http://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing

According to his self reported results, "if anything, the LSD microdosing may have done the opposite of what [he] wanted."

Granted, this experiment does have severe limitations. It had a sample size of 1 and the results were very likely affected by his preexisting biases.

Nevertheless, I think it's worth considering.

Haven't read the entire article, but the author'a tone of informed skepticism is frankly refreshing. Neither are they wide eyed and beatific nor simply eschewing the possibilities, but rationally researching them without using a positive or negative bias. How scientific.

TL;DR

"I found microdosing to be bunk, but IQ tests rock! Unless you're black, of course..."

How do I get back the time I wasted reading all that? The author clearly doesn't even need any drugs because he's already high as a kite on statistical analysis...

LOL @ sample size of 1.

Insult removed

I think its a great effort and i don't appreciate you belittling this effort without presenting an alternative yourself.

Excuse me? Why such blatant insult is thrown at me even if I didn't insult anybody, just pointed out that sample size is too small, that it can almost be regarded as purely subjective result? And how do you know Im currently doing nothing to improve general knowledge on psychedelics?

I sometimes get emotional if people belittle the work of others, especially if it is good work. Everyone knows that a sample size of 1 is not sufficient.

If you are planning a bigger and similiar systematic study on LSD microdosing, i apologize for assuming you were doing nothing. On the contrary, it would be awesome.

We know, we know. But since almost all of the evidence for the beneficial effects of microdosing is purely anecdotal, I thought I would share another anecdote which did not find any.

The only way to truly establish the benefits/detriments of microdosing is to run double blind, placebo controlled trials.

Yay, another atheist reductionist materialist who has never taken an active dose of psychedelics and feels the need to expound their idea of what psychedelics do, with more holes in their reasoning than a sponge... Not to mention they didn't even bother to test if it was actually LSD, and had no way of verifying potency. 10mics might be good for cluster headaches but it seems like a waste of LSD to me. I'm not sure why they're surprised they didn't' notice any positive effects. I doubt everyone is sensitive enough to at that dosage, especially someone like this.

He didn't even test if what he got was really LSD. So much text for an useless experiment.

I would think that the efficacy of microdosed LSD and other psychedelics would be increased in those who are already familiar with fuller range of the substances effects.

I microdose ergolines occasionally and I enjoy it. I have not microdosed LSD yet, only HBWR alkaloids..mostly because LSD is such a gem I don't want to put it towards that yet.

I particularly enjoyed the part where he expounded how he thinks dosage is irrelevant to his "findings". Displays a clear and glaring ignorance about the basics of the basics of biochemistry.

I always feel weird when I see something done by an amateur with a lot of heart and effort, and yet still failing on the most basic groundwork level. This is a perfect example of that.

What is a gwern?

He even created the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org...ki/LSD_and_schizophrenia

That's a silly attempt of a page.

Actually his formatting skills are very bad for an ex-Wiki admin...

When I first posted this, I was not in any way suggesting that gwern's experiment could generalize to the rest of us, nor was I suggesting that his reasoning and experimental procedures were flawless. I was simply trying to provide another perspective that comes from someone who does not endorse some of the views that many of us do.

Do you guys really think that anecdotal reports of the beneficial effects of microdosing are flawless? Don't you realize any conclusions drawn from them are just as flawed, if not more flawed, than gwern's particular analysis is?

Would you guys criticize people who found microdosing useful after their anecdotal reports? Wouldn't you simply call for further experimentation?

Hey, I'm not on anyone's side on this. I do think that effects of LSD microdosing might be purely subjective and placebo. And I also don't like this guy's approach. But I do support his endeavor. He just should return to drawing board and start again
That's all.

It seems like we were aiming responses at the article, not you. But it was posted here and this is an opinionated crowd, so of course people are going to respond with their honest thoughts when another article is linked, written by someone who has 0 psychedelic experiences and rants ad nauseaum on it.



I doubt people think anecdotal reports of the benefits of microdosing are "flawless", but they are just experience reports. This guy didn't do just an experience report, he tried to write a full blown scientific discourse on it that is riddled with holes and musings about the nature of psychedelics when he's barely ever taken any active amounts, so of course people will point out the silliness of this...I'm not doubting that he didn't get any noticeable benefits though.

Most people don't bother with dosing LSD in such insanely small amounts because it's mostly a waste of LSD to them. You'd probably have to be quite sensitive to notice anything. The people I see talking about inactive doses are mostly those who suffer from cluster headaches, because there are several folks on this forum and elsewhere who get instant relief.

It just seems like a big boasting overly intellectual waste of time and LSD to me. If he'd have just posted a short comment that he'd taken 10mics a day and so far noticed no effects, people would have said ok...not surprising...take moar

Instead he gets defensive and goes on about how the dosage is somewhat irrelevant...actually believing that makes any sense.

This guy looks like a mentally unstable person with an agenda to push. His "scientific" study is full of opinionated bullshit, clear scientific nonsense (running a double blind drug test without understanding the concept of threshold dosages?!) and occasional splotches of painful oversharing.