[max76]

> the psychological benefits are well-established and powerful if used in the right mindset, and the health risks are also well-established and rare or minor if used carefully.

> I hope everyone involved understands whether they're doing Science or Advocacy.

The data (science) gives creditably to the activist and lobbyist hoping to change policy (advocacy). I think everyone is clear on what side they are on.

There is plenty of space for science to expand our understanding. What is the probability of a bad outcome of psychedelics? How does dose effect the probability of a bad outcome? Is Mushrooms, LSD, or MDMA the most effective treatment for PTSD? For end of life anxiety? For major depression? What conditions are these substances helpful for (I don't think we have a complete list)? When should a medical provider recommend psychedelics? Can psychedelics be used on everyone, or just those with certain conditions? How does repeated long term exposure adjust the risk profile? What is the optimal microdosing schedule? What are the objective benefits of microdosing? What is optimal microdosing dose? Who should be microdosing?

There are a lot of unanswered questions to answer, and probably even more questions we don't have enough data to know to ask. The studies that we have are with low sample sizes, so larger studies would be scientifically significant. What we have with psychedelics are a few recent studies done with modern scientific rigor that all conclude there is a lot of potential in this space. We have more historical studies done, but without modern scientific rigor and need to be recreated before being reliable data.

Lets not forget that while these human trials are taking place real people are legally being given life changing help. That's enough to make the entire thing worth it.