The Emotional Child's Guide to FDA Approval of MDMA-AT, now in The New York Times; plus, Psychedelics Today promotes "safe words" for restraint, and a new report shows how therapists are indoctrinated
Another excellent contribution from the brilliant Devenot, more antidote to the intoxicated hypedelic gold rush. Grof's breathwork is a religious practice and cannot be the basis for an FDA approved pharmaceutical; the cornerstone of psychedelic therapy is the use of persuasion to manipulate belief under the influence of potent psychoactive drugs characterized by suggestibility and lowering defenses to influence and control. Psychedelics have no place as mental health treatments. If people want to use psychedelics for their own self understanding of healing there should be legal access in a decriminalizaiton and harm reduction legal context. The entire effort to turn psychedelics instead into "treatments" for psychiatric diagnosed disorders is a fraud, bolstered by decades of zealotry, pseudoscience, professional self promotion, money-grabbing, and an old boys network of abusers who have been covering for each other's misconduct for decades. How about we reschedule psychedelics according to their actual risk profile and adopt sensible drug policy, instead of empowering a hyped pharmaceutical startup to essentially move in to capture the underground market in a bid to become a new legal drug cartel?
Not everyone shares your views, Will, and that's perfectly okay. I appreciate your perspective, but I feel that the statement, “Psychedelics have no place as a mental health treatment,” is overly broad. It can unintentionally dismiss the experiences of those who have found benefits in these treatments. Perhaps framing it as, “I believe” or “In my experience” would foster more open dialogue.
As someone who positions themselves as an ally for those with mental health issues and as a supporter of individuals harmed by traditional psychiatric practices, I find that your language could come off as less inclusive may have been intended. If I had to choose, I would prioritize safety over total decriminalization — but everyone has their unique perspective on this, and that's valid too (YMMV).
I understand that the concept of choice is important, but without ensuring safety, there can be a lack of true informed consent for those at risk of harm. It’s similar to how anti-abortion advocates might argue for options that put individuals in unsafe situations.
Thank you for your harm reduction PDF, "Getting Off of Anti-Depressants." It was incredibly helpful for me during my own journey of negotiating medication discontinuation with my psychiatrist. I also shared it with several therapists, and I want you to know that your work has been a supportive influence for me.
I remember our interactions on Twitter along with individuals like Monica, Laura Delano, and the Mad in America community. Despite our shared interests, you didn't follow me back or acknowledge me, which I found disheartening, perhaps because my approach seemed too mainstream for you. There was a clique. There still is within the ‘alternative’ mental health community. It has left me with a sense of being overlooked within what I felt was our shared community, where cliques and hierarchies can sometimes overshadow individual experiences. It was a missed opportunity to create more momentum for a movement, in my opinion.
While I have great respect for your advocacy, I wonder how representative it is of the broader group of women who have faced sexual abuse and harm from psychiatric methods. Your focus seems to lean towards advocating for individuals with severe experiences in institutions, while those with complex PTSD may not see the same representation. I can empathize with your personal journey, as it is indeed tragic, but I hope you also consider the voices of those who chose not to share their experiences openly.
I believe there are multiple ways to understand the psychedelic field beyond extreme positions. While I see the value in decriminalization, I wonder about the implications of a lack of accountability. Is it reasonable to discount agency oversight entirely because of a belief that government agencies are inherently problematic? It might come off as a libertarian approach, which has its own set of challenges, including potential risks without adequate safeguards.
I appreciate the freedom of choice, but I also believe that having some form of regulation can help protect individuals and communities. Nuanced understanding of these complex issues will not happen without shared commitment to find common ground.
