Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cypherpunks01 494 days ago
> Sixteen healthy subjects

> Six participants had previously used LSD

> The sessions were conducted in a calm hospital room.

> Standardized lunches and dinners were served at 1:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m

> The subjects were never alone during the first 16 h after drug administration

> The study included a screening visit, six 25 h test sessions (each separated by at least 10 days)

I understand the concept of informed consent, but the study design sounds bad to me, to be honest. According to S1, seven of the subjects had never taken any psychedelic (LSD/psilocybin/MDMA). The study confined them for their first LSD experience, and likely multiple followups, in a hospital room, with a stranger who was not on LSD. And six sessions? LSD should not be used multiple times within 1 year, in my opinion, let alone 2 weeks apart, I think multiple rapid use unnecessarily increases the low-ish risk of psychosis. No matter how nice the room, this seems unethical to me for a few reasons. People shouldn't be experiencing their first psychedelics in a hospital room unless they can't physically leave a hospital bed. I just don't think the basic dose-response curve gains us much new science, this is exactly what most people would draw who have experimented with LSD doses between 25-200ug (though the BDNF effects are interesting as another commenter mentioned).

I guess this is a general problem for all psychedelic studies, though. There's no way to place all the necessary controls around the subject, without keeping them indoors and making them feel like a trapped mouse. The inability to change your own setting during a significant psychedelic trip can definitely induce or prolong major anxiety, much more for someone experiencing novel effects for the first time.

3 comments

This all sounds like warmed-over hippie-lore. I would have loved for my first time to take LSD to have been in a completely safe, clean environment filled with treats, doctors, and other people who were attending to me. The worst parts of the first experience for most people are fear of police, fear that one is having a medical problem, and fear that one is being a problem for the people they're with. This experience has precisely none of that.

It's good that they got data from first time users. It would be even better to get data from people who hadn't been set up with psychedelic culture expectations, but that jury pool is hopelessly tainted.

> I think multiple rapid use unnecessarily increases the low-ish risk of psychosis.

I don't think there's any good evidence that LSD affects the rate of psychosis, just the entirely expected outcome that people who have psychosis may be triggered to express that psychosis by LSD use, combined with the statistical fact that people try psychedelics at the same period of life as schizophrenics start showing their first symptoms (late teens to early 30s.)

> doctors, and other people who were attending to me

I did my fair share and this sounds like absolute hell on earth. But then again my first trip was alone deep in the middle of the woods, still my best drug related experience so far, and that was more than a decade ago

>LSD should not be used multiple times within 1 year, in my opinion, let alone 2 weeks apart, I think multiple rapid use unnecessarily increases the low-ish risk of psychosis.

People regularly dose LSD dozens of times a year or even month without any issues.

6 times is no big deal imo.

> I think multiple rapid use unnecessarily increases the low-ish risk of psychosis.

Not that I disagree, but the 200ug dose is generally considered safe in a clinical setting, and most doses administered were smaller. Assuming individuals were screened for mental health risks before entering the study I don't think the risk was significantly elevated because of the dosing rate.