7 ms·

To me, this study has a few "smells" that makes it dubious: > We collected cross-sectional data between November 2019 and July 2020 from self-selected responde

by belval 5y ago

To me, this study has a few "smells" that makes it dubious: > We collected cross-sectional data between November 2019 and July 2020 from self-selected respondents recruited via media related to psychedelic use such as podcasts and online psychedelic research conference presentations. This is already a significant bias in participants. > Mental health was assessed with the questions “Do you currently have any psychological, mental health or addiction concerns?” Participants who endorsed concerns identified specific mental health and substance use categories from a drop down menu, and were allowed to select more than one category So mental health is not actually accessed medically and simply self-reported. To be clear I lack an informed opinion on microdosing psychedelics, but any study that picks its participant from a community engaging in X to study X but then uses the same community to sample their control group (for lack of a better expression) is questionable. EDIT: Page 6 has a table that compare microdosers/non-microdosers and the latter was actually less likely to self-report *any* mental health or substance use problem by 5%. It's only when using the DASS-21 subscales that they can draw the conclusion that non-microdosers are more anxious, depressed or stressed. Their microdosers/non-microdosers ratio is also almost 1:1.

5faulker 5y ago
Regardless the result, the point here is that this is an idea worth looking into.
- monktastic1 5y ago
  The question here is whether the paper supports the idea that it's worth looking into. Your parent comment suggests that it doesn't (or at least, doesn't strongly).
someonewhocar3s 5y ago
[dead]
pavel_lishin 5y ago
Yeah, I bet you'd get similar results with this methodology if you were instead focusing on "microdosing" with alcohol all day.
- LocalH 5y ago
  If a tiny sip of beer every couple of days had such marked benefits and few downsides, I feel like it would be legitimately considered as at least an option.
  - ummwhat 5y ago
    Was there not some study floating around the pop sci press suggesting exactly this with wine?
    - connicpu 5y ago
      I feel like at this point it's pretty well established that having a few glasses of wine a week was actually associated with being upper class, which was why those studies correlated it with better health outcomes.
      - bigfudge 5y ago
        It's also a problem that not drinking at all is a leading indicator that you are already sick (i.e. you stop drinking because you can't tolerate it, but you can't tolerate it because something is wrong which is not yet diagnosed but will be in a later assessment).
- dreadlordbone 5y ago
  Breakfast beer bb
- kenjackson 5y ago
  You might find those same results micro-dosing anything from a self-selected group. I bet you'd find a group of ice cream enthusiasts that would be onboard for this. That said, I am supportive of more rigorous studies along these lines.
  - more_corn 5y ago
    I certainly self-report higher levels of satisfaction, lower levels of depression and anxiety when I dose with ice cream. I don't really do the micro part though. Full dose only. Let me know if you want to do a double blind study. We might face some study problems since I can certainly tell if I'm in the placebo group. If you can come up with a viable ice cream placebo I'm all ears.
roywiggins 5y ago
Meanwhile this placebo-controlled study happened quite recently and didn't find benefits, or at least no benefits compared to a placebo. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/largest-study-of-psychedelics-shows-benefits-of-microdosing-could-be-placebo-effect/?sh=7ef7c34925bb https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/larges...
- gunshai 5y ago
  I think that study is focused on cognitive benifits around thi King and creativity no? Not mental health.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    No, it studied "well-being, mindfulness, life satisfaction, and paranoia" also. https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878#s4 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878#s4
    - gunshai 5y ago
      That study is really interesting. Thank you for linking it
- azundo 5y ago
  What's interesting to me about this study is it was done with people who already actively microdose. So they have prior experience of what non-placebo microdosing feels like to them. The placebo effect might be much stronger in that population than a population that has never microdosed. That could be great news in terms of long term benefits of microdosing by using a combo of placebo and actual psychedelics.
solumos 5y ago
How does a study like this make it into Nature? Is their bar simply that low?
- belval 5y ago
  That's what I was wondering as well, this is obviously a study done on a very small budget with conclusions that could be called a stretch but maybe they knew that research in that area gets more attention?
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Perhaps the editors of Nature are more informed on the matter than someone commenting on a HN link.
  - kleene_op 5y ago
    Exactly. We can't rule out the possibility that the editors of Nature are microdosing on LSD.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sideshowb 5y ago
  It's in Nature Scientific Reports. Not the same journal as it's better known sibling, and it takes the megajournal approach of not judging notability, only rigour. That said, the reputation of any journal is a poor predictor of the impact of papers published in it, so you shouldn't judge. In fact that's why megajournals like nature scientific reports, plos one and peerj have become so popular.
photochemsyn 5y ago
Probably the key line in the abstract is: > "Our results indicate health and wellness motives and perceived mental health benefits among microdosers, and highlight the need for further research into the mental health consequences of microdosing including studies with rigorous longitudinal designs." It's not an unusual approach: 'We have some preliminary indications that X results in Y, but to confirm or reject this hypothesis we'll need more rigorous studies.' It's basically going to be the centerpiece of a grant proposal to do that work. What would be really interesting is to set up a double-blind placebo study comparing the results of using antidepressants (SSRIs etc.) with the results of using psilocybin at similar levels. It would also be interesting to compare the results of a 'normal' psychedelic dose (full effect) taken once a month vs. the effects of daily microdosing or daily antidepressant use, again with a double-blind + placebo approach.
- habitue 5y ago
  Yes! Everyone is trying to reduce risk, and once way scientists[0] reduce risk is to get preliminary results like this before spending a ton of money on a huge study. Absolutely not the final word, it's good to keep in mind the limitations when discussing it. [0] Translate "scientists" into "the current scientific system between academic researchers and grant agencies"
- snikeris 5y ago
  > What would be really interesting is to set up a double-blind placebo study comparing the results of using antidepressants (SSRIs etc.) with the results of using psilocybin at similar levels. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Can you really be "blind" to taking psychedelics? Are these doses small enough that you don't notice the immediate effects?