Thanks Anna! For sure not everyone shares my views, and see all this without nuance - people are “on the bus” or “off the bus” with this issue. It is nuanced. My view is harm reduction - which is at heart about nuance, following each person - so I appreciate you appealing to nuance. I agree. (And my apologies for not following you on Twitter, send me your handle.) Glad to hear the guide was helpful. As far as psychedelics, I deal with a lot of people who have been harmed - as well as benefitted. (I deal with a lot of people who have been institutionalized, not institutionaized, CPTSD diagnosis, visible and public, hiding…). I’ve been harmed - as well as benefitted - from psychedelics. I am pro-access pro-harm reduction, but anti-commercialization and anti-medicalization. It’s a nuanced position. I've written a bit about this -- you can check my medium willhall. Comments are difficult and easy to misunderstand, feel free to reach out at my website to chat by phone. I don't think it's extremist to be against the war on drugs. In my view a harm reduction and decriminalization position don't lack nuance or commitment to common ground. My experience is the opposite - it is the war on drugs and Pharmaganda and psych diagnosis that lack nuance or finding common ground. One size fits all, everyone has to follow the psychiatric framework, live in fear of prosecution, submit to diagnosis, normalize forced treatment, support the prison industrial complex, all the harms that go along with criminalizing drug use. I think there is a misunderstanding between "using psychedelics and getting benefit" and "psychedelics as a mental health treatment." There is nuance needed. People should have access to these substances for whatever benefit they define, for themselves, including healing. We have 40+ years in the underground and risks have been exaggerated and it's time to be honest that we can't keep alcohol legal and tell people they go to jail if they possess MDMA or LSD. We need to admit people have used these drugs to heal - and also been harmed. They are unpredictable suggestibility drugs with strong expectation placebo dissociative effects as well as mysterious complex effects and influence effects. So I'm not dismissing people who report benefit - it is an effort to find nuance by recognizing these non medical experiences as valid. I think "recreationaI" users tend to be dismissed - they are not the subject of research, the hype focuses on "innovative treatments" for new markets. Key is "healing" here - as people define it, not as a mental health treatment diagnosed and directed by a professional. It is in fact the Pharma scheme right now that denies that people already benefit, instead claiming that to benefit you must be in a clinical supervised setting and must be with a diagnosis and must be under formal treatment planning, get your supply of $3 MDMA doses wrapped in $1500+ of therapy, you must believe the hype that there are not risks, you must submit to authority under the influence of a suggestibility drug, if you complain it's your symptom, if you have a bad response it's your underlying bipolar or borderline, you must buy from the Pharma cartel, etc etc. To help understand this nuance, look as an example at the proposal for psilocybin for depression. Yes people who experience depression who want to should have access to psilocybin. That’s decrim / harm reduction / end the war on drugs. That's /not/ what is going on here. Under the psilocybin for depression medicalization proposals, you would not have access - unless you are diagnosed by a professional with treatment resistant depression TRD -- and guess what the clinical criteria for TRD is: you need two SSRI prescriptions that are defined as failed by the doctor. That’s the diagnosis professional gatekeeper. Yes you have to consume SSRI's before you would have access to psilocybin under that plan. That's extreme to me. That requires people to expose themselves to the risks of SSRI's - or you don't get the diagnosis and are left under the war on drugs. People who don't want to take SSRI's won't get the diagnosis of TRD and won't get access. What about the people who experience depression but trace it to trauma? Or define it differently? Or see depression related to oppression, or ancestral healing? What if you go in and say 'hey doctor I have depression" and the doctor says "Actually you are borderline"? Medicalized propaganda about serotonin imbalances have been debunked, while social determinants of human misery such as poverty violence inequality overlooked. That's psychiatry… Same with MDMA - people who have non PTSD diagnosis would not get access, and too bad if you don't trust the therapist because you would be prohibited from taking it with your pastor, or partner, or a trusted friend or alone at the ocean with your dog. CPTSD is not a medical diagnosis, it doesn't exist as far as Pharma is concerned - so no, people who describe themselves as having a CPTSD diagnosis would be told Sorry you are bipolar or sorry you are borderline sorry you are DID etc. People who experience a spiritual crisis or oppression - none of this fits the treatment regime proposed. Autonomy self determination and self-definition are robbed by a pseudoscience of treatments that just don't have real evidence behind them and harm a lot of people. When people say they