6 ms·

It is absolutely shocking to me that research into MDMA and classic psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this

It is absolutely shocking to me that research into MDMA and classic psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing - Yuri Milner is spending $100 million on space exploration, and an MDMA phase 3 research trial needs ~$15 million and finds it really hard to raise money? Both have extremely high therapeutic potential, classic psychedelics in particular are interesting in the same way that space exploration is interesting. And as diogenescynic noted elsewhere, it's even more shocking that we as a society put up with it.

westoncb 9y ago
Maybe it's due to fear of social stigma? Something like, "Yuri Milner spends $100 million on psychedelic drug research" —could be reputation changing.
- tibbon 9y ago
  If I had an extra $100mm, I wouldn't worry about my reputation too much :)
  - chc 9y ago
    Once you have hundreds of millions of dollars, your reputation is practically all you have to worry about.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  I think that might have been true a couple of decades ago, but I'm not sure if it's the case today. A good recent example is ketamine. The drug, or, rather, the mechanism behind it, has gotten a large push research wise of late, since it was discovered that ketamine relieved depression using a mechanism that current anti-depressants do not utilize. Until further drugs are developed, "ketamine clinics" for off-label treatment-resistant depression also exist. And there really doesn't seem to be a huge issue made about them. I would hazard a guess (unfortunately) that one of the barriers here regarding fundraising among more commercial interests is the lack of the ability to patent, which means that the rewards for making MDMA as a treatment are not as great, as far as commercial backers would be concerned. In the case of ketamine, drug companies are trying to develop chemicals that use the same mechanism, but do not have the hallucinogenic side effects (an example currently in Phase III would be Rapastinel). These efforts are able to get corporate funding. Also, MAPS is more "advocacy group" than "medical industry", not that there is a problem with that, but they might be outside the circle of what the typical drug trial fundraising process goes through. If MDMA even remotely has a chance (the fact that it passed Phase II trials suggests this is the case), I definitely think it would be worth exploring, as current medication options for PTSD seem to largely be limited to anti-depressants (SSRI etc.). Ala ketamine, this would be a new approach.
  - kortex 9y ago
    There's still many opportunities to patent, they just aren't as "easy" as novel target drugs. E.g. MDMA is known to have some serotonergic toxicity at higher ends of the therapeutic window, so there are opportunities to patent a delivery system which controls the peak plasma concentration, or a co-drug to block some of that toxicity.
sandover 9y ago
> I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing Some definitely do. Example: https://www.maps.org/news/bulletin/articles/420-bulletin-spring-2017/6612-why-we%E2%80%99re-donating-$5-million-to-maps https://www.maps.org/news/bulletin/articles/420-bulletin-spr...
protomyth 9y ago
Given the number of suicides among our veterans and other PTSD suffers, I am in awe of the idiocy of not funding a very likely successful treatment. I absolutely do not like drugs (seen too many people go right into oblivion), but even with that, I cannot understand not giving it a chance in a clinical study. It’s damn near criminal.
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  You should really break the category "drugs" down a bit. Psychedelics and entheogens are so far from things like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine (which I don't like either) that it is a bit silly to lump them together. Just for reference, shamans refer to Ayahausca as medicine.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    Sorry, I just used the generic term for illegal. I lived on a rez so Peyote was a religious rights issue. Crack & meth really have no use in society at all and the damage I've seen still gives me nightmares. Plus, meth is actually a physical danger to those around the maker. Unrefined cocaine leaves are used as an altitude aid, so I really cannot say much bad there (refined cocaine users are a problem). I don't think I've ever encountered a shroom user and I'm fine with studies. I really don't like MJ because it does ruin people's lives around here, but I get the legalization (well, sorta, kinda legal) and I guess some people can handle it fine putting in the same boat as alcohol for me. I'm a bit perturbed because we just got smoking down and now something that smells worse is here. I was hoping people would flock to some vaping solution[1], but we got smokers who can cause a contact high. As a North Dakotan who remembers some history, I look forward to hemp being grown again in the northern plains. I live in a place where people have stolen hand soap and drained air conditioners to get a buzz, so please forgive my default is "not good". 1) whatever idiot thought e-cigarette was a good name should be held to ridicule.