    - lexpsd9834 5y ago
willcipriano 5y ago
People who interact with mountain biking posts on social media report less depression whilst mountain biking. The results of this study are people like to do whatever they are into.
- more_corn 5y ago
  Huh. This might be less inane than you think.
gwern 5y ago
Unfortunately, I don't see what this study adds to the microdosing literature. We already know from plenty of surveys that people will self-report a lot of benefits; and we also already know that adding in randomization, longitudinal tracking, or blinding makes most or all of the effects go away. The simplest explanation is that most or all of it is placebo/demand effect, and running yet another self-selected cross-sectional survey on unblinded participants doesn't help.
- Alacart 5y ago
  > We already know from plenty of surveys that people will self-report a lot of benefits; and we also already know that adding in randomization, longitudinal tracking, or blinding makes most or all of the effects go away. Do we know this or do we "know" this? Having another study, even a self reported one like this, doesn't degrade the scientific body of knowledge, it adds to it. The fact that there have been other studies doesn't make doing another worthless. I also think a lot of people here are discounting the fact that this study would typically be very hard (or impossible) to administer at such a large scale, especially in such a short amount of time. In my mind, the important questions here are: Are the benefits of massive scale studies worth the trade-offs of self-reporting? What can we do to reduce or eliminate those trade-offs? Imagine the scientific value of having easily created, easily administered, massive studies be easily accessible to any research group. If the research data can be made even a little bit more reliable, that's hugely valuable.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    > Having another study, even a self reported one like this, doesn't degrade the scientific body of knowledge, it adds to it. I really don't see how it's valuable. I don't even believe my friends when they talk about how much micro-dosing benefits them (and this is coming from someone who is a huge supporter of psychedelics). People are really good at making themselves believe what they want to believe.
    - Alacart 5y ago
      Yeah, self-reported data should be taken with a grain of salt. On a large enough scale though, that data says something though. It might not be the original insight you're looking for, but it's still data. There are also plenty of tests and measurements that can be given over an app that don't rely solely on subjective self reporting too though. For instance: reflexive tapping tests, wearable health telemetry, memory tests, etc., etc. I'm excited to see researchers taking advantage of tech to speed up studies and make research more feasible in general. More research means more insights and advancements in the long run for all of us.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> > We collected cross-sectional data between November 2019 and July 2020 from self-selected respondents recruited via media related to psychedelic use such as podcasts and online psychedelic research conference presentations. > This is already a significant bias in participants. In my experience, these pro-psychedelic conferences and associated discussion venues have already concluded that microdosing is a positive, to the point that they’re actively hostile to any information to the contrary. Psychedelic forums and even threads on HN and Reddit can be extremely hostile to anyone arriving with negative anecdotes about their personal microdosing experiences. When people report negative effects there’s a rush to blame them for dosing too high or too low, or for having counterfeit substances, or any other number of easy outs to dismiss the negative anecdotes. There’s almost no room for discussion of people who aren’t convinced that microdosing is a positive.
paulgdp 5y ago
You might be interested in reading this more serious study: https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 Article summarizing it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/largest-study-of-psychedelics-shows-benefits-of-microdosing-could-be-placebo-effect/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/larges...
GloriousKoji 5y ago
> So mental health is not actually accessed medically and simply self-reported. Saddly from my experience self-reported is about as accurate as any medical professional. When I was actively seeing professional help it always started off filling out PHQ-9, adding up the numbers and seeing the sum in the range of depression. I was never officially told I've been diagnosed with anything but it was enough to where I've gone through a plethora of psychiatric medication.
71a54xd 5y ago
I support the basis of this study, I myself have benefitted from the practice. However, something that most overlook or simply aren't aware of is that the prolonged use of psychedelics, specifically psilocin (active psych in mushrooms) carries a cardio-toxicity[0]. Put simply, for reasons that aren't yet known, psychedelics over time will slowly erode the lining of certain heart / circulatory muscles. 0 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287756303_Psilocin_multiple_intake_resulted_and_in_cardiotoxic_effects https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287756303_Psilocin_...
- convolvatron 5y ago
  how high is 10ug/kg? from the dosing chart here https://www.leafly.com/learn/psychedelics/how-to-dose-mushrooms https://www.leafly.com/learn/psychedelics/how-to-dose-mushro... it seems quite low.
robbedpeter 5y ago
https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 This study has a solid methodology, and concluded that microdosing positive effects look significantly similar to placebo. Given psychedelic agonistic activity on the 5ht2b receptors, chronic use is advised against because of the possibility of significant injury to the heart. Fen-phen, notorious for causing heart failure, had the same mechanism of action. Phentermine and its analogs are still in use, but fenfluramine was found to be lethally dangerous, because of significant agonistic activity at 5ht2b receptors. It remains to be seen if the dose makes the poison, but chronic stimulation of the receptors would seem to be inadvisable, given that the benefits of microdosing aren't distinguishable from placebo, according to a well designed study. Full, heroic doses every 6 months have a proven positive effect, so treat yourself to a trip under the right conditions if you're wanting a boost to creativity and calming of the inner chatter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2B_receptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2B_receptor https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/psychedelic-treatment-with-psilocybin-relieves-major-depression-study-shows https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/... The work of Dr. David Nutt is phenomenal. He is an advocate for science and for ending the absurd war on drugs. Johns Hopkins is doing stellar work as well, using extremely rigorous and institutionally impeccable methodology to investigate psychedelics as treatment for some of the most pernicious conditions affecting the human mind.

