If that is the case, maybe it has something to do with a higher likelihood of adverse experiences in the rave group, maybe driven in part by their higher levels of baseline anxiety interacting with the less controlled setting? And/or drug purity? And/or polydrug use?

But it's a great study that inches open the door on the question of what is *actually* needed to benefit from psychedelics! I'm also intrigued by what looks like (?) higher variability in rave group outcomes. Despite overall equivalence with retreat group, ravers seem to have more spread/outliers

I came to make a similar point. Returning psychedelic users who hold therapeutic intent will rarely feel they've come away empty-handed. And it seems that ITPU history was significantly higher in the rave group than the retreat group, so this factor may have driven improvements differentially there.

Great interview!

I've got a friend who's a present leader in healthcare labor who used to be a journalist writing on the subject (and thus has extensive knowledge about it). He said he'd be happy to speak, though he couldn't be attributed in an article because of job restrictions. Would that be helpful?

2) I’ve recently co-founded GuideSite Consulting, which helps sites & clinics prepare to administer psychedelic treatments in ways that support efficacy & participant well-being. Our trainings hew close to what participants have told us about their experiences: guidesiteconsulting.com

Fantastic article! Thanks for writing it

I quit cold turkey a few years ago, and it was rough

His next sentence after that quote: "And that's why we do science." Eat truth, fallible minds!

is that we're not really respecting the fact that there's a brain involved as well as a reporting mind. And reporting minds, particularly smart ones, have very developed mechanisms for fooling themselves." (2/2)

I've been sitting with a Goodwin quote from his debate with @trpwolff.bsky.social that captures this well: "The risk that we run, if we interpret the very spectacular things that people tell us about their experience as the causal mechanisms for their recovery (1/n)

Agreed. And it's disappointing because if there were ever an opportunity to reconsider this dualism, it's PAT. I appreciated the Deckel et al piece's critique of Goodwin's complaint abt PAT's "odd dualism," which stems from this misunderstanding the "reciprocal & iterative" drug-therapy relationship