> did not find any short or long term negative effects
I think what the original comment refers to is that measuring long term side effects is kind of impossible without waiting a long time and wishful thinking.
I mean, I understand why someone might say that, but I think that's actually a critique of western medicine in general rather than this study in particular. In that I think it's understood that studies like this are measuring harms with commonly understood (but hard to rigorously define because you don't know what you don't know) limits.
We've found new harms for medicines or treatments many times, and in each case we generally had previous studies that missed those harms. It's always possible, so calling it out about mushrooms in particular feels odd because the same critique applies to the western approach to every other medicine.
You keep saying 'western' medicine. Is this to imply that some other method exists to study long term harms? I suppose long traditional use might, but this doesn't seem meaningfully different from running medical testing over a long period of time.
> Is this to imply that some other method exists to study long term harms?
Not that I trust? But I think it's important to note that this study has epistemological value within a certain set of axioms and not everyone in the world agrees with those axioms.
The reason it's important to say is that, to some degree, I feel like BiteCode_dev could be questioning an underlying axiom of western medicine (i.e. how to think about anecdotal harms we can't find in population studies). The western tradition has an opinion about the question, but none of us have to accept that opinion, but if we don't we should be honest that we disagree with the tradition in general as opposed to finding a flaw in this particular study.
I think what the original comment refers to is that measuring long term side effects is kind of impossible without waiting a long time and wishful thinking.