4 ms·

> Meanwhile, those who consumed the drugs but thought they were taking a placebo experienced no significant increase in wellbeing. It's wild that there was a p

> Meanwhile, those who consumed the drugs but thought they were taking a placebo experienced no significant increase in wellbeing. It's wild that there was a part of this study in which people were told that they weren't taking a psychadelic, but they were taking a psychadelic.

theturtletalks 6y ago
MKUltra vibes
l0b0 6y ago
I'm just going off of the title, but I would expect microdosing to naturally involve only small effects.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  The thing is, psychedelics act on neurotransmitter systems that are very sensitive; a few micrograms change in dosage can be a VERY different experience.
  - ranguna 6y ago
    Apparently not
    - eurasiantiger 6y ago
      You base that judgment on a single study of N=191 that employs a non-rigorous methodology which does not control for the purity or even existence of a psychedelic substance. What if some of the participants were only able to source fake drugs, e.g. sugar cubes without any LSD in them?
      - pas 6y ago
        How would that invalidate the results? The study heavily builds on self-reported belief about group membership (placebo or treatment [microdose]) for each trial day. If someone believes they are on shrooms all the time while not, and their psychological parameters improve, it's placebo. If someone produces some arbitrary pattern of on-off while actually not on anything, that's just noise for the study. That's why there's statistical significance testing.
        eurasiantiger 6y ago
        How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? I’m going to say few to none. This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
        pas 6y ago
        > [...] and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies. What's the supporting empirical support for this very complex claim? One one hand I'm inclined to believe the study because it confirms the placebo effect. (Which is very well established, plus the theory and the data are simple. The result is completely in concordance with the regular ineffectiveness of most low-dose not-really-psychoactive medications - meaning how SSRIs and other anti-depressants are about as effective as placebo.) On the other hand it's also possible that the study is junk, like most studies. > How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 "The inclusion criteria were: >18 years of age, good understanding of English, intention to microdose with psychedelics, previous experience with psychedelics (either micro- or macrodosing), no use of psychedelic drugs from a week before the start until the completion of the post-regime timepoint (other than the study’s microdoses), and willingness to follow the study protocol." Of course it's still citizen science. So who knows really.
metacritic12 6y ago
I wonder how they passed IRB review. Did the doctors literally tell them "we're giving you nothing" or "you probably got nothing". The first seems like it wouldn't pass review these days...
nick__m 6y ago
Read the study protocol, it was self blinding and it past the review board because the participants were planning to microdose anyway. It devised a so-called self-blinding process, in which participants filled opaque capsules with drugs or a placebo. The capsules were then placed in envelopes with a QR code and shuffled, meaning researchers could later track what participants had taken, while they themselves could not.
nickysielicki 6y ago
From the abstract: > This study used a ‘self-blinding’ citizen science initiative, where participants were given online instructions on how to incorporate placebo control into their microdosing routine without clinical supervision. The study was completed by 191 participants, making it the largest placebo-controlled trial on psychedelics to-date. So everyone in the study presumably was interested in microdosing and, given that they would have sourced the drugs themselves, knew what they could have been taking. Unless I’m misunderstanding. Either way, the methodology here seems really suspect to me.
dovin 6y ago
The participants guessed whether or not they had taken the psychedelic, which was used in some of the statistical analysis to show that if you guessed you hadn't taken the drug (but had) you would have experienced no significant increase in well-being.

theturtletalks 6y ago

MKUltra vibes

l0b0 6y ago

I'm just going off of the title, but I would expect microdosing to naturally involve only small effects.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
The thing is, psychedelics act on neurotransmitter systems that are very sensitive; a few micrograms change in dosage can be a VERY different experience.
- ranguna 6y ago
  Apparently not
  - eurasiantiger 6y ago
    You base that judgment on a single study of N=191 that employs a non-rigorous methodology which does not control for the purity or even existence of a psychedelic substance. What if some of the participants were only able to source fake drugs, e.g. sugar cubes without any LSD in them?
    - pas 6y ago
      How would that invalidate the results? The study heavily builds on self-reported belief about group membership (placebo or treatment [microdose]) for each trial day. If someone believes they are on shrooms all the time while not, and their psychological parameters improve, it's placebo. If someone produces some arbitrary pattern of on-off while actually not on anything, that's just noise for the study. That's why there's statistical significance testing.
      - eurasiantiger 6y ago
        How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? I’m going to say few to none. This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
        pas 6y ago
        > [...] and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies. What's the supporting empirical support for this very complex claim? One one hand I'm inclined to believe the study because it confirms the placebo effect. (Which is very well established, plus the theory and the data are simple. The result is completely in concordance with the regular ineffectiveness of most low-dose not-really-psychoactive medications - meaning how SSRIs and other anti-depressants are about as effective as placebo.) On the other hand it's also possible that the study is junk, like most studies. > How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound? https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 "The inclusion criteria were: >18 years of age, good understanding of English, intention to microdose with psychedelics, previous experience with psychedelics (either micro- or macrodosing), no use of psychedelic drugs from a week before the start until the completion of the post-regime timepoint (other than the study’s microdoses), and willingness to follow the study protocol." Of course it's still citizen science. So who knows really.

metacritic12 6y ago

I wonder how they passed IRB review. Did the doctors literally tell them "we're giving you nothing" or "you probably got nothing". The first seems like it wouldn't pass review these days...

nick__m 6y ago

Read the study protocol, it was self blinding and it past the review board because the participants were planning to microdose anyway. It devised a so-called self-blinding process, in which participants filled opaque capsules with drugs or a placebo. The capsules were then placed in envelopes with a QR code and shuffled, meaning researchers could later track what participants had taken, while they themselves could not.

nickysielicki 6y ago

From the abstract: > This study used a ‘self-blinding’ citizen science initiative, where participants were given online instructions on how to incorporate placebo control into their microdosing routine without clinical supervision. The study was completed by 191 participants, making it the largest placebo-controlled trial on psychedelics to-date. So everyone in the study presumably was interested in microdosing and, given that they would have sourced the drugs themselves, knew what they could have been taking. Unless I’m misunderstanding. Either way, the methodology here seems really suspect to me.

dovin 6y ago

The participants guessed whether or not they had taken the psychedelic, which was used in some of the statistical analysis to show that if you guessed you hadn't taken the drug (but had) you would have experienced no significant increase in well-being.