benefit from SSRI's, I believe their experience - and at the same time it is not dismissing that to make clear that SSRI's do not correct chemical imbalances, SSRI's have serious risks, placebo is real, everyone is different and we can’t x ray your brain to determine if the SSRI’s help (just waiting helps lift many depressions), exercise works better... In my view the psychiatric view of depression and Pharma are extremist. They define our experience for us. Why not just let people who want to use psilocybin or MDMA or whatever other substances use them for their own self definition - instead of putting the power in diagnostic and professional gatekeepers enriching themselves? Why not trust that people are suffering real pain rather than denying them when they don’t meet clinical criteria? Why perpetuate the war on drugs? "Mental health treatments" are not the same as 'responding to suffering" or "trying to help." There is nuance in the issue that gets lost. The fact is that people are already using psychedelics in the underground, and the added risks of criminalization are well recognized and need to end. Regulatory oversight is needed to protect people and that is not possible when the drugs are criminalized. If your dealer sells you contaminated MDMA you can't report them to the police; if you are abused while on MDMA you are much less free/supported to report the abuser than if you were on a legal substance like alcohol, if your cult leader is handing out MDMA you are afraid to report abuses bc you might also be charged, etc etc. That continues under medicalized psychedelics. If you think that when you are abused by a licensed therapist the regulatory bodies will protect you you might want to look at recent cases and how the regulatory bodies do nothing. Regulatory bodies trust the license over the patient over and over - the BBS in California does no investigation and will not take action unless there is a video, emails - a patient’s testimony they were abused does not count. The idea that regulatory safeguards are only possible under psychiatry doesn't see the experience of the many many people harmed by psychiatry because of how the diagnosis dismisses their views - how the profession protects abusers, how patients are doubted and discredited and dismissed by the diagnosis. We have very clearly seen this with psychedelic therapists - licensed therapists - who abuse patients and walk away. Since the beginning of MDMA therapy and going all the way back to LSD this has been true - and denied by the psychedelic revivalists and now the Pharmadelic investors. I wrote about this with my colleague Kayla Greenstien on Mad In America. Yes there is nuance here and we need a commitment to finding common ground, but that is what is lacking in the "psychedelic revival" that says you are either on the side of MAPS and medicalization or you are on the side of the war on drugs. Some of us are trying to create an honest harm reduction conversation, a perspective that doesn't falsify the science or deny the risks of psychedelics, that is pro-access and pro-honesty. These are powerful mind influencing suggestibility drugs that have been used for mind control MKULTRA etc. Putting them in the hands of mental health professionals with their diagnostic and incarceration powers is a bad, bad idea. It’s built on misinformation and manipulation and lies about risks just like the SSRI bubble was. (Of course SSRI’s carry more risks than psychedelics in many ways, but psychedelics also carry risks that are being downplayed.) So no, psychedelics should not be medical psychiatric treatments for mental health diagnosis. And commercialization under predatory monopoly capitalism leads to a Brave New World dystopia. And many people who take psychedelics are not better people for it. So given all the nuance and the common ground of commitment to safer and healthier and freer communities, and the urgency of this issue (we've been having dialogues as a society about the war on drugs for 50 years now), I believe that decriminalization for access outside medical contexts, without commercialization, under harm reduction policies, with honest scheduling at the DEA (not exaggerating risks or downplaying them, psychedelics certainly have no worse risk profile than alcohol benzos etc), ending the war on drugs... I think this is a non-extremist and nuanced approach, which is why I embrace a harm reduction framework that rejects psychiatric pseudoscience and psychedelic exceptionalism. I appreciate your comment and again sorry we didn’t connect previously.
Thank you for your thoughtful sixteen-hundred-word response. I appreciate the effort you put into it and will take some time to reflect carefully on your points. Given the length of the responses, I may need to make this a post to ensure I address everything adequately.
I also want to be mindful that this publication belongs to Nese, so it's important that our discussion remains relevant. I believe there are connections to explore, particularly regarding their presentation at the FDA.
To address your concern about trust, it raises a compelling question: if licensed psychiatrists and psychotherapists cannot be trusted, how can we expect to trust individuals who may claim to be something like a shaman? This highlights the need for accountability in any practice involving mental health.