by belval 5y ago

5faulker 5y ago

Regardless the result, the point here is that this is an idea worth looking into.

monktastic1 5y ago
The question here is whether the paper supports the idea that it's worth looking into. Your parent comment suggests that it doesn't (or at least, doesn't strongly).

someonewhocar3s 5y ago

[dead]

pavel_lishin 5y ago

Yeah, I bet you'd get similar results with this methodology if you were instead focusing on "microdosing" with alcohol all day.

LocalH 5y ago
If a tiny sip of beer every couple of days had such marked benefits and few downsides, I feel like it would be legitimately considered as at least an option.
- ummwhat 5y ago
  Was there not some study floating around the pop sci press suggesting exactly this with wine?
  - connicpu 5y ago
    I feel like at this point it's pretty well established that having a few glasses of wine a week was actually associated with being upper class, which was why those studies correlated it with better health outcomes.
    - bigfudge 5y ago
      It's also a problem that not drinking at all is a leading indicator that you are already sick (i.e. you stop drinking because you can't tolerate it, but you can't tolerate it because something is wrong which is not yet diagnosed but will be in a later assessment).
dreadlordbone 5y ago
Breakfast beer bb
kenjackson 5y ago
You might find those same results micro-dosing anything from a self-selected group. I bet you'd find a group of ice cream enthusiasts that would be onboard for this. That said, I am supportive of more rigorous studies along these lines.
- more_corn 5y ago
  I certainly self-report higher levels of satisfaction, lower levels of depression and anxiety when I dose with ice cream. I don't really do the micro part though. Full dose only. Let me know if you want to do a double blind study. We might face some study problems since I can certainly tell if I'm in the placebo group. If you can come up with a viable ice cream placebo I'm all ears.

