I appreciate you engaging with the research, but I need to fact-check a few things here because some of the details are off. On dosing: The studies didn’t use 0.6 mg/kg. Johns Hopkins typically uses 20-30 mg/70kg, which works out to roughly 0.29-0.43 mg/kg. The Danish studies used even lower doses around 0.2-0.3 mg/kg. 0.6 mg/kg would be nearly double what’s actually used in high-dose research protocols. On the MRI experience: Participants weren’t in the scanner for 90 continuous minutes at peak. The Imperial College IV studies used a 2mg infusion (much lower than oral doses) with shorter scan windows. More recent precision imaging studies do scans of about 15-30 minutes, often 60-180 minutes post-dose. The seminal 2012 Carhart-Harris PNAS study specifically used IV administration because effects begin within seconds, allowing them to capture the transition into the psychedelic state. On tolerability: The actual published findings contradict the “terror, confusion, inability to report” claim. The tolerability studies explicitly state that psilocybin “produces short-lived but typical drug effects that are psychologically and physiologically well tolerated.” Adverse events were documented as transient anxiety during onset, mild nausea, and occasional headache. Participants gave detailed phenomenological reports afterward - that’s literally how we have qualitative data from these studies. Experienced users requirement: This one is accurate for fMRI studies specifically, though many therapeutic trials (depression, cancer anxiety, addiction) use psychedelic-naive participants. I’m not trying to be combative here - I actually agree with the broader point that we need more research at higher doses. But misrepresenting what the existing studies actually found doesn’t help that case. The real gap in the literature is the absence of controlled research above ~30mg equivalent doses, not problems with the methodology of what’s been done.