While I don't have a clear or definitive solution, I feel that the idea of complete freedom without accountability, often associated with libertarian thought, might not be the most effective approach. It's essential that there are consequences for actions—whether that involves losing one's livelihood or providing restitution to those harmed.
I believe that preventing harm doesn't mean restricting freedom, but rather creating a framework where individuals feel the weight of their actions. Allowing individuals to act without any oversight can leave space for unethical behavior that may go unchecked. It's crucial to consider how we can balance personal freedom with the need for accountability and protection for everyone involved.
Thank you again for your insights, and I look forward to continuing this conversation.
The meme is all I could think of when I read the NYT article. It captures their entire immature mentality, and already called it out months in advance of the latest escalation. Embarrassing.
I’m at a loss for words right now. Nese, I’m truly feel sorry for everything you’re going through. I wish there were a way I could provide you with more support, but I feel so lost myself. It's like I'm drowning in grief while trying to stay strong. There was a time when I felt such rage and a sense of hopelessness about it all, but I’m moving past that now. I suppose I'm coming to more of a place of acceptance but certainly not approval. Perhaps my experiences with ketamine have shaped how I face the overwhelming pain of witnessing our world’s struggles.
I feel such deep sorrow not just for the current state of our planet and our country but also for what’s unfolding in the psychedelic community. It’s disheartening to see that despite the presence of well-meaning people, goodwill alone isn’t enough to uphold a movement. The influence of wealth, greed, and the thirst for power have cast a shadow over everything. At the end of the day, while it's easy to lay blame and point fingers, we all must confront our conscience in this situation.
i was Stan's assistant in 1981 and 2 at Esalen when the breathwork was invented, because we couldn't use LSD. I used to lead the groups for the Esalen community. I can't believe how far it has come. To me it was interesting exercise in social psychology, but useless therapeutically, if not sometimes damaging. but the scene at Esalen was so extraordinary, a paradise. hard to reach and expensive. think of Aronson's Severity of Initiation research. Cognitive Dissonance. Participants in the exercise wanted to please, so the legend and the cult was born. of course Stan's charisma was unique. i once again commend your courage to expose these practices and those wanting to make a buck off naive, gullible people seeking well being. What a joke those Psychedelics Today people have become. I do think you mischaracterize Robert Kennedy though. Glad your wrist is better. You will have more writing to do....Your Mom is right....
While part of me wishes MDMA therapy could just be legalized already I appreciate your perspectives and agree with most, if not all your criticisms. I believe a lot of people overlook these issues because they believe getting MDMA to people quickly is more important. Yet, getting psychedelics to people safely is paramount, and entrusting our minds to these billionaire funded corps or nonprofits is less than ideal.
Curious… are you totally against the death-rebirth model? Or do you think it needs to be better supported? Because, isn’t this model effective for some people? I had a powerful death-rebirth on LSD as a teenager and it was very therapeutic and transformative. I believe Grof is onto something with the BPMs. I experienced them and believe they helped me process and clear away birth trauma, thus reducing depressive symptoms and igniting a dormant spiritual impulse that has added meaning to my life.
By the way, I was in your UOttawa SAPS talk last week. I asked about how to best integrated psychedelics in society (the community-healing model).
I appreciate these criticisms, thoroughly explained, and confronting issues I’ve recognized in various healing and spiritual milieus. Though at some points the characterizations, from my perspective, lean lazy and reductive.
But my question is: what will do about it? If MAPS is missing the mark, how shall we work toward hitting it? To use the Hegelian cliche, after the thesis and antithesis, we need a synthesis.
I’m not saying that’s your work to do. But I wonder if you have any thoughts on the path forward.
Psychedelic Therapy's failures all boil down to one central failure: failure to understand how psychedelic chemicals actually work. And why "effects" of psychedelic substances so closely parallel the effects of non-drug experiences such as meditation, extreme sport, spontaneous mystical experiences, even the brutal medieval "religious" practices that no one in is right - or even wrong - mind would want to try these days.
