Holden D'Avico
Mr. Ippolito
AP Bio/Current Event 1 Article
9/24/20
“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
The article I read provided an analysis on the findings of an important study on the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs, conducted by scientists in the UNC Lab and the Stanford Lab. Psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline cause long-lasting hallucinations and are currently not being used for therapeutic purposes, however, recently scientists have discovered that these drugs also have very positive therapeutic effects on people with mental disorders or depression. In order to better understand how these drugs work, the scientists used new cry-electron microscopy technology which allows them to observe the structure of the drug when it attaches to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor on the surface of brain cells. The article has a informative, objective tone; the author presents the findings of the study and is very optimistic of this new technology and how it can reveal the positive therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs.
The information and findings presented in the article are very important to humanity in general because they reveal a new purpose for a drug that was previously thought of as a hallucinator. With more and more research being conducted with this new cry-electron microscopy technology, psychedelic drugs can be used to treat patients with mental disorders and severe depression. Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in mushrooms has been granted breakthrough status by the FDA to treat depression. If scientists can better understand LSD and other drugs, they can alter the composition of the drug so when it attaches to the serotonin receptor in the brain, it doesn't cause severe, long-lasting hallucinations but instead provides beneficial therapeutic effects for people who need it. Also, this type of breakthrough can be applied to many other areas of sciences where drugs/operations/foods that were previously thought to be harmful could be altered to improve people's lives.
After reading this article, I have very few negative things to say about it. The article had a logical flow, providing information and findings in an order that was easy to follow and understand. I would've liked for the article to go deeper into the actual science behind the technology used to analyze these drugs, however, I was still able to learn a lot from the article about how the chemical compositions of certain drugs can be altered to provide therapeutic effects. The article maintained an informative and objective tone throughout, which kept the tone consistent with the subject of the article. The article also provided direct quotes from medical researchers and professionals which I appreciated because it legitimized the article. If I were to change one thing about the article, I would discuss the process behind cry-electron microscopy technology more deeply, as well as analyze the reaction that occurs at the serotonin receptor more in depth. Overall, it was a very informative and interesting article that provided me with new information on a topic I had never heard about before.
University of North Carolina Health Care. (2020, September 17). A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor. Science Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm
ReplyDeleteD'Avico, Holden. "A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor." Blogspot.com, 23 Sept. 2020, https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-scientific-first-how-psychedelics.html
Holden's review of, "A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor," is an insightful look into the future of medicinal drug use. One of my favorite parts about Holden's review was the second paragraph where he explains the significance to his audience. By explaining the significance of this new breakthrough, I was able to understand why this would be beneficial for society. This occurs many times in the article, but specifically at the start of paragraph two, Holden explains why understanding drug attachment to the brain can lead to possible medical benefits. I also liked that Holden talked about the more complex parts of the research, but he didn't get too caught up in the details. Although he is talking about an extremely complicated topic, his writing is still easy to understand. He weaves in the more complicated words with ease and still gets his message across. For instance, when Holden talks about the "new cry-electron microscopy technology,'' he immediately explains the use of the machine. Although I may not be fully familiar with this piece of technology, his easy to understand explanation doesn't make me feel bogged down in the details. Another great part about Holden's review is that he doesn't hesitate to give constructive criticism. In the last paragraph, he mentions that although the article was informative, and overall excellent, there were places to improve. The quick suggestions Holden gives make him seem much more credible as an author and it reinforces his own claims that he made in the review.
