3 ms·

A quote: "After about two months of weekly therapy, the eight participants who received full doses of LSD improved by about 20 percent on standard measures of a

by lutusp 13y ago

A quote: "After about two months of weekly therapy, the eight participants who received full doses of LSD improved by about 20 percent on standard measures of anxiety, and the four subjects who took a much weaker dose got worse." I hope no one thinks this is science. There's no control group, those who received the treatment under study knew who they were, and they were asked about their emotional state after the treatment ended. This is a classic case where the Placebo effect cannot be either eliminated or discounted. This is not say that LSD has no beneficial effects in therapy. This is to say we have no idea, and this study provides no useful scientific data.

disgruntledphd2 13y ago
Interestingly enough, there was a student at Harvard in the 1960's (recounted in the Varieties of Psychedelic Experience), who did a placebo-controlled study of psilocybin (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment). Long term follow-ups seem to indicate that the differences (in terms of a self-report questionnaire, at least) were maintained over 25 years. In the book at least, it was concluded (by the primary researcher) that the blinding was completely ineffective (though I don't think that this was confirmed with a manipulation check). I would say that placebo-controlled studies of psychedelics, for similar reasons that placebo-controlled studies of other drugs (cigarettes, coffee, alcohol) will be difficult. Namely that a placebo should be identical to the treatment in every respect except for the active ingrediant, and what's the active ingrediant? Its really well-worth checking out the Varieties for some good pointers to research in the 50's and 60's, there was quite a lot of it, and although some of it was methodologically unsound, and there are very few RCT's, the sheer amount of studies should probably carry some weight.
benched 13y ago
I hesitate to even bother in this environment, where anything other than studies that meet the standards of rigor of Hacker News are dismissed, however: A lot of people have a lot of idea about it, because a lot of psychiatrists and psychotherapists used LSD on their patients (and themselves) before it was outlawed.
Zelphyr 13y ago
True, but my understanding (which could be wrong; grain of salt and all that) is that the study was designed to determine whether a psychedelic could be used in a therapeutic environment safely. Now that that's been established--none of the subjects deaths were in any way related to the LSD--they will move on to trying to more accurately measure outcomes.
mgr86 13y ago
Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. >The trial was far too small to be conclusive, >said Dr. Gasser, whose co-authors include Dr. Doblin, >Dominique Holstein of UniversityHospital Zurich and Rudolf >Brenneisen of the University of Bern. they go on to say that >“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said. >“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.” -- which is important. This sort of research all but halted in the mid-60s. In fact, the reason LSD even made it into popular culture can be a credited to the fact that many who tried it in clinical trials liked it enough to take it home a share. Of course, that is a bit of a dump down version, but not too far from the truth.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. "The trial was far too small to be conclusive ..." Yes, and it's somewhat discouraging to see how rarely these appropriate caveats never get into either the headlines or the mind of the public. >“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said. >“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.” That exactly what has not been demonstrated. A 20% change is not statistically significant in a test group of this size even if there had been a control group, and the placebo effect has not been controlled for. That's why I posted as I did -- it's junk science. Again, LSD might be a breakthrough in therapy, unfortunately this study doesn't contribute to our scientific understanding.

by lutusp 13y ago

disgruntledphd2 13y ago

Interestingly enough, there was a student at Harvard in the 1960's (recounted in the Varieties of Psychedelic Experience), who did a placebo-controlled study of psilocybin (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment). Long term follow-ups seem to indicate that the differences (in terms of a self-report questionnaire, at least) were maintained over 25 years. In the book at least, it was concluded (by the primary researcher) that the blinding was completely ineffective (though I don't think that this was confirmed with a manipulation check). I would say that placebo-controlled studies of psychedelics, for similar reasons that placebo-controlled studies of other drugs (cigarettes, coffee, alcohol) will be difficult. Namely that a placebo should be identical to the treatment in every respect except for the active ingrediant, and what's the active ingrediant? Its really well-worth checking out the Varieties for some good pointers to research in the 50's and 60's, there was quite a lot of it, and although some of it was methodologically unsound, and there are very few RCT's, the sheer amount of studies should probably carry some weight.

benched 13y ago

I hesitate to even bother in this environment, where anything other than studies that meet the standards of rigor of Hacker News are dismissed, however: A lot of people have a lot of idea about it, because a lot of psychiatrists and psychotherapists used LSD on their patients (and themselves) before it was outlawed.

Zelphyr 13y ago

True, but my understanding (which could be wrong; grain of salt and all that) is that the study was designed to determine whether a psychedelic could be used in a therapeutic environment safely. Now that that's been established--none of the subjects deaths were in any way related to the LSD--they will move on to trying to more accurately measure outcomes.

mgr86 13y ago

Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. >The trial was far too small to be conclusive, >said Dr. Gasser, whose co-authors include Dr. Doblin, >Dominique Holstein of UniversityHospital Zurich and Rudolf >Brenneisen of the University of Bern. they go on to say that >“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said. >“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.” -- which is important. This sort of research all but halted in the mid-60s. In fact, the reason LSD even made it into popular culture can be a credited to the fact that many who tried it in clinical trials liked it enough to take it home a share. Of course, that is a bit of a dump down version, but not too far from the truth.

lutusp 13y ago
> Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. "The trial was far too small to be conclusive ..." Yes, and it's somewhat discouraging to see how rarely these appropriate caveats never get into either the headlines or the mind of the public. >“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said. >“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.” That exactly what has not been demonstrated. A 20% change is not statistically significant in a test group of this size even if there had been a control group, and the placebo effect has not been controlled for. That's why I posted as I did -- it's junk science. Again, LSD might be a breakthrough in therapy, unfortunately this study doesn't contribute to our scientific understanding.