roywiggins 5y ago

Meanwhile this placebo-controlled study happened quite recently and didn't find benefits, or at least no benefits compared to a placebo. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/largest-study-of-psychedelics-shows-benefits-of-microdosing-could-be-placebo-effect/?sh=7ef7c34925bb https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/larges...

gunshai 5y ago
I think that study is focused on cognitive benifits around thi King and creativity no? Not mental health.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  No, it studied "well-being, mindfulness, life satisfaction, and paranoia" also. https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878#s4 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878#s4
  - gunshai 5y ago
    That study is really interesting. Thank you for linking it
azundo 5y ago
What's interesting to me about this study is it was done with people who already actively microdose. So they have prior experience of what non-placebo microdosing feels like to them. The placebo effect might be much stronger in that population than a population that has never microdosed. That could be great news in terms of long term benefits of microdosing by using a combo of placebo and actual psychedelics.

solumos 5y ago

How does a study like this make it into Nature? Is their bar simply that low?

belval 5y ago
That's what I was wondering as well, this is obviously a study done on a very small budget with conclusions that could be called a stretch but maybe they knew that research in that area gets more attention?
p_j_w 5y ago
Perhaps the editors of Nature are more informed on the matter than someone commenting on a HN link.
- kleene_op 5y ago
  Exactly. We can't rule out the possibility that the editors of Nature are microdosing on LSD.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sideshowb 5y ago
It's in Nature Scientific Reports. Not the same journal as it's better known sibling, and it takes the megajournal approach of not judging notability, only rigour. That said, the reputation of any journal is a poor predictor of the impact of papers published in it, so you shouldn't judge. In fact that's why megajournals like nature scientific reports, plos one and peerj have become so popular.

photochemsyn 5y ago

Probably the key line in the abstract is: > "Our results indicate health and wellness motives and perceived mental health benefits among microdosers, and highlight the need for further research into the mental health consequences of microdosing including studies with rigorous longitudinal designs." It's not an unusual approach: 'We have some preliminary indications that X results in Y, but to confirm or reject this hypothesis we'll need more rigorous studies.' It's basically going to be the centerpiece of a grant proposal to do that work. What would be really interesting is to set up a double-blind placebo study comparing the results of using antidepressants (SSRIs etc.) with the results of using psilocybin at similar levels. It would also be interesting to compare the results of a 'normal' psychedelic dose (full effect) taken once a month vs. the effects of daily microdosing or daily antidepressant use, again with a double-blind + placebo approach.

habitue 5y ago
Yes! Everyone is trying to reduce risk, and once way scientists[0] reduce risk is to get preliminary results like this before spending a ton of money on a huge study. Absolutely not the final word, it's good to keep in mind the limitations when discussing it. [0] Translate "scientists" into "the current scientific system between academic researchers and grant agencies"
snikeris 5y ago
> What would be really interesting is to set up a double-blind placebo study comparing the results of using antidepressants (SSRIs etc.) with the results of using psilocybin at similar levels. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Can you really be "blind" to taking psychedelics? Are these doses small enough that you don't notice the immediate effects?
  - lexpsd9834 5y ago

willcipriano 5y ago

People who interact with mountain biking posts on social media report less depression whilst mountain biking. The results of this study are people like to do whatever they are into.

more_corn 5y ago
Huh. This might be less inane than you think.

gwern 5y ago

Unfortunately, I don't see what this study adds to the microdosing literature. We already know from plenty of surveys that people will self-report a lot of benefits; and we also already know that adding in randomization, longitudinal tracking, or blinding makes most or all of the effects go away. The simplest explanation is that most or all of it is placebo/demand effect, and running yet another self-selected cross-sectional survey on unblinded participants doesn't help.