One of the weaknesses of Holden's review is undeveloped ideas. Holden introduces many enticing ideas to us, the readers, but sometimes the ideas are not fully developed. For instance, at the end of the second paragraph, Holden mentions that other drugs and foods could be looked at through a new lens as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline are being relooked at right now. This in itself is a fine place to leave the paragraph. I think it would be stronger, however, if he gave some examples of drugs that might be relooked at in the future or some drugs that have been re-examined in the past. One example I think of immediately is marijuana. In many states, marijuana is not legalized recreationally, but solely medicinally. Another instance of underdevelopment is in the last paragraph, when Holden is giving a criticism of the article. Holden mentions that he wishes the article went deeper into the technology used to analyze the drugs. I wish he mentioned what aspects he felt were undeveloped because in his initial paragraph, he seemed to comprehend the scientific aspect of the technology pretty well. So, his criticism seemed a bit confusing to be. Obviously, this critique is easily resolved by Holden just expanding on his ideas a little bit more. Clearly, his original thoughts are very insightful and unique. More of those in his review would be very refreshing.
This review was very interesting for me to read. LSD and other hallucinogens are looked down on in the same way that marijuana was 5-10 years ago. It's also crazy to think that maybe in 5-10 years we might look at drugs like cocaine completely differently. This article and review are a great example of "the times are changing." What is something that I think is good that I will think is bad in the future? And vice versa? This article and review have changed the way I look at the future. Not to mention, I also learned about hallucinogenic drugs and the brain.
The review Holden D’Avico performed on the article: "A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors." was very interesting and informative. He discusses an analysis on the findings of an important study on the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs, conducted by scientists in the UNC Lab and the Stanford Lab. I like how he was straightforward with the information. When he stated that “In order to better understand how these drugs work, the scientists used new cry-electron microscopy technology which allows them to observe the structure of the drug when it attaches to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor on the surface of brain cells”, it was a good way to put the information because it was a bunch of information packed into one sentence. I also appreciate how he was able to captivate the reader by using captivating words at the beginning like important and therapeutic. He did a good job stating things in his article that could have been improved and fixed in the future.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Holden could improve on is explaining how and why he chose the article. He did not provide any reasoning behind her decision to write about it. Holden’s analysis was also very short and didn't provide the detail she needed to do the article justice. He could provide a longer analysis that makes the reader feel he has read the full article and knows what it is about. She also did not state the importance of the article. To improve, Holden could spend more time talking about the details explained as well as making more connections as to why he chose the article and inserting the importance to deepen her analysis.
I chose this article because it was very interesting and I enjoy reading things like this. I also wanted to see Holden’s writing style as I have never looked at one of his reviews before. By reading this article I learned that Psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline cause long-lasting hallucinations and are currently not being used for therapeutic purposes, however, recently scientists have discovered that these drugs also have very positive therapeutic effects on people with mental disorders or depression. It will change my perception because now I have another piece of knowledge that I can use.
Citation:
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors.” ScienceDaily,ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
Blog Link:
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/
Overall, this review of “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors” was very strong and successfully outlined the article in a clear and concise manner. One positive aspect of this write-up is the fact that the author provided a very straightforward and clear summary of the article. He took a complex subject and made it digestible for those reading his current event by starting off the paragraph with a sentence that quickly summarized the findings and gave background to the scientists behind the study. For instance, he wrote, “The article I read provided an analysis on the findings of an important study on the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs, conducted by scientists in the UNC Lab and the Stanford Lab.” Another positive aspect of the write-up was his logical tone. While the author interjects his own opinions at points, overall the writing comes across as very rational and analytical, which contributes to the overall insightfulness of the piece. A third aspect of the current event that I found was done well was the way in which he connected it to a much larger and more significant idea: “this type of breakthrough can be applied to many other areas of sciences where drugs/operations/foods that were previously thought to be harmful could be altered to improve people's lives”. By connecting the focus on psychedelics to potential changes in the medicinal industry as a whole, the author successfully engages the reader and highlights the relevance of his topic.
While this was generally a very strong current event review, there are some key areas for improvement. For instance, I would suggest the author delves more deeply into the nuances of the topics he mentioned. Ideas such as how psychedelics can be used to treat depression or what other foods and drugs could be altered in a similar way are, at times, underdeveloped. In addition, I would encourage the author to cite more specific examples from the article. While his criticisms and analysis are both very strong, it would be made stronger by referencing specific quotes or pieces of information. Despite these potential improvements, this review was succinct, informative, and well written.
