Talk:Psychedelic therapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakexx360.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 May 2019 and 30 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caharvey11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 10 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katiefitz18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kellynbobellyn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

An author of the article had given the translation of the word "Psychodelic" as "mind-manifesting". I have corrected that, because the common translation of the ancient greek term "psukhe" (which represents the correct philological-scholarly transcription in latin letters) or "psyche" (which is the commonly used variant in non-scholarly contexts) would certainly be "soul", as in "psycho-logy" = knowledge/study of the soul ! English "mind" one would usually translate for ancient greek "nous".147.142.186.54 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Therapy"

I "stumbled" over the use of the word "therapy" here, esp. in the sub-section "Psychodelic Therapy".

Now, I am not familiar in any way with "North American practice". I know a little bit about the "psycholytic" method (since I am European), which employed certain drugs - in tiny doses within a professional therapeutic setting - to sort of "dissolve" BARRIERS to gain access to areas or material during a ps.therapeutic session that otherwise seemed "unaccessible" to the conscious of both the patient and the therapist; hence the drug itself would not in any way perform a "healing action", but work as a tool to open a pathway to "hidden chambers", the contents of which could then be dealt with by the humans involved in "conventional ways" (expressing, talking, analysing, clarifying connections to behaviour and symptoms, "working through" [psycho-jargon] etc.). - I find that the article is misleading on this point, because it makes the reader assume that the DRUG is actively "setting things right" in the human (patient's) psyche, which to my knowledge it does not and was not believed to effect. And mind you, that is a fundamental difference: it sounds like "take a pill (albeight one prescribed by a physician) - and 'bingo' you are all right". Like an easy treatment with psychopharmacological drugs, same strategy, same action...

Now by contrast, says the article, elsewhere (i.e. predom. in N.America) high doses are used to provoke or create "ecstatic" experiences and the like. It is not clear to me, and the article does not elaborate in any way, WHY such things would act or contribute to HEAL that patient, and then, what understanding of "healing" might be shared by the proponents of such practices, and on what timescale it is thought to manifest itself - and stay stable - ? etc. With other words, what precisely would set it apart from some person just taking stuff at home on their couch in order to have fun, escape boredom, get a "kick", escape unpleasant emotions, forget their mental and emotional trouble and pain etc. If all sorts of things are supposed to qualify as "therapy", the term looses meaning. If it is to retain its meaning, what makes drug taking while sharing a room with a person who considers himself a "therapist" a "healing" activity ?? - That needs to be explained, because it is the core of the whole topic !

Regards, Sophophilos: 147.142.186.54 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an alternative therapy when used with that method, so based on beliefs held by those who believe in it, if you see what I mean. They tend to have a self-development type ethos in line with Esalen or Timothy Leary or Stanislav Grof- and their views are not endorsed by many people (rightly or wrongly.)

How can an article entitled "Psychedelic Therapy" have a section called "Psychedelic Therapy"? Myrvin (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "politicised regulation" seems derogatory; and I don't see how you can 'contradict' a regulation. Perhaps the sentence should be something like: "The evidence (or argument) supporting this regulation is contradicted...." Myrvin (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

edits/reliable sources

I'm revising the page a lot to include citations from the BBC etc. Many of these claimed studies can be sourced, and I genuinely intend to do so. Hence the tags. Feel free to help.:) special, random,Merkinsmum 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Current research

I edited the current research section as it seemed to lack npov and read like a press release for John Halpern and MAPS. They have been very visible in media accounts of psychedelic research but the extent of their achievements is not clear, since researchers like Rick Strassman and Franz Vollenweider and organizations like the Heffter Research Institute also deserve significant recognition. Human research with hallucinogens has been possible since Strassman established a precedent at the FDA. Many groups in the US and world are now doing human psychedelic work. However, organizations like MAPS have encountered difficulties. I tried to add in an a clear explanation of why that is. --68.167.207.250 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is some current research I'd like to add. I think it gives good insight into the state of research:

More recently, Johns Hopkins University and New York University have conducted large randomized, placebo-controlled studies. These two studies are some of the first large controlled studies measuring the effects of psychedelic therapy on depression and anxiety in cancer patients . Across clinician-ratings and self-ratings, the psychedelic treatment produced statistically significant lowered anxiety and depression, with sustenance for at least 6 months. Importantly, adverse effects from the drugs were not noted .