Another excellent contribution from the brilliant Devenot, more antidote to the intoxicated hypedelic gold rush. Grof's breathwork is a religious practice and cannot be the basis for an FDA approved pharmaceutical; the cornerstone of psychedelic therapy is the use of persuasion to manipulate belief under the influence of potent psychoactive drugs characterized by suggestibility and lowering defenses to influence and control. Psychedelics have no place as mental health treatments. If people want to use psychedelics for their own self understanding of healing there should be legal access in a decriminalizaiton and harm reduction legal context. The entire effort to turn psychedelics instead into "treatments" for psychiatric diagnosed disorders is a fraud, bolstered by decades of zealotry, pseudoscience, professional self promotion, money-grabbing, and an old boys network of abusers who have been covering for each other's misconduct for decades. How about we reschedule psychedelics according to their actual risk profile and adopt sensible drug policy, instead of empowering a hyped pharmaceutical startup to essentially move in to capture the underground market in a bid to become a new legal drug cartel?
Not everyone shares your views, Will, and that's perfectly okay. I appreciate your perspective, but I feel that the statement, “Psychedelics have no place as a mental health treatment,” is overly broad. It can unintentionally dismiss the experiences of those who have found benefits in these treatments. Perhaps framing it as, “I believe” or “In my experience” would foster more open dialogue.
As someone who positions themselves as an ally for those with mental health issues and as a supporter of individuals harmed by traditional psychiatric practices, I find that your language could come off as less inclusive may have been intended. If I had to choose, I would prioritize safety over total decriminalization — but everyone has their unique perspective on this, and that's valid too (YMMV).
I understand that the concept of choice is important, but without ensuring safety, there can be a lack of true informed consent for those at risk of harm. It’s similar to how anti-abortion advocates might argue for options that put individuals in unsafe situations.
Thank you for your harm reduction PDF, "Getting Off of Anti-Depressants." It was incredibly helpful for me during my own journey of negotiating medication discontinuation with my psychiatrist. I also shared it with several therapists, and I want you to know that your work has been a supportive influence for me.
I remember our interactions on Twitter along with individuals like Monica, Laura Delano, and the Mad in America community. Despite our shared interests, you didn't follow me back or acknowledge me, which I found disheartening, perhaps because my approach seemed too mainstream for you. There was a clique. There still is within the ‘alternative’ mental health community. It has left me with a sense of being overlooked within what I felt was our shared community, where cliques and hierarchies can sometimes overshadow individual experiences. It was a missed opportunity to create more momentum for a movement, in my opinion.
While I have great respect for your advocacy, I wonder how representative it is of the broader group of women who have faced sexual abuse and harm from psychiatric methods. Your focus seems to lean towards advocating for individuals with severe experiences in institutions, while those with complex PTSD may not see the same representation. I can empathize with your personal journey, as it is indeed tragic, but I hope you also consider the voices of those who chose not to share their experiences openly.
I believe there are multiple ways to understand the psychedelic field beyond extreme positions. While I see the value in decriminalization, I wonder about the implications of a lack of accountability. Is it reasonable to discount agency oversight entirely because of a belief that government agencies are inherently problematic? It might come off as a libertarian approach, which has its own set of challenges, including potential risks without adequate safeguards.
I appreciate the freedom of choice, but I also believe that having some form of regulation can help protect individuals and communities. Nuanced understanding of these complex issues will not happen without shared commitment to find common ground.
