[cppsnob]

> Who's making that conclusion?

Everyone who even brings up that he used LSD as a point of interest. At least that's the implication being made.

> that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.

No, the points are not valid. That's why we have a scientific method that proves causation.

It's the exact same fallacy that someone falls into with e.g. alternative medicine. A person's cancer went into remission while they were eating tree bark. They are free to believe it helped them, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically, or even remotely, the case. Taking their word for it doesn't make it true.

[ldh]

The notion that psychadelics affect a person's outlook is not that great a leap to make, and others have already posted links to studies supporting that. While I'm not asserting that LSD was the lynchpin to his success, I really don't see that it's the same as alternative medicine at all.