> James Fadiman is always mentioned in articles on microdosing [...] His approach seems to be more New Age than scientific. What has he said that strikes you a

> James Fadiman is always mentioned in articles on microdosing [...] His approach seems to be more New Age than scientific. What has he said that strikes you as new agey? Fadiman has been doing rigorous research in the field since before it was made illegal. There are lots of references to his various papers in his book, The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide. There is a section about it in the book, but as I recall it's not something that people were doing in the 60s so there are not yet any good studies to cite, and the effects are all reported as anecdotal. If given the opportunity, I am confident that Fadiman would be happy to conduct such studies. It's worth noting that in the book, again based on memory, microdosing is referred to as being in the 10-20ug range, so it's interesting that the article says <10. I agree with you that <10 seems too low for anything, but when you're closer to 20 there are subtle effects, really just at the threshold of being active, which I suppose is the point of a microdose. The "museum dose," where one can feel definite changes in thought patterns and perceptions but which does not result in overt hallucinations, is only around 37-45ug. It really is amazing how potent this substance is. > I think the culture around microdosing is generally unhelpful and possibly dangerous to those of us that want to see real research into therapeutic psychedelics. Dangerous how? It seems unlikely to take away from the renewed scientific focus on therapeutic use that is finally being allowed to continue. Or are you suggesting that microdosing culture could somehow delegitimize this? I'd think if anything it's a call for more research of lower doses in addition to the higher doses now being studied.