This topic was incredibly engaging and discussed a very interesting new aspect of the scientific frontier. It is fascinating to think about how little is known about these drugs and to question the medical possibilities they could enable. It is also interesting to think about how these discoveries could challenge existing societal perceptions of psychedelics. Drugs in general are thought of in such a negative light, that often the thought of using them for medical purposes is seen as absurd. These are the same questions and debates that were being made and are being made regarding medical marijuana. In addition, I learned a great deal about the chemical and biological processes in which psychedelics affect the brain and how they could be used to treat depression. Overall, I found this article and review very informative and engaging.
Citation:
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors.” ScienceDaily,ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
Blog Link:
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/
Holden Davico's review of “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” was well written and provided a detailed and informational overview of the information given in the article. First of all, Holden’s choice of article was a particularly interesting one, a majority of the population today sees drugs such as marijuana and hallucinogenics like LSD as taboo, because they have been deemed illegal by the US government. However, as with many other issues the US government may have a law that is overly zealous. However, despite how interesting this topic Holden chose was, it is not an easy one to understand-and he did a thorugh job of explaining the information without using terms that are not well known and going off on tangents. When Holden had to use sophisticated terminology, he put it in context that made it easier to understand, such as when he discussed ”Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in mushrooms…”In this instance, he was able to clearly articulate his point, without launching an unnecessary discussion. The information is well presented and Holden provides a lot of it, but he only provides what needs to be read to understand the article-which helps eliminate confusion for the reader. My only criticism for Holden would be that in doing this, he may have oversimplified the topic, and omitted information on how the psychedelics could actually be applied to everyday life, and a detailed explanation of how they impact neurological states. Holden’s review could have benefited from adding more information to his statement that “psychedelic drugs can be used to treat patients with mental disorders and depression…” because the follow up is slightly difficult to understand. Being able to provide only the important information and interpreting difficult topics to help the reader more easily understand them is a difficult skill to acquire, so despite my criticism for Holden, he wrote an impressive review of an article that covers such a complex topic.
The information that Holden provides is not only understandable, but it is very important to make known. He advertises the possibilities of hallucinogenics in medicine and in doing so is educating many people on a topic they did not even know existed. The prospect of an illegal psychedelic having “very positive therapeutic effects” is an incredible scientific breakthrough that Holden is able to portray. Holden is able to present this information and give a complete and detailed analysis of the article itself, without distracting from the point of the article. I feel as if Holden’s review was well preformed and well received by me and the others who will read it.
University of North Carolina Health Care. (2020, September 17). A scientific first: How
ReplyDeletepsychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor. Science Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm
D'Avico, Holden. "A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor."
Blogspot.com, 23 Sept. 2020, https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-scientific-first-how-psychedelics.html
Holden reviewed an article titled “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” This article discusses the effects of psychedelic drugs and how they can be used for therapeutic and medical use. I believe Holden did lots of things very well when presenting this article. Firstly, I thought he discussed the experimentation of these drugs right. I also thought he did a very good job presenting the drugs as a new and upcoming scientific revolution which made me more excited to read his review and look more into the topic. I also thought Holden did a great job presenting all of the relevant information without making his review too technical and dense so that it would be boring and confusing. He made sure to stress the possible uses of these discoveries which I enjoyed. I also thought he did a great job listing the things the article did well as well as what the article could have improved on.
While Holden did do a very good job, I thought there were a few areas where he could have improved. First off, I wish Holden discussed the possible legal liabilities of this new technology. This was something that confused me throughout the article and I wish I was informed of. I also thought Holden could have done a better job discussing how scientists planned to rework the psychedelics to function better. This is something which may not have been in the article so I do not fault him too much. Besides these minor details, I thought Holden did a very good job.
