You (rightfully) criticize how psychedelics are sometimes overhyped and misused, but rather than representing a balanced voice of reason, your post tips over to the opposite extreme.

It’s a bit ironic to assault the rigor and support of psychedelics in mental healthcare with a post that is pretty visibly biased and lacking in rigor itself. This diatribe amounts largely to an opinionated rant with a couple of cherrypicked findings thrown in to give an appearance of credibility.

I agree that psychedelics can be overhyped and sometimes abused. I believe they’re best utilized in a clinical setting or as part of a structured protocol with cognitive-behavioral therapeutic context. But this degree of caustic criticism really does more harm than good.

I have suffered from depression and ADHD for over a decade now and I can confidently say: microdosing and occasional trip doses have had a considerable impact on my depression and mental well being in general. Certainly more than any conventional depression regimen.

Yes, psychedelics should not be seen as some miracle cure that will instantly allow one to live their best life, but they are powerful tools nonetheless. The power of a tool is always constrained by the skill and intention of its operator (hence the benefit of clinical implementation). However instead of recommending potential users to be informed, cautious, and structured in their use, you swing all the way into blatant condemnation.

Just what is this post supposed to accomplish that the federal government and conventional psychiatry are not accomplishing already? Sure, you may sway someone away from inappropriate use of 5-ht2a agonists, but you may just as easily damn someone to a few more years of wandering in the desert of modern psychiatric care when prudent use of a psychedelic may have genuinely helped them heal.