If it's a psychoactive molecule, it's not really a placebo, in my opinion. I don't think the section you linked refutes this:
>Some suggest that existing medical treatments should be used instead of placebos, to avoid having some patients not receive medicine during the trial.
It discusses medical treatments used instead of placebos, rather than as placebos.
I think the more accurate term here would be "control", not "placebo". It arguably could create or enhance a placebo effect with respect to psilocybin, but I think "control" would be less confusing terminology to refer to the non-psilocybin substance. Then again, they're the research university and I'm a random internet commenter, so they probably have more authority on this than I do.
Your opinion is not worth anything regarding this, as it goes against the common understanding of reseachers. The concept of an active placebo is from the 60s and is well know in medical studies.
My understanding is that an active placebo generates some expected effects so that the patient is more likely to believe that they took something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_placebo
>An active placebo is a placebo that produces noticeable side effects that may convince the person being treated that they are receiving a legitimate treatment, rather than an ineffective placebo.
>An example of an active placebo is the 1964 work of Shader and colleagues who used a combination of low-dose phenobarbital plus atropine to mimic the sedation and dry mouth produced by phenothiazines.
>Morphine and gabapentin are painkillers with the common side effects of sleepiness and dizziness. In a 2005 study assessing the effects of these painkillers on neuropathic pain, lorazepam was chosen as an active placebo because it is not a painkiller but it does cause sleepiness and can cause dizziness.
Here, it seems like an example active placebo might be something that induces nausea, since psilocybin is known to induce nausea. SSRIs are not just an active placebo but something that actually attempts to treat the primary symptom: depression. The above paragraph suggests lorazepam would be a good active placebo for testing painkillers because it is not a painkiller; here, an antidepressant is being compared with an antidepressant.
So I was wrong to say that it's not a placebo if it's a psychoactive molecule. I just don't think it is if it's a psychoactive molecule that's treating the primary symptom you're attempting to find a treatment for.
No, in the informed consent document they should describe you will be given an active placebo or the investigational drug. The IRB would approve the specific drug / dose that is administered, as outlined in the trial protocol.
>Some suggest that existing medical treatments should be used instead of placebos, to avoid having some patients not receive medicine during the trial.
It discusses medical treatments used instead of placebos, rather than as placebos.
I think the more accurate term here would be "control", not "placebo". It arguably could create or enhance a placebo effect with respect to psilocybin, but I think "control" would be less confusing terminology to refer to the non-psilocybin substance. Then again, they're the research university and I'm a random internet commenter, so they probably have more authority on this than I do.