Reading Psymposia's response to the NYTimes hit piece

Linking 2 videos, including my original interview with Andrew Jacobs and Rachel Nuwer for The New York Times.

The last few months have been a wild ride, and didn’t play out anything like I expected. There have been a lot of exciting and heartening developments, and I'm working on a few updates about those recent events. But first, I wanted to share Psymposia's response to the NYTimes hit piece with readers of this substack. My colleagues and I spent a lot of time on it, and it provides important context for future updates.

In my last post, I mentioned that I had agreed to the NYTimes interview on the condition that I could record the conversation. We had already been tipped off to the fact that the journalists for this story had a predetermined narrative, and that they were looking for dirt. It was clear that they weren't interested in our side of the story — which means they weren’t interested in the truth.

We decided to release that full interview recording with our collectively written response.

To try something new, I recorded myself reading Psymposia’s response out loud today, which I just uploaded to my YouTube channel. The response text — which links to the original interview video — is down below:

Video: “Reading Psymposia's response to the New York Times hit piece about MDMA-assisted therapy”

Correcting the Record: Addressing The New York Times’ Deceptive Coverage of Psymposia

On February 4th, The New York Times published a story by Andrew Jacobs and Rachel Nuwer that targeted Psymposia, titled “How a Leftist Activist Group Helped Torpedo a Psychedelic Therapy.” Rather than unpacking the actual causes of Lykos Therapeutics’ disastrous Phase 3 trials and FDA rejection, Jacobs and Nuwer produced a work of fictitious propaganda that prioritizes corporate interests over public health. The authors minimized the known factors that likely contributed to the denial of MDMA-assisted therapy — including Lykos’ failure to submit critical data to the FDA and their poorly executed clinical trial design — in order to scapegoat Psymposia and Dr. Neşe Devenot, along with other critics and whistleblowers.

In an absurdist turn, the article goes on to undermine its own premise, stating: “The significance of Psymposia’s role in torpedoing Lykos’s bid is unclear.” Jacobs admitted that he lacked any evidence to back up his narrative in a subsequent radio interview, where he stated that it was “hard to prove definitively, but my article tries to make the case that [Psymposia] did play some role.”

Jacobs and Nuwer were given license to speculate about the causes of this rejection by Lykos’ own lack of transparency: Lykos refused to publish the FDA’s Complete Response Letter, which discussed the factors that contributed to the agency’s decision. The seriousness of these factors is indicated by the unprecedented nature of the FDA’s requirement for an independent review of up to 10,000 hours of clinical trial session videos due to the agency’s mistrust of Lykos’ data. This request was in alignment with Devenot’s suggestions in their public comment that “all the video tapes throughout MAPS/Lykos’ clinical trials must be independently reviewed.” Although this newsworthy fact was known to Nuwer, it was not included in the story.

Instead, Jacobs and Nuwer politicized the science, continuing The Times’ longstanding tradition of disregarding the facts in service of pharmaceutical interests. By downplaying MAPS/Lykos’ problems, Jacobs and Nuwer contributed to the sensationalized drug reporting that The Times has become known for. From “Negro Cocaine ‘Fiends’ Are a New Southern Menace” to “Mexican, Crazed by Marihuana, Runs Amuck With Butcher Knife,” the paper has a long history of dehumanizing groups on behalf of institutional power.

Jacobs and Nuwer also continue The Times’ legacy of laundering the reputations of pharmaceutical companies by engaging in “blame-the-victim” strategies. In reporting on the Phase 2 abuse in Lykos’ trials, they misrepresented the abuse and alleged trafficking of a clinical trial participant as a sexual relationship, and falsely reported that the abuse occurred after the trial concluded.

In doing so, their article is similar to a 2004 Times article that demonized people who use drugs on behalf of opioid companies, which was later revealed to have been written by an author with direct ties to Purdue Pharma. This article, “Doctors Behind Bars: Treating Pain is Now Risky Business,” is now memorialized as a historic example of media collusion with pharmaceutical companies against the interests of public health.

Despite Nuwer’s personal and financial relationships with MAPS/Lykos, The Times allowed her to report on this story without disclosing these relationships to readers.

Nuwer has spoken at a fundraising event for MAPS — which included MAPS founder Rick Doblin and a Lykos board member — and she appeared on stage at Burning Man with Doblin and Genevieve Jurvetson, a major backer of MAPS/Lykos, while reporting for this story.

At Psychedelic Science 2023, MAPS’s flagship event, Nuwer participated in a book signing event that was promoted on the company’s email list. Nuwer’s book, which is currently available for sale on MAPS’s website, has been endorsed by MAPS Phase 3 principle investigator, Bessel van der Kolk, and former MAPS Canada advisor, Gabor Maté. Maté also facilitated the recruitmentof the MAPS Phase 2 participant who was later abused by MAPS therapists Richard Yensen and Donna Dryer.

Instances like these indicate the deeply entwined connections between MAPS/Lykos’ insiders and Nuwer. The New York Times’ Ethical Journalism handbook states that it is “essential” for reporters to “preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias.” While reporting on the story, Nuwer’s bias was evident when she defamed Psymposia on a national radio program, describing us as a “radical leftist group with the long-term goal of destroying MAPS and Lykos, driven by personal grudges and an anti-capitalism, anti-commodification of psychedelics agenda.”