I learned a lot from Holden’s review. I had never even heard of psychedelics as a possibility for beneficial medical and therapeutic use. This really interested me. I chose Holden’s review because his title really interested me. This was something which I really wanted to know more about and I applaud him for an excellent article choice. This really changed my perception on things which society often views as negative. It has shown me that bad things can be used for good and I hope to learn from it going forward.
Citation:
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
Blog Link:
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/
Response:
Holden did a very thorough job outlining the subject of this article and he took a somewhat complex topic, making it easy to understand. The first aspect of his review that was really well done is the summary in the first paragraph. I hadn’t yet read the article, but was immediately hooked by his description of it. The primary sentence that drew me in was, “In order to better understand how these drugs work, the scientists used new cry-electron microscopy technology which allows them to observe the structure of the drug when it attaches to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor on the surface of brain cells.” I like that Holden mentioned the cry-electron microscopy and 5-HT2A but didn’t fully explain what they were. This gave me incentive to dive into the article and learn more about the topic. Another interesting (and effective) choice that Holden made was explaining why we as readers should care about this topic. The findings from the article are a breakthrough for psychedelic depression treatment and mental health is a topic that many people can empathize with. The inclusion of the detail,”the psychedelic compound in mushrooms has been granted breakthrough status by the FDA to treat depression,” specifically made the findings of the article more viable. A final thing that Holden exceeded at was matching the tone of the article in his review. He mentioned multiple times the informative tone of the article and he seemed to mirror this approach. He taught us new ideas and concepts, while keeping us engaged. He did this by not going into too much detail that we wouldn’t even feel the need to explore the article.
At some points in his review, the inclusion of specific information from the article would’ve been helpful. For instance, when Holden continuously mentioned the article’s informative tone, hearing some specific quotes from the article would’ve helped me to better understand his assertions. This weakness could’ve been fixed by including any phrases from the article that proved his claim of an informative tone. Another weakness that I saw in Holden’s review was his tendency to leave ideas unfinished. I mentioned how this was effective in the first paragraph but in later paragraphs it starts to become a negative. A specific part where some more information would’ve helped is when Holden says he wishes the article went deeper into topics such as microscopy. If he would’ve included some specific details of what he would’ve liked to see, this would improve the review.
This review and the information that it provided were incredibly interesting to me. Drugs such as LSD and marijuana are looked at as harmful and they definitely can be in certain instances, but this article proves that they can also be helpful if used correctly. It really makes me think about what the future of medicine and treatment could look like. Drugs that are illegal right now could be life-saving medications in the future. My perception of many drugs has definitely changed because of this article and I’m hopeful we may be able to find the positives of them eventually.
Citation:
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors.” ScienceDaily,ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
Blog Link:
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/
This review of “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors” by Holden D'avico was well written, to the point and informative. Holden did an exemplary job of explaining a difficult topic by only presenting the most important information, and using understandable language. This topic was a particularly interesting one, and regarded a complicated topic that included specific terminology I did not know. Holden only used complex words when they were necessary to the explanation and in those cases he gave a brief definition of them such as when he introduced " ”Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound in mushrooms…”. In this instance he was able to clearly articulate his point, without launching into an unnecessary and distracting explanation. Even with his directness, Holden was able to include a lot of valuable information that was both interesting and relevant to his discussion.
One of the best aspects of Holden's review was his discussion of why this topic is important and how it applies to our lives. He states that these discoveries about LSD and other hallucinogenics will not only help in curing depression but "this type of breakthrough can be applied to many other areas of sciences where drugs/operations/foods that were previously thought to be harmful could be altered to improve people's lives." However, it would have been a more meaningful statement had Holden given a few specific examples of the impacts these breakthroughs could have (i.e. what drugs/food). This information may be hard to find but it would certainly enrich that claim. My only other criticism is that Holden did not provide many cited examples from his reading, which would have helped me in knowing the validity of his statements.
