the safety of illegal drugs.

I will try to find more data for you. We will be conducting phase two trials. Phase one trials test the safety of a treatment. The safety work has been done.

here is one report by the Dutch government you might find interesting;
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

I imagine you've seen the British study published in the Lancet about the dangers of drugs.
here is a link to an article about it.....I don't have the Lancet link right here....
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

You'll notice that psilocybin in nowhere to be found

Bobw

On the other hand, I would like to voice my opinion of how this thread was started. BobW opening post was all about the benefit of psychedelic treatment, no mention of possible problems or side effects or contraindications to its use. When I asked further, Nani pointed out that the answers to those questions could be found in clusterbuster website.

My question is: Why not have an opening post outlying BOTH the positive and the negative effects of using psychedelic substance for CH ? Wouldnt that be more transparent to readers? Then if anyone has a more specific question it can be referred to the website.

My personal feeling, when reading an opening post advertising ONLY the good point then urging people to another website where the discussion forum is kept off limit to guests, is similar to how I feel about a snake oil peddler coming here proclaiming the efficacy of their magical products then ushering enquiries to their own websites.

I am not criticizing BobW personally nor the use of psychedelics, I just felt uncomfortable with the way it was "advertised" .

wildhaus wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 11:27am:


First of all it isn't illegal everywhere. What's the problem with going to the Netherlands for a short trip and just try it once?

And "ethical reasons"... lol ,sorry for being harsh but that's a bs. What do you mean by "ethical reasons"?

[quote author=73717B6673717E140 link=1212882305/25#38 date=1212979255
 Everything has consequences, but the consequences attending water-drinking or ingesting an energy drink are inconsequential.

[/quote]

Nice post George, thank you.

Just an interesting point about the statement about drinking water being inconsequential.
Not to make a point other than this story being interesting, at least to me...maybe others.

During the time the case series work was being done at Harvard (the report in Neurology) I approached the powers to be at Harvard to see if they would be interested in doing something similar with the waterx3 treatment. Wanting to see if something could come of it, including letting more people become aware of the treatment option and also to see if, 1, it could be improved upon by determing how and why it works (for some) and 2, if we could come up with a set process for helping people. Such as, how much is best , etc.
(see...clusterbusters looks everywhere for help, not just hallucinogens)

Anyway......even though Harvard was willing to become involved in this process for mushrooms and LSD, they were not willing to take a chance on WATER.
They felt it was too dangerous and that they could be held liable if anything went wrong..and someone actually died from drinking too much water.
You can enter this into your Believe it or Not folder, but it's true.
Now, I'm not saying that Harvard believes that water is more dangerous than LSD. (although they chose to monitor an LSD/psilocybin case series and not the water, due to safety concerns)
There are dangers with drinking too much water and people DO die from drinking too much water.
They felt asking people to "drink a lot of water and see what happens to your clusters" left it too open for people to drink more than what was safe. People think water is so safe, that if say 8 glasses a day was good for their clusters, they may choose to drink 40 glasses to see if it was better.
There are also other heath problems that could cause some people to have a higher risk of serious problems from drinking too much water.

They felt that even if we told them how much to drink, they might drink more, due to its being......inconsequential.

People don't think of LSD or Psilocybin in this way so the fear of overdoing it, isn't as large a fear with psychedelics, as it is with water.

So, there you have it, nothing is inconsequential under the right circumstances.

Bobw

Here's my story; more eloquently put than I ever could have:

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Original source: Arran Frood - Nature Medicine; January 2007

As with most journalism these days, there are a couple of untruths.  For example, you may want to reconsider the statement "...a respectable middle-aged man..."

Also, if you download the PDF, the author apologises upfront for the blatantly incorrect photograph of the medication on page two; it was the editors what done it

-Lee

Quote:

I wonder if daily doses of RC or shrooms would have the same side effects?

The survey numbers are just numbers that can be skewed by many things.  The people they worked for are anxious to tell the world they worked.  Hell yes I'll join the survey.

Those they didn't work for are less anxious.  I think the survey called for the release of your medical records.  Maybe someone they didn't work for would be less anxious to release their records (hey, it's bogus, why shold I give some guy I don't know my medical records).

We'll never really be sure of the numbers until a trial is done.

Quote:

Caqrl, I think you're carrying some baggage there boy.  This place has been anything but hush hush regarding alternatives.  It's been discussed freely since day one and will continue to be.

The answers to everyone's questions is available at Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Scroll down the main page about halfway and read the Spring 2008 report for additional info.

It's been along time since this subject got this kind of attention.
I tried "accepted" meds once, felt like crap and suffered more than ever. I tried RC seeds and they worked. Prevent and abort.
For the skepitics, don't knock it until you try it. The result should be evidence enough.