Beyond Nuwer’s disregard for ethical journalism, her co-author Jacobs lied to us about the editorial process in his emails during the reporting. After Dr. Devenot’s interview for the story, they wrote to Jacobs:

Dr. Devenot: “Could you please connect me with your editor for this story? We have some questions about the angle of the story, and we want to ensure that we have enough time to respond to any specific allegations that are being made against us in writing.”

Jacobs: “As for speaking to our editor, New York Times editors do not get involved with interview subjects at this point in the process. We will provide you with plenty of time to respond to any allegations that are made in the story so you can be confident about that.”

Other than a single “fact-checking” email, where our responses were mostly ignored, Jacobs never provided us an opportunity to respond to allegations. This is in violation of The Times‘ “Guidelines on Integrity,” which state: “When the criticism is serious, we have a special obligation to describe the scope of the accusation and allow the subject to respond in detail. No subject should be caught off guard when the paper is published or feel they had no chance to respond.”

Immediately following publication, Psymposia reached out to Jacobs and Nuwer’s editor, Kate Phillips, to address factual inaccuracies and biased reporting that paint a distorted picture of Psymposia.

Nuwer and Jacobs have inaccurately claimed that “seven of those 10 [critical speakers at the Open Public Hearing of the FDA’s advisory committee meeting] were affiliated with Psymposia, though none mentioned their connection.” They made this claim without explaining how they reached it or naming the individuals involved. The Times has refused to clarify or correct this statement.

In our fact check, we listed the five actual members of Psymposia: Dr. Neşe Devenot, Dr. Brian Pace, Brian Normand, Russell Hausfeld, and James Curtis. Three of us spoke during the Open Public Hearing period of the advisory committee meeting. In reality, Psymposia published a press release on June 3, 2024 — prior to the FDA’s advisory committee meeting — that announced our involvement in the advisory committee hearing. In a subsequent email, we stated: “Dr. Brian Pace, Dr. Neşe Devenot, and Russell Hausfeld are all approved to deliver a 3-minute comment during” the Open Public Hearing.

During this meeting, Psymposia fully complied with the FDA’s guidelines for disclosure. At the start of the Open Public Hearing, the instructions urged participants to disclose “any financial relationship you may have with the applicant.” Neither Psymposia nor its members have any financial relationship with Lykos.

We also informed The Times that the article relied on biased sources, like MAPS employees, without disclosing this fact to readers. The original published version of the story did not disclose that two primary sources — Dr. Bia Labate and Jonathan Lubecky — were current and former MAPS employees, respectively.

After we raised this omission with the editors, a correction was issued regarding Labate’s employment. The article still paints Labate as victimized by Psymposia while failing to acknowledge the actual context of her claims. In 2019, Psymposia called attention to Labate’s attempt to publicly rehabilitate admitted serial predator Daniel Pinchbeck, who had assaulted Dr. Devenot. This fact has been publicly available for years. None of this was mentioned in the article.

Inexplicably, the article also fails to disclose that Lubecky spent five years lobbying politicians as the Veterans & Governmental Affairs Liaison for MAPS — a position that was removed from his website within two days of our notifying The Times’ editors of this connection. This failure to disclose a biased source is notable, especially considering that Lubecky previously accused Psymposia of committing actual “war crimes” in our FDA testimony.

Although their story lacks journalistic merit, it succeeded in fueling hate and online extremism towards critics of MAPS/Lykos. Although Jacobs, Nuwer, and others may remain puzzled as to why victims and whistleblowers are hesitant to go on the record, they need look no further than their own irresponsible reporting for the answer.

As Psymposia’s Dr. Devenot previously stated:

“It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that journalists with close ties to MAPS have resorted to such a transparently partisan political attack. This piece is an opportunistic attempt to politicize critics with a narrative that appeals to the Trump administration. While Jacobs and Nuwer attack Psymposia and me personally, they have failed to refute our core claims, which remain important and unrebutted. To be clear, their attacks are flatly incorrect and underscore their desperation to distract from the real story: that MAPS’s handling of its clinical trials was a disaster and Lykos is in financial disarray.”

By misleading the public and deflecting attention from Lykos’ failures, their reporting undermines the responsible and informed use of psychedelics while normalizing scientific misconduct. In doing so, the authors have abdicated their responsibility as journalists in order to manufacture consent for a pharmaceutical company with close ties to Elon Musk’s inner circle.

The story’s blatant disregard for so many of the Times’ editorial policies signals that there are powerful incentives for industry-friendly journalists to discredit Psymposia and other critics of Lykos. Whenever researchers present facts that threaten profit, the corporate playbook is to smear them — whether the industry is tobacco, fossil fuels, or psychedelics. Jacobs’ and Nuwer’s demonization of Psymposia will not make Lykos’ MDMA-assisted therapy protocol any more safe or efficacious.

Despite their clear intent to politicize the science and intimidate Psymposia, critics, and whistleblowers from coming forward, we remain steadfast in our research and reporting — which, unlike The New York Times’ story, is backed up by facts and evidence.

After our requests for corrections were repeatedly ignored, we made the decision to release the recording of Dr. Devenot’s interview with Jacobs and Nuwer. (The journalists consented to our recording of the interview as a precondition for Dr. Devenot’s participation.) This interview demonstrates the extent to which The Times’ authors omitted Psymposia’s actual motivations from their story. Additionally, the full list of the story’s falsehoods and our requested corrections is available on our website.

Psymposia remains undeterred in our commitment to a post-prohibition world guided by facts, science, and freedom of choice, not pseudoscience, abuse, and propaganda.

Video: “The New York Times Interview - Dr. Neşe Devenot, Andrew Jacobs, and Rachel Nuwer”