Thanks Anna! For sure not everyone shares my views, and see all this without nuance - people are “on the bus” or “off the bus” with this issue. It is nuanced. My view is harm reduction - which is at heart about nuance, following each person - so I appreciate you appealing to nuance. I agree. (And my apologies for not following you on Twitter, send me your handle.) Glad to hear the guide was helpful. As far as psychedelics, I deal with a lot of people who have been harmed - as well as benefitted. (I deal with a lot of people who have been institutionalized, not institutionaized, CPTSD diagnosis, visible and public, hiding…). I’ve been harmed - as well as benefitted - from psychedelics. I am pro-access pro-harm reduction, but anti-commercialization and anti-medicalization. It’s a nuanced position. I've written a bit about this -- you can check my medium willhall. Comments are difficult and easy to misunderstand, feel free to reach out at my website to chat by phone. I don't think it's extremist to be against the war on drugs. In my view a harm reduction and decriminalization position don't lack nuance or commitment to common ground. My experience is the opposite - it is the war on drugs and Pharmaganda and psych diagnosis that lack nuance or finding common ground. One size fits all, everyone has to follow the psychiatric framework, live in fear of prosecution, submit to diagnosis, normalize forced treatment, support the prison industrial complex, all the harms that go along with criminalizing drug use. I think there is a misunderstanding between "using psychedelics and getting benefit" and "psychedelics as a mental health treatment." There is nuance needed. People should have access to these substances for whatever benefit they define, for themselves, including healing. We have 40+ years in the underground and risks have been exaggerated and it's time to be honest that we can't keep alcohol legal and tell people they go to jail if they possess MDMA or LSD. We need to admit people have used these drugs to heal - and also been harmed. They are unpredictable suggestibility drugs with strong expectation placebo dissociative effects as well as mysterious complex effects and influence effects. So I'm not dismissing people who report benefit - it is an effort to find nuance by recognizing these non medical experiences as valid. I think "recreationaI" users tend to be dismissed - they are not the subject of research, the hype focuses on "innovative treatments" for new markets. Key is "healing" here - as people define it, not as a mental health treatment diagnosed and directed by a professional. It is in fact the Pharma scheme right now that denies that people already benefit, instead claiming that to benefit you must be in a clinical supervised setting and must be with a diagnosis and must be under formal treatment planning, get your supply of $3 MDMA doses wrapped in $1500+ of therapy, you must believe the hype that there are not risks, you must submit to authority under the influence of a suggestibility drug, if you complain it's your symptom, if you have a bad response it's your underlying bipolar or borderline, you must buy from the Pharma cartel, etc etc. To help understand this nuance, look as an example at the proposal for psilocybin for depression. Yes people who experience depression who want to should have access to psilocybin. That’s decrim / harm reduction / end the war on drugs. That's /not/ what is going on here. Under the psilocybin for depression medicalization proposals, you would not have access - unless you are diagnosed by a professional with treatment resistant depression TRD -- and guess what the clinical criteria for TRD is: you need two SSRI prescriptions that are defined as failed by the doctor. That’s the diagnosis professional gatekeeper. Yes you have to consume SSRI's before you would have access to psilocybin under that plan. That's extreme to me. That requires people to expose themselves to the risks of SSRI's - or you don't get the diagnosis and are left under the war on drugs. People who don't want to take SSRI's won't get the diagnosis of TRD and won't get access. What about the people who experience depression but trace it to trauma? Or define it differently? Or see depression related to oppression, or ancestral healing? What if you go in and say 'hey doctor I have depression" and the doctor says "Actually you are borderline"? Medicalized propaganda about serotonin imbalances have been debunked, while social determinants of human misery such as poverty violence inequality overlooked. That's psychiatry… Same with MDMA - people who have non PTSD diagnosis would not get access, and too bad if you don't trust the therapist because you would be prohibited from taking it with your pastor, or partner, or a trusted friend or alone at the ocean with your dog. CPTSD is not a medical diagnosis, it doesn't exist as far as Pharma is concerned - so no, people who describe themselves as having a CPTSD diagnosis would be told Sorry you are bipolar or sorry you are borderline sorry you are DID etc. People who experience a spiritual crisis or oppression - none of this fits the treatment regime proposed. Autonomy self determination and self-definition are robbed by a pseudoscience of treatments that just don't have real evidence behind them and harm a lot of people. When people say they benefit