Overall, I learned a lot of information about the biological and chemical effects of psychedelics, which I find incredibly interesting because I agree with Holden in the belief there is a great possibility of the applications of drugs and medicine that is now considered "taboo”. In this review Holden taught me that “...the psychedelic compound in mushrooms has been granted breakthrough status by the FDA to treat depression,” I am aware that there has been headway in movements towards using marijuana more casually and for medical purposes and that had begged questions about other drugs, but I was not previously aware that there had been such progress already. I find it interesting that substances that have been or still are illegal and considered dangerous can actually be used for medical progress in mental health treatment.
Citations:
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm.
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-scientific-first-how-psychedelics.html
Holden D’Avico’s review on the article: "A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptors." was an insightful look at a topic that some would view as pseudoscientific. One of the strongest points of his review was his objective tone throughout. Due to his straightforward writing, I was able to easily understand what was being said and the significance of the discoveries made. Another of the strong points of Holden’s review was his ability to describe complex ideas and concepts in a relatively simple and easy to understand way. One example of this is his description of the “cry-electron microscopy technology which allows them to observe the structure of the drug when it attaches to the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor on the surface of brain cells.” He breaks down one of the most important and complex concepts in the article with ease while still maintaining the reader’s interest. A third and final thing that Holden did well was bridging the gap between the findings in the article that he was reviewing and its significance in the real world. He writes “If scientists can better understand LSD and other drugs, they can alter the composition of the drug so...it doesn't cause severe, long-lasting hallucinations but instead provides beneficial therapeutic effects for people who need it. He connects the findings in the article with benefits for humanity in general in a fairly simple and easy to understand way, making his review much more compelling.
While Holden’s article has very few flaws and was well written and easy to understand, one thing he could have done better was providing an explanation for what he personally found compelling about the discoveries made in the article. If that was added, I think it would have made the review all the more compelling because the reader would gain a more human understanding of the article. It would seem like less of an assignment and more of something that he was actually passionate about. Moreover, at times the ideas that he mentions are not always fully developed. For the purpose of a school blog post I think that the level of detail was acceptable, but at times I was left wanting more information. It is a genuinely interesting topic, so adding more details would satisfy the reader’s interest.
Ultimately, Holden’s article was an interesting take on a topic that some would consider controversial. It is interesting how drugs such as psilocybin are becoming more and more mainstream as they are used more frequently for medical reasons. The medical usage of substances considered “street drugs” is of interest to me because it just goes to show how most things can have a positive effect if used in the right way. It is interesting to see that even some of the strongest drugs known to man, such as LSD, are now being used in medicine. As well as learning about this topic, Holden’s article also described the brain’s processes well, making this an interesting review on both a broad and specific level.
University of North Carolina Health Care. (2020, September 17). A scientific first: How
ReplyDeletepsychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor. Science Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm
D'Avico, Holden. "A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptor."
Blogspot.com, 23 Sept. 2020, https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-scientific-first-how-psychedelics.html
Holden reviewed an article titled “A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” This article discusses the effects of psychedelic drugs and how they can be used for therapeutic and medical use. I believe Holden did lots of things very well when presenting this article. Firstly, I thought he discussed the experimentation of these drugs right. I also thought he did a very good job presenting the drugs as a new and upcoming scientific revolution which made me more excited to read his review and look more into the topic. I also thought Holden did a great job presenting all of the relevant information without making his review too technical and dense so that it would be boring and confusing. He made sure to stress the possible uses of these discoveries which I enjoyed. I also thought he did a great job listing the things the article did well as well as what the article could have improved on.
While Holden did do a very good job, I thought there were a few areas where he could have improved. First off, I wish Holden discussed the possible legal liabilities of this new technology. This was something that confused me throughout the article and I wish I was informed of. I also thought Holden could have done a better job discussing how scientists planned to rework the psychedelics to function better. This is something which may not have been in the article so I do not fault him too much. Besides these minor details, I thought Holden did a very good job.
