The articles point that fanaticism and 'belief' are no standalone basis for medical attention is entirely fair. However, the article also contains many opinion

The articles point that fanaticism and 'belief' are no standalone basis for medical attention is entirely fair. However, the article also contains many opinion statements by the journalist, some of which are written for effect. For example, it opens by claiming No psychiatric treatment has attracted quite as much cash and hype as psychedelics have in the past decade - really?? Nobody would seriously believe that, of the entire pharmaceutical world, the largest $ slice goes to psychedelic research. Not even close. Or, Suggesting that people should get off proven medications in order to try MDMA or psilocybin is dangerous unless those drugs are backed by airtight evidence - this is an arguable claim, in the wording semantics, because it implies that it's standard for regulated medications to be risk-free, "airtight" idealisms with only good possible outcomes, when the reality is quite far from that! - a % of SSRI patients routinely experience seriously unpleasant or debilitating side effects and withdrawal ordeals. To exclude effective treatments by way of special, higher ethical barriers to entry is not necessarily scientifically sound practice.