The False Promise of Psychedelic Drugs

Overstating potential and diminishing dangers associated with psychedelic drugs only hurts the future of this burgeoning area of research.

As the “renaissance” of psychedelics continues in full force, researchers and media outlets continue to make lofty claims ahead of conclusive evidence.

We’re not saying psychedelics can’t help, but overstating their efficacy actively harms research and its future.

Current clinical trials largely depend on the participant not knowing whether they take a drug or a placebo — something which is difficult when dealing with psychedelics.

Imagine not knowing whether you were tripping your ass off.

Some research has begun exploring alternative control methods but there’s a problem: the placebo effect impacts the active group as well.

Turning Expectations Into Reality

The “placebo effect” doesn’t mean nothing happens. It’s the measure of our capability to make the change we expect to happen on our own.

You can read the many ways this happens in our article on the topic. tl;dr: After anticipating a positive (or negative) symptom, syndrome, or effect, your body begins to match it with endogenous chemicals.

And our minds of capable of a lot, by the way. In our VR post, we shared how a VR app with N64-level graphics lowered pain levels in burn victims by immersing them in a blocky snow world with chunky snowmen.

For participants, enhanced belief in the efficacy of treatment could:

1. Skew Success Levels — If participants expect success, they're more likely to experience it, at least temporarily. Very few long-term studies on the efficacy of treatment have come out yet and most stop checking back after 3-6 months.

2. Heighten Negative Potential — It isn’t difficult to differentiate between a placebo and a psychedelic drug. Participants expecting their chance for healing will likely feel higher levels of negative emotions upon realizing they’re in the control group.

The anticipation surrounding psychedelics is hard to limit, and the passion of advocates (and corporations with money signs in place of eyeballs) reinforces it.

The researcher, the participant, and the study's conclusion all have an underlying bias that scientists must work through if they wish to gain the knowledge they seek.

Researcher Expectations Are Leading the Way for MAPS & Peers

Corporate interests swim in the opposite direction of negative outcomes in psychedelic trials, yet they largely control the funding.

In phase II trials for MDMA and PTSD, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) recorded adverse psychiatric conditions for 26/72 participants.

These were all in the active group, receiving two doses and extensive therapy.

At the endpoint, 11/37 respondents still recorded suicidal ideation, along with the disclaimer that some of the data are incomplete because the survey was "inadvertently not administered for some subjects."

This information is included in secondary information the authors add as an attachment to the study.

Within the content of their reporting, they downplay the serious adverse events (SAEs) and say, "There were no unexpected MDMA-related SAEs."

Confusingly, they then begin describing some of the adverse events that, in fact, did occur in the study:

[Increases in suicide ideation] was more common in the active MDMA group, although the causal relationship to the psychotherapeutic processing of traumatic memories or to MDMA itself, or to random group differences could not be determined.

Nearly 30% of this pool still had suicidal thought patterns and ideation — roughly the same as the percentage of people who find current treatments ineffective.

MAPS funds these studies, and out of the 18 teams of therapists in the phase II trials, "all but one team were trained in the MAPS Therapy Training Program."

MAPS' decision to overplay its hand and control the facilitation process only serves to cause harm to the psychedelic industry down the road.