I learned a lot from Holden’s review. I had never even heard of psychedelics as a possibility for beneficial medical and therapeutic use. This really interested me. I chose Holden’s review because his title really interested me. This was something which I really wanted to know more about and I applaud him for an excellent article choice. This really changed my perception on things which society often views as negative. It has shown me that bad things can be used for good and I hope to learn from it going forward.
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm
Holden’s take on the article, “A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptors” was very intriguing and even enlightening to me. This article could be a look into the future of medicine, along the lines of mental illness. Holden’s analysis of this article was spot on, and by reading his summary of the article, I was able to absorb the information precisely and informatively. For example, in the first paragraph, after he listed some of the psychedelic drugs patients could be potentially using, he had a very clear description that followed it. He was to the point on who these drugs could help, and how, and he did it with simplicity yet still with good depth and valid information. Another great example of Holden’s analysis is in the second paragraph. Here, he again focuses on who these drugs will be targeting, but what I liked the most about this part was how he mentioned the fact of a negative side effect in taking these drugs. He didn’t let his mind sway away from the fact that these drugs can be extremely dangerous and damaging, if not properly used and taken care of. On the same note, I enjoyed how he approached his third paragraph. He seemed very knowledgeable on the article, and maybe not so much on the topic yet, but he acknowledged that he was able to learn a lot and express his own opinion on this controversial topic in the future of medicine.
Although I felt Holden did a great job in reviewing this article, I could point out a couple things that he could improve on. First off, is the lack of depth in some of his points. A few of Holden’s points throughout the article were very strong, but I seemed to be left on edge with them. He could have had more information and went deeper into some of these topics; For example, when he talked about the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor. Furthermore, I feel like Holden could have done a better job in quoting some of his writing. He could have again looked for some valid quotes to further strengthen his argument and review.
After reading this review, I was fascinated by how much potential these “illegal and dangerous” drugs have in the medical industry. I would have never thought that something like LSD could have a chance at helping a mentally ill patient, so this really broadened my perspective on some importances of drugs.
ReplyDelete“A Scientific First: How Psychedelics Bind to Key Brain Cell Receptor.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 17 Sept. 2020, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200917181259.htm
Holden’s take on the article, “A scientific first: How psychedelics bind to key brain cell receptors” was very intriguing and even enlightening to me. This article could be a look into the future of medicine, along the lines of mental illness. Holden’s analysis of this article was spot on, and by reading his summary of the article, I was able to absorb the information precisely and informatively. For example, in the first paragraph, after he listed some of the psychedelic drugs patients could be potentially using, he had a very clear description that followed it. He was to the point on who these drugs could help, and how, and he did it with simplicity yet still with good depth and valid information. Another great example of Holden’s analysis is in the second paragraph. Here, he again focuses on who these drugs will be targeting, but what I liked the most about this part was how he mentioned the fact of a negative side effect in taking these drugs. He didn’t let his mind sway away from the fact that these drugs can be extremely dangerous and damaging, if not properly used and taken care of. On the same note, I enjoyed how he approached his third paragraph. He seemed very knowledgeable on the article, and maybe not so much on the topic yet, but he acknowledged that he was able to learn a lot and express his own opinion on this controversial topic in the future of medicine.
Although I felt Holden did a great job in reviewing this article, I could point out a couple things that he could improve on. First off, is the lack of depth in some of his points. A few of Holden’s points throughout the article were very strong, but I seemed to be left on edge with them. He could have had more information and went deeper into some of these topics; For example, when he talked about the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor. Furthermore, I feel like Holden could have done a better job in quoting some of his writing. He could have again looked for some valid quotes to further strengthen his argument and review.
After reading this review, I was fascinated by how much potential these “illegal and dangerous” drugs have in the medical industry. I would have never thought that something like LSD could have a chance at helping a mentally ill patient, so this really broadened my perspective on some importances of drugs.