from SSRI's, I believe their experience - and at the same time it is not dismissing that to make clear that SSRI's do not correct chemical imbalances, SSRI's have serious risks, placebo is real, everyone is different and we can’t x ray your brain to determine if the SSRI’s help (just waiting helps lift many depressions), exercise works better... In my view the psychiatric view of depression and Pharma are extremist. They define our experience for us. Why not just let people who want to use psilocybin or MDMA or whatever other substances use them for their own self definition - instead of putting the power in diagnostic and professional gatekeepers enriching themselves? Why not trust that people are suffering real pain rather than denying them when they don’t meet clinical criteria? Why perpetuate the war on drugs? "Mental health treatments" are not the same as 'responding to suffering" or "trying to help." There is nuance in the issue that gets lost. The fact is that people are already using psychedelics in the underground, and the added risks of criminalization are well recognized and need to end. Regulatory oversight is needed to protect people and that is not possible when the drugs are criminalized. If your dealer sells you contaminated MDMA you can't report them to the police; if you are abused while on MDMA you are much less free/supported to report the abuser than if you were on a legal substance like alcohol, if your cult leader is handing out MDMA you are afraid to report abuses bc you might also be charged, etc etc. That continues under medicalized psychedelics. If you think that when you are abused by a licensed therapist the regulatory bodies will protect you you might want to look at recent cases and how the regulatory bodies do nothing. Regulatory bodies trust the license over the patient over and over - the BBS in California does no investigation and will not take action unless there is a video, emails - a patient’s testimony they were abused does not count. The idea that regulatory safeguards are only possible under psychiatry doesn't see the experience of the many many people harmed by psychiatry because of how the diagnosis dismisses their views - how the profession protects abusers, how patients are doubted and discredited and dismissed by the diagnosis. We have very clearly seen this with psychedelic therapists - licensed therapists - who abuse patients and walk away. Since the beginning of MDMA therapy and going all the way back to LSD this has been true - and denied by the psychedelic revivalists and now the Pharmadelic investors. I wrote about this with my colleague Kayla Greenstien on Mad In America. Yes there is nuance here and we need a commitment to finding common ground, but that is what is lacking in the "psychedelic revival" that says you are either on the side of MAPS and medicalization or you are on the side of the war on drugs. Some of us are trying to create an honest harm reduction conversation, a perspective that doesn't falsify the science or deny the risks of psychedelics, that is pro-access and pro-honesty. These are powerful mind influencing suggestibility drugs that have been used for mind control MKULTRA etc. Putting them in the hands of mental health professionals with their diagnostic and incarceration powers is a bad, bad idea. It’s built on misinformation and manipulation and lies about risks just like the SSRI bubble was. (Of course SSRI’s carry more risks than psychedelics in many ways, but psychedelics also carry risks that are being downplayed.) So no, psychedelics should not be medical psychiatric treatments for mental health diagnosis. And commercialization under predatory monopoly capitalism leads to a Brave New World dystopia. And many people who take psychedelics are not better people for it. So given all the nuance and the common ground of commitment to safer and healthier and freer communities, and the urgency of this issue (we've been having dialogues as a society about the war on drugs for 50 years now), I believe that decriminalization for access outside medical contexts, without commercialization, under harm reduction policies, with honest scheduling at the DEA (not exaggerating risks or downplaying them, psychedelics certainly have no worse risk profile than alcohol benzos etc), ending the war on drugs... I think this is a non-extremist and nuanced approach, which is why I embrace a harm reduction framework that rejects psychiatric pseudoscience and psychedelic exceptionalism. I appreciate your comment and again sorry we didn’t connect previously.
Dear Will,
Thank you for your thoughtful sixteen-hundred-word response. I appreciate the effort you put into it and will take some time to reflect carefully on your points. Given the length of the responses, I may need to make this a post to ensure I address everything adequately.
I also want to be mindful that this publication belongs to Nese, so it's important that our discussion remains relevant. I believe there are connections to explore, particularly regarding their presentation at the FDA.
To address your concern about trust, it raises a compelling question: if licensed psychiatrists and psychotherapists cannot be trusted, how can we expect to trust individuals who may claim to be something like a shaman? This highlights the need for accountability in any practice involving mental health.
