That is what the article said, thank you for clarifying. This comment led me to read the article and try to find the data behind the study. Mainly I looked for

That is what the article said, thank you for clarifying. This comment led me to read the article and try to find the data behind the study. Mainly I looked for this because the article doesn't say how this 8% compares on a normalized basis to other settings, but does make the claim that it provides evidence/proof that > This [8%] finding challenges the “set and setting” hypothesis of psychedelics. Edit 3: This claim was made by the article on nautil.us but was not made by the study, and indeed the Discussion in the study seems to be axiomatically accepting of the "set and setting hypothesis", and indeed the authors actually pull out quite a few statistics from previous studies which can only be viewed as supporting the "set and setting hypothesis". Some of those cited studies, such as Simonsson [1] would likely also be worth reviewing for anyone who finds interest in this one. I provided a link to Simonsson as it seems most directly relevant at first glance and I don't have time right now to review the other studies quoted, but the other studies cited shouldn't be overlooked by curious minds - they all seem quite relevant in their own way. I've been unable to find a resource with more numbers, or ideally the underlying dataset itself to analyze on my own. If you or anyone else know where I can find more numbers from the n=(about 608) survey, I'd greatly appreciate a pointer to it. Edit: Found the study[0] Edit 2: The study does not have enough granular data for me to perform my own quantitative analysis. Of note though, 5.3% of participants took it in a clinical setting, but 8% of the people who "suffered afterward" had taken it in a clinical setting. This is elevated compared to what it would be with a uniform distribution but the study itself also says: > "Experiencing a greater range of difficulties was predicted by being in an unguided setting at the time of the trip and having a more challenging trip. Duration of difficulties was predicted by the challengingness of the trip but no other factors emerged as significant. " Taking this at face value, it would seem that an unguided setting is more strongly correlated to a "challenging trip" than a therapeutic setting. And "challenging trip" was shown to be the greatest, and one of the only, predictors of post-trip difficulties: > To test this, linear regression analyses were conducted, firstly with range of difficulties as the DV and secondly with duration of difficulties as the DV. The overall regression model for the prediction of range of duration was significant (R2 = .04, F(4,519) = 4.97, p < .001). In terms of individual predictors, two emerged as significant; the challengingness of the trip (β = .17, p<0.001) and being in an unguided setting (β = .11, p = 0.008). 0: Study from the posted article: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293349 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... 1: Simonsson study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032723000915?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016503272...