westoncb 9y ago

Maybe it's due to fear of social stigma? Something like, "Yuri Milner spends $100 million on psychedelic drug research" —could be reputation changing.

tibbon 9y ago
If I had an extra $100mm, I wouldn't worry about my reputation too much :)
- chc 9y ago
  Once you have hundreds of millions of dollars, your reputation is practically all you have to worry about.
soundwave106 9y ago
I think that might have been true a couple of decades ago, but I'm not sure if it's the case today. A good recent example is ketamine. The drug, or, rather, the mechanism behind it, has gotten a large push research wise of late, since it was discovered that ketamine relieved depression using a mechanism that current anti-depressants do not utilize. Until further drugs are developed, "ketamine clinics" for off-label treatment-resistant depression also exist. And there really doesn't seem to be a huge issue made about them. I would hazard a guess (unfortunately) that one of the barriers here regarding fundraising among more commercial interests is the lack of the ability to patent, which means that the rewards for making MDMA as a treatment are not as great, as far as commercial backers would be concerned. In the case of ketamine, drug companies are trying to develop chemicals that use the same mechanism, but do not have the hallucinogenic side effects (an example currently in Phase III would be Rapastinel). These efforts are able to get corporate funding. Also, MAPS is more "advocacy group" than "medical industry", not that there is a problem with that, but they might be outside the circle of what the typical drug trial fundraising process goes through. If MDMA even remotely has a chance (the fact that it passed Phase II trials suggests this is the case), I definitely think it would be worth exploring, as current medication options for PTSD seem to largely be limited to anti-depressants (SSRI etc.). Ala ketamine, this would be a new approach.
- kortex 9y ago
  There's still many opportunities to patent, they just aren't as "easy" as novel target drugs. E.g. MDMA is known to have some serotonergic toxicity at higher ends of the therapeutic window, so there are opportunities to patent a delivery system which controls the peak plasma concentration, or a co-drug to block some of that toxicity.

sandover 9y ago

> I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing Some definitely do. Example: https://www.maps.org/news/bulletin/articles/420-bulletin-spring-2017/6612-why-we%E2%80%99re-donating-$5-million-to-maps https://www.maps.org/news/bulletin/articles/420-bulletin-spr...

protomyth 9y ago

Given the number of suicides among our veterans and other PTSD suffers, I am in awe of the idiocy of not funding a very likely successful treatment. I absolutely do not like drugs (seen too many people go right into oblivion), but even with that, I cannot understand not giving it a chance in a clinical study. It’s damn near criminal.

CuriouslyC 9y ago
You should really break the category "drugs" down a bit. Psychedelics and entheogens are so far from things like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine (which I don't like either) that it is a bit silly to lump them together. Just for reference, shamans refer to Ayahausca as medicine.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Sorry, I just used the generic term for illegal. I lived on a rez so Peyote was a religious rights issue. Crack & meth really have no use in society at all and the damage I've seen still gives me nightmares. Plus, meth is actually a physical danger to those around the maker. Unrefined cocaine leaves are used as an altitude aid, so I really cannot say much bad there (refined cocaine users are a problem). I don't think I've ever encountered a shroom user and I'm fine with studies. I really don't like MJ because it does ruin people's lives around here, but I get the legalization (well, sorta, kinda legal) and I guess some people can handle it fine putting in the same boat as alcohol for me. I'm a bit perturbed because we just got smoking down and now something that smells worse is here. I was hoping people would flock to some vaping solution[1], but we got smokers who can cause a contact high. As a North Dakotan who remembers some history, I look forward to hemp being grown again in the northern plains. I live in a place where people have stolen hand soap and drained air conditioners to get a buzz, so please forgive my default is "not good". 1) whatever idiot thought e-cigarette was a good name should be held to ridicule.