While I don't have a clear or definitive solution, I feel that the idea of complete freedom without accountability, often associated with libertarian thought, might not be the most effective approach. It's essential that there are consequences for actions—whether that involves losing one's livelihood or providing restitution to those harmed.
I believe that preventing harm doesn't mean restricting freedom, but rather creating a framework where individuals feel the weight of their actions. Allowing individuals to act without any oversight can leave space for unethical behavior that may go unchecked. It's crucial to consider how we can balance personal freedom with the need for accountability and protection for everyone involved.
Thank you again for your insights, and I look forward to continuing this conversation.
Heh, I'm glad you got some mileage out of that meme.
The meme is all I could think of when I read the NYT article. It captures their entire immature mentality, and already called it out months in advance of the latest escalation. Embarrassing.
I’m at a loss for words right now. Nese, I’m truly feel sorry for everything you’re going through. I wish there were a way I could provide you with more support, but I feel so lost myself. It's like I'm drowning in grief while trying to stay strong. There was a time when I felt such rage and a sense of hopelessness about it all, but I’m moving past that now. I suppose I'm coming to more of a place of acceptance but certainly not approval. Perhaps my experiences with ketamine have shaped how I face the overwhelming pain of witnessing our world’s struggles.
I feel such deep sorrow not just for the current state of our planet and our country but also for what’s unfolding in the psychedelic community. It’s disheartening to see that despite the presence of well-meaning people, goodwill alone isn’t enough to uphold a movement. The influence of wealth, greed, and the thirst for power have cast a shadow over everything. At the end of the day, while it's easy to lay blame and point fingers, we all must confront our conscience in this situation.
i was Stan's assistant in 1981 and 2 at Esalen when the breathwork was invented, because we couldn't use LSD. I used to lead the groups for the Esalen community. I can't believe how far it has come. To me it was interesting exercise in social psychology, but useless therapeutically, if not sometimes damaging. but the scene at Esalen was so extraordinary, a paradise. hard to reach and expensive. think of Aronson's Severity of Initiation research. Cognitive Dissonance. Participants in the exercise wanted to please, so the legend and the cult was born. of course Stan's charisma was unique. i once again commend your courage to expose these practices and those wanting to make a buck off naive, gullible people seeking well being. What a joke those Psychedelics Today people have become. I do think you mischaracterize Robert Kennedy though. Glad your wrist is better. You will have more writing to do....Your Mom is right....
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
While part of me wishes MDMA therapy could just be legalized already I appreciate your perspectives and agree with most, if not all your criticisms. I believe a lot of people overlook these issues because they believe getting MDMA to people quickly is more important. Yet, getting psychedelics to people safely is paramount, and entrusting our minds to these billionaire funded corps or nonprofits is less than ideal.
Curious… are you totally against the death-rebirth model? Or do you think it needs to be better supported? Because, isn’t this model effective for some people? I had a powerful death-rebirth on LSD as a teenager and it was very therapeutic and transformative. I believe Grof is onto something with the BPMs. I experienced them and believe they helped me process and clear away birth trauma, thus reducing depressive symptoms and igniting a dormant spiritual impulse that has added meaning to my life.
By the way, I was in your UOttawa SAPS talk last week. I asked about how to best integrated psychedelics in society (the community-healing model).
Blessings!
I appreciate these criticisms, thoroughly explained, and confronting issues I’ve recognized in various healing and spiritual milieus. Though at some points the characterizations, from my perspective, lean lazy and reductive.
But my question is: what will do about it? If MAPS is missing the mark, how shall we work toward hitting it? To use the Hegelian cliche, after the thesis and antithesis, we need a synthesis.
I’m not saying that’s your work to do. But I wonder if you have any thoughts on the path forward.
Psychedelic Therapy's failures all boil down to one central failure: failure to understand how psychedelic chemicals actually work. And why "effects" of psychedelic substances so closely parallel the effects of non-drug experiences such as meditation, extreme sport, spontaneous mystical experiences, even the brutal medieval "religious" practices that no one in is right - or even wrong - mind would want to try these days.
Exposing the problem:
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/awakenings-iv