I disagree that it is a weird take. As your logic is incomplete, respectfully. I didn't mean to imply that being convinced of therapeutic benefit always means

I disagree that it is a weird take. As your logic is incomplete, respectfully. I didn't mean to imply that being convinced of therapeutic benefit always means that there isn't any. There could even be a lot of benefit. I meant to state or imply that being convinced doesn't necessarily mean that such a benefit was significant, if there at all. This means that someone convinced of such benefit may have that benefit, but not necessarily. Respectfully, using a binary life and death measurement example only means that you've cited a circumstance where we can definitely measure when there has been a significant benefit. Assuming that we can conclude that suicide was otherwise likely (we can assume that for this hypothetical). Take another example: A person can momentarily convince themself that their PSD is healed, even just out of positive self-talk, a single good therapy experience, and hope, and then go on to realize continuing debilitating symptoms for their lifetime. What the experimental use of currently illicit street drugs in psychotherapy should be measuring, assuming that we can agree that we should be conducting such experiemnts (I don't agree given the available research), is whether or not they may make conditions such as PSD worse over the coming decades. In spite of patient verbal feedback at any point in time. Because people like street drugs, in general. When was the lsat time that you witnessed an enthusiastic or otherwise "therapuetic" user of street drugs lamenting the thinning of their cortical white matter? Or lamenting the loss of other brain architecture that theoretically would help them overcome mental illness should it survive their habit?