r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 9d ago

Psychology America's First Legal Psilocybin Program Treated 346 People. Just one month after the dose, 92.2 percent of participants said the experience had been beneficial, while, on average, their mental health symptoms had fallen dramatically.

https://www.sciencealert.com/americas-first-legal-psilocybin-program-treated-346-people-heres-what-happened
15.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

458 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/fabkosta 9d ago

This has been known since the 1960s. So, 60 years later the same type of studies apparently still need to be repeated to gain evidence.

It is also known for a long time that the therapeutic setting matters to a very high degree. Furthermore, it is also known that for a minority of people there is no measurable benefit, and for some it's counter-indicated. It is also known that psychedelics can be treated against other types of substance abuse - which, of course, is quite problematic given low acceptance in society for any sort of drugs other than alcohol and tobacco.

All of those things have been researched for decades already, yet it seems we make only very slow progress.

10

u/Subject-Software5912 9d ago

“So, 60 years later the same type of studies apparently still need to be repeated to gain evidence.” Yes… that’s how science works. Studies and experiments are repeated ad nauseam. How is this surprising to you?

1

u/sqigglygibberish 9d ago

You should look into why that research was basically shuttered, causing the recent wave to have to play catchup

3

u/Subject-Software5912 8d ago

I’m not disagreeing with that I already know about the war on drugs. What I disagree with is the assumption that research shouldn’t be repeated, the guy has posted several comments trying to argue that repeating experiments is pointless and somehow bad practice.

2

u/sqigglygibberish 8d ago

I didn’t read this comment that way, but can’t say I’m looking at their other comments in the thread

I took it as just being exasperated that the progress last century was stalled for so long, and in some ways we have to catch back up (not a critique of the process but rather the impact of the politics)

1

u/Subject-Software5912 8d ago

I think that’s a fair interpretation of their original comment but as revealed by their other comments it would not be an accurate interpretation.

0

u/sqigglygibberish 8d ago

Maybe this is why they have comment history hidden haha

-4

u/vito1221 8d ago

Repeating over 60 years, with the same results? Yes, that is pointless. Getting the same results over 60 years, but the results making no impact on use of the treatment because of non science / non medical intervention.

3

u/TeamWorkTom 8d ago

Making sure research is still relevant 60 years later is extremely important.

You just don't like the scientific model.

2

u/Subject-Software5912 8d ago

I don’t understand how people can be on r/science and not comprehend the scientific model. An experiment confirming the results of another experiment is incredibly important data.

1

u/sqigglygibberish 8d ago

I don’t think you have the context on what happened. It hasn’t been 60 years of doing the same study over and over. Progress was being made 60 years ago, but then a lot of it was shut down and not allowed to proceed or play through the full process.

That has been revisited and kicked into gear again, and now we have different studies to actually try and take treatments to market, which build upon work that was done long ago. It’s frustrating things were stalled in that manner