Alacart 5y ago
> We already know from plenty of surveys that people will self-report a lot of benefits; and we also already know that adding in randomization, longitudinal tracking, or blinding makes most or all of the effects go away. Do we know this or do we "know" this? Having another study, even a self reported one like this, doesn't degrade the scientific body of knowledge, it adds to it. The fact that there have been other studies doesn't make doing another worthless. I also think a lot of people here are discounting the fact that this study would typically be very hard (or impossible) to administer at such a large scale, especially in such a short amount of time. In my mind, the important questions here are: Are the benefits of massive scale studies worth the trade-offs of self-reporting? What can we do to reduce or eliminate those trade-offs? Imagine the scientific value of having easily created, easily administered, massive studies be easily accessible to any research group. If the research data can be made even a little bit more reliable, that's hugely valuable.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  > Having another study, even a self reported one like this, doesn't degrade the scientific body of knowledge, it adds to it. I really don't see how it's valuable. I don't even believe my friends when they talk about how much micro-dosing benefits them (and this is coming from someone who is a huge supporter of psychedelics). People are really good at making themselves believe what they want to believe.
  - Alacart 5y ago
    Yeah, self-reported data should be taken with a grain of salt. On a large enough scale though, that data says something though. It might not be the original insight you're looking for, but it's still data. There are also plenty of tests and measurements that can be given over an app that don't rely solely on subjective self reporting too though. For instance: reflexive tapping tests, wearable health telemetry, memory tests, etc., etc. I'm excited to see researchers taking advantage of tech to speed up studies and make research more feasible in general. More research means more insights and advancements in the long run for all of us.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> > We collected cross-sectional data between November 2019 and July 2020 from self-selected respondents recruited via media related to psychedelic use such as podcasts and online psychedelic research conference presentations. > This is already a significant bias in participants. In my experience, these pro-psychedelic conferences and associated discussion venues have already concluded that microdosing is a positive, to the point that they’re actively hostile to any information to the contrary. Psychedelic forums and even threads on HN and Reddit can be extremely hostile to anyone arriving with negative anecdotes about their personal microdosing experiences. When people report negative effects there’s a rush to blame them for dosing too high or too low, or for having counterfeit substances, or any other number of easy outs to dismiss the negative anecdotes. There’s almost no room for discussion of people who aren’t convinced that microdosing is a positive.

paulgdp 5y ago

You might be interested in reading this more serious study: https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 Article summarizing it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/largest-study-of-psychedelics-shows-benefits-of-microdosing-could-be-placebo-effect/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/03/03/larges...

GloriousKoji 5y ago

> So mental health is not actually accessed medically and simply self-reported. Saddly from my experience self-reported is about as accurate as any medical professional. When I was actively seeing professional help it always started off filling out PHQ-9, adding up the numbers and seeing the sum in the range of depression. I was never officially told I've been diagnosed with anything but it was enough to where I've gone through a plethora of psychiatric medication.

71a54xd 5y ago

I support the basis of this study, I myself have benefitted from the practice. However, something that most overlook or simply aren't aware of is that the prolonged use of psychedelics, specifically psilocin (active psych in mushrooms) carries a cardio-toxicity[0]. Put simply, for reasons that aren't yet known, psychedelics over time will slowly erode the lining of certain heart / circulatory muscles. 0 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287756303_Psilocin_multiple_intake_resulted_and_in_cardiotoxic_effects https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287756303_Psilocin_...

convolvatron 5y ago
how high is 10ug/kg? from the dosing chart here https://www.leafly.com/learn/psychedelics/how-to-dose-mushrooms https://www.leafly.com/learn/psychedelics/how-to-dose-mushro... it seems quite low.

robbedpeter 5y ago

https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 https://elifesciences.org/articles/62878 This study has a solid methodology, and concluded that microdosing positive effects look significantly similar to placebo. Given psychedelic agonistic activity on the 5ht2b receptors, chronic use is advised against because of the possibility of significant injury to the heart. Fen-phen, notorious for causing heart failure, had the same mechanism of action. Phentermine and its analogs are still in use, but fenfluramine was found to be lethally dangerous, because of significant agonistic activity at 5ht2b receptors. It remains to be seen if the dose makes the poison, but chronic stimulation of the receptors would seem to be inadvisable, given that the benefits of microdosing aren't distinguishable from placebo, according to a well designed study. Full, heroic doses every 6 months have a proven positive effect, so treat yourself to a trip under the right conditions if you're wanting a boost to creativity and calming of the inner chatter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2B_receptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT2B_receptor https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/psychedelic-treatment-with-psilocybin-relieves-major-depression-study-shows https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/... The work of Dr. David Nutt is phenomenal. He is an advocate for science and for ending the absurd war on drugs. Johns Hopkins is doing stellar work as well, using extremely rigorous and institutionally impeccable methodology to investigate psychedelics as treatment for some of the most pernicious conditions affecting the human mind.