I don't agree. I've never taken psilocybin, and I'm interested to hear the subjective experiences of folks who have, in addition to reading scientific studies, so this does add to the conversation. If I only wanted to read the study, then I'd subscribe to the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
However, there are some (in my opinion) huge flaws in this study and its presentation:
1. This study was conducted on a small sample (60 people who received the psilocybin, and addition 29 who received the placebo - of whom 4 did not actually complete the study).
2. The study looked at short term effects and followed up at '29 or 85 days', (my emphasis). I'm not sure that I would be comfortable saying there had been 'no detrimental effects' after less than a month.
3. The study limits the scope of 'detrimental effects' to cognitive functioning or emotional processing.
4. The study was supervised and all participants took part in mandatory preparation and therapy sessions.
5. All of the participants were self-selected, and 35 participants had already taken psilocybin out of the 89 total participants (including those who had taken the placebo), which is about 13 times higher than the estimated population lifetime use in the UK.
6. Importantly in conjunction with point 5, participants were screened for pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, meaning a highly significant proportion of participants had already taken psilocybin without detrimental effect at least once before, and other non-first time users who had experienced detrimental effects previously would have been excluded from the study.
7. Four participants in the placebo arm did not complete the study, meaning the control group was only 25 people.
8. Efficacy of blinding was not assessed, and given the nature of psilocybin and the fact that up to 41% of the people who completed the study had taken psilocybin before, it seems quite likely that a significant proportion of the participants were unblinded.
9. Particularly worrying in the study is the statement: "An AE [Adverse Event] of substance induced psychotic disorder was reported for a participant who became behaviourally disinhibited during the acute drug experience. After a medical assessment, 2.5 mg oromucosal midazolam was administered. This event was not considered to be an SAE [Serious Adverse Event]." It would be unusual to administer buccal midazolam to someone who was not experiencing any 'detrimental effects'.
In a study which is potentially only looking at 25 people taking psilocybin for the first time[0] at low doses, I don't think we can really discount personal anecdotes, especially when they're clearly and properly presented as such.
[0]: Admittedly worst-case scenario where all of the placebo group turn out to have never taken psilocybin before.
> I'm interested to hear the subjective experiences of folks who have
Okay, I have taken psilocybin and I agree with the study wholeheartedly.
Thanks for the second part of your comment which is much more of what I go to Hacker News for but not really relevant to my comment. Plus, since my personal experiences reaffirm the study, I'm going to ignore all of those critiques and just stick to my personal opinion.
However, there are some (in my opinion) huge flaws in this study and its presentation:
1. This study was conducted on a small sample (60 people who received the psilocybin, and addition 29 who received the placebo - of whom 4 did not actually complete the study).
2. The study looked at short term effects and followed up at '29 or 85 days', (my emphasis). I'm not sure that I would be comfortable saying there had been 'no detrimental effects' after less than a month.
3. The study limits the scope of 'detrimental effects' to cognitive functioning or emotional processing.
4. The study was supervised and all participants took part in mandatory preparation and therapy sessions.
5. All of the participants were self-selected, and 35 participants had already taken psilocybin out of the 89 total participants (including those who had taken the placebo), which is about 13 times higher than the estimated population lifetime use in the UK.
6. Importantly in conjunction with point 5, participants were screened for pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, meaning a highly significant proportion of participants had already taken psilocybin without detrimental effect at least once before, and other non-first time users who had experienced detrimental effects previously would have been excluded from the study.
7. Four participants in the placebo arm did not complete the study, meaning the control group was only 25 people.
8. Efficacy of blinding was not assessed, and given the nature of psilocybin and the fact that up to 41% of the people who completed the study had taken psilocybin before, it seems quite likely that a significant proportion of the participants were unblinded.
9. Particularly worrying in the study is the statement: "An AE [Adverse Event] of substance induced psychotic disorder was reported for a participant who became behaviourally disinhibited during the acute drug experience. After a medical assessment, 2.5 mg oromucosal midazolam was administered. This event was not considered to be an SAE [Serious Adverse Event]." It would be unusual to administer buccal midazolam to someone who was not experiencing any 'detrimental effects'.
In a study which is potentially only looking at 25 people taking psilocybin for the first time[0] at low doses, I don't think we can really discount personal anecdotes, especially when they're clearly and properly presented as such.
[0]: Admittedly worst-case scenario where all of the placebo group turn out to have never taken psilocybin before.