So, I think that is too dismissive, while I think the psychedelic proponents are too exuberant Basically, I don't think the categorization matters. Like are th

So, I think that is too dismissive, while I think the psychedelic proponents are too exuberant Basically, I don't think the categorization matters. Like are these entities things always here and perceived if we access a certain plane, or are these mere configurations and figments of our brain that can be repeated. To me, thats not important. Its important if the reconfiguration of the brain is useful, therapeutic, repeatable, what side effects are there, whats going on with people predisposed to schizophrenia that psychedelics seem to exacerbate permanently. What’s going on with floaters/HPPD. Can LSD be refined for the parts that are useful for us, or do we simply slap fine print about potential side effects for those with a family history of schizophrenia on it like …. every other FDA approved drug. I think fawning over something in the 1950s is juvenile, when there probably are advances possible since then to that substance. But I would like it to at least reach parity with Big Pharma’s designer drugs with clinical trials and listed side effects, instead of just anecdotes percolating rave communities.