Both studies also attributed the efficacy in part to patients experiencing a “mystical experience” . A mystical experience is a very personal introspective experience where some sort of unity or transcendence of time and space is described. More research is necessary to expand generalizability of the conclusions. Also, more research is necessary to understand the biological properties of a mystical experience. --Erm253 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)erm253

References

OR removed

Efforts to utilize the purely pharmacological properties of LSD and other drugs in psychedelic treatment were completely abandoned after it was realized that they had no direct chemotherapeutic curative properties. Rather, it is through the unique introspective state attained by the patient (with the drug as a ‘catalyst’), in combination with a positive, empathetic relationship with an experienced psychotherapist, that the actual ‘healing’ can occur.

Let's see the sources for this, please. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article relies too heavily on primary sources

I have decided to tag this article with {{medref}} because it relies too heavily on primary sources.

WP:MEDRS says: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." (Emphasis mine.)

Please see also the sentence of WP:MEDRS#Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies which begins with the words "Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence".

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the article needs to be cleaned up. There is one particular point to be made, though. Even though the majority of 1960s studies don't fulfil the strict methodological criteria of today, they were nonetheless professional, academic studies, and their findings should be reported in one way or another. Sure, WP:MEDRS is a fine guideline, but it is obviously based on the assumption of academic freedom and cannot account for purely anti-scientific ostracization of research areas. Psychedelic research was halted for decades because of political zeitgeist. The relative lack of good sources is, first and foremost, due to this fact; it is not caused by inherent flaws or misconclusions in the pre-1970s research.

That said, we still need better sources. I'm planning to do some major work on this article in the near future. Anyone willing to help me? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Parking newly added content here for now

According to the accounts of Grof and Halifax, a pediatrician named Valentina Pavlovna Wasson, was intrigued by the use of psychedelic mushrooms by Mexicans. She further turned out to be the first recorded Westerner to be admitted into a “sacred ritual led by a medicine woman”. The use of psychedelic mushrooms was supposedly a natural characteristic of the Columbian cultures, and it had spread wide across Central America. After the use of this substance, the effect of the mushrooms left a great impression upon Valentina. She later revealed that these magic mushrooms could be put into use for deep psychic experiences and even other various medical/therapeutic uses. These mushrooms are identified as Psilocybe mexicana (Psylocybin).

Nonetheless, before the West had the begun its deep research and experiments into the benefits of psychedelic therapy, the use of these psychedelic plants were referred as mystical healing powers across most ancient cultures. It became a tradition to use these plants for all their communal rituals. It would be involved in death mostly, helping those in pain transition into the next dimension. This transition would be a part of a shared experience, as the “shaman or the wise leader would ingest these psychedelic plants or would make the group do so” in order to conduct the ritualistic process properly. Psilocybin, marijuana and mescaline were commonly practiced for these spiritual experiences. The active psychedelic properties of most of these hallucinogenic plants came under the inspection of Western scientists only recently.

Sizeofint (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

References

editing article

I need ideas on how to improve this article.

Kellynbobellyn (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1) Read WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDHOW

1) Get say 5 recent MEDRS sources on this topic (find them via the box at the top of this page - the part starting with "Ideal sources ....")

2) read them, carefully

3) Read this article, carefully.

3) Review this article to see if the sections follow the sections described in MEDMOS.

4) If the sections don't follow MEDMOS, fix the sections and move content where it belongs.

