The study itself: Self-blinding citizen science to explore psychedelic microdosing

News report: https://www.theguardian....acebo-effect-study-finds
which was based on -
Interpretation of the study: Citizen Science: Asking questions of psychedelic microdosing

My feeling is that the benefits perceived with both the placebo and the true microdoses might result from the psychological boost in knowing that one is participating in sanctioned research involving a psychedelic substance - perhaps that sense of "getting away with it", or merely doing something more or less new and exciting.


“This highlights why the authors chose this unusual and clever design. But it also highlights how schedule 1 restrictions stifle legitimate clinical research.”

We all know the placebo effect can be pretty powerfull. Yet i think there are a couple of variables this study probably failed to adress.

-Dose. Doesn't realy need any explaining...maybe the dose, 0.1 grams of dried mushrooms, was simply too low to have any relevant effects.

-A significant effect WAS shown, but is being explained away by participants "breaking blind". I find that a bit of a self-defeating logic to be honest, because it suggests that whenever the reported effects where powerfull enough to matter, they may be considered irrelevant.

-Frequency. There where only three groups in the study. There where statistically significant differences between the HH and the MD groups. And those differences where quite interesting.
It does, very interestingly i would say, suggest that the microdosing protocol could be twitched and optimized for specific purposes.

-Set and setting. The effects of antidepressive drugs is probably dependant on some covariables that could be summed up under "set and setting". A pill alone is proven to be far less effective than a combination of pills and therapy. That's a pretty well established fact.

-Duration. 4 weeks is not a very long period.

Those are all valid points. The "breaking blind" aspect is part of the eternal paradox we're confronted with when attempting assess the benefits of powerfully psychoactive substances. In a way the most important thing we can take from this is that we can only begin to examine the matter effectively by removing the restrictions that inhibit the possibility of specific, known doses being given to the experimental subjects. Then it would really be possible to assess the effects of a much less easily discernible, smaller microdose regimen.

Easing of legal restrictions would also make much easier to proceed with a larger sample size. Only about 16% of those who signed up online actually ended up commencing the various studies and an even smaller proportion participated to completion. That really detracts from the value of the experiment.

It is rather tantalising to see that the MD group showed significant increases in the 'well-being' and 'life satisfaction' scores. What exactly is the rationale behind discounting this if the subjects were able to guess that they had received an active dose? Some kind of latent Puritanical prurience?


I just wonder if the process of filling in these questionnaires also had an effect on the scores of the subjects. This would do a very good job of explaining some of the similarities across all three groups. If they are being assessed in person by a psychiatry professional, surely all the more so. I can easily imagine feeling great from doing something like this, even if I was in the placebo group.