5) Review the content again in light of what you have learned from the MEDRS sources, and update/fill in/correct where ever you find problems. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

PBIO4181J Evaluation: Overall the article is organized into sections that all relate to the topic itself, but it could be organized better. There is a history section right when the article begins and another section about history at the end. Those two sections should be closer together in the article to make it more understandable. The topic is not fully covered and there is a lack of information on the subject. The article only covers the use of psychedelic therapy with regards to alcoholism and terminal illnesses. To improve the quality and information it would be best to add in the use of psychedelic therapy as treatment for addiction as a whole, illnesses like depression and anxiety, and server or chronic pain. This is especially important because in the history portion of the article it is stated that psychedelic therapy can be used to treat PTSD, depression, alcoholism, and cluster headaches, so information should be added regarding each. Kellynbobellyn (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Another organization mistake is putting the 'restrictive regulation' section towards the end. The section explains that psychedelic therapy was at a standstill for awhile because of government laws on the psychoactive drugs. This section would be more appropriate towards the beginning of the article because it is apart of the topic's history and does no good to read it at the very end. The article is also written in chunks and doesn't flow well. For example, this first section is broken into eight mini paragraphs with ideas that jump around. Overall the writing and ideas of the article are very scattered and jumbled. It is also a good idea to state the importance and recent concern for psychedelic therapy, so readers understand why this topic is being written about. The article begins with an introduction that gives a brief overview on psychedelic therapy. It could be rewritten to emphasize the main points of the article rather only describing the psychoactive drugs used and how the therapy sessions work. It ends with information about a previous study done, which I think would be more appropriate in a section dedicated to prior research. The article has many headings and subheadings which is good, but there are no images or diagrams shown. Adding images and figures from previous studies to show how psychedelic therapy as helped people should be done. The overall coverage of the article is very neutral and unbiased. The article explains the positive effects psychedelic therapy has had on people and also highlights an opposing view. Lastly, the references are all reliable and good sources of evidence, but more citations are needed. It is not good to have facts presented with no citation afterwords. One problem with some of the references is that you aren't able to be redirected to them. This makes it hard to tell if the information presented actually came from that reference. Kellynbobellyn (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDMOS and base your comments about article structure and style on that. Style is in Wikipedia is not governed by individual preferences. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This article does need help. Thanks for taking it on! I imagine the layout should be something similar to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_treatments.2C_and_devices. Sizeofint (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent & Upcoming Changes

I have restructured the bulk of the page to make more sense. I isolated information about its history to a single sequential section. I removed information about the applications of therapy from the history section to its own Applications section. I also added a significant amount of information about studies conducted after 2000, which the original page lacked almost completely.

In the near future, I plan to review/revise the opening summary, Methods section, and Applications section to make sure each is written in a non-biased fashion and that all claims are cited. Additionally, I would like to add a "PTSD" subheader underneath the new Applications section and attempt to fill in some information. I want to add more information to the new "Early Psychedelic Therapy" subheader.

Jakexx360 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Those were generally good changes, thanks! Please see the note I left at your talk page about sourcing (no primary sources please) and formatting citations (which were mostly correct!) Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have cleaned up the intro paragraph to be substantially shorter and more to the point. It had a lot of bad and pointless information in it originally. I don't think I'll have time to add the `PTSD` subheader in the `Applications` section, however that is a perfect location for anyone who wants to contribute to add any of the huge wealth of PTSD-related studies (utilizing MDMA) that have occurred since the early 2000s. That is likely the most relevant information somebody would be looking for when they visit this page.

Jakexx360 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

---

February 25th, 2020 Katie Thorne I am going to be doing some work on this page over the next few weeks. I am going to be adding to some sections and updating some with more recent research. Once I have completed editing it I will spell out what I changed exactly.

Lack of scientific evidence on "Psychedelic therapy"

I can find a lot of hype and claims on this topic but there is no evidence. Research about it is biased: small sample groups, no randomization, lack of long term observation etc.

I think this page should be thoroughly revised and corrected, highlighting the evidence we have on "Psychedelic therapy". Digressivo (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of research has been done since the discussion on lack of evidence, but there is a lot of large RTC's that still need to be done. Will be updating this page with systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Td1678 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Cómo participar en la investigación ?

He tenido experiencias propias con referente al tema watherlobo21@gmail.com 181.203.24.134 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't side effects be mentioned?

I see no mention of risks or side effects. Today's New York Times has a balanced article summarizing what's known, both potential benefits and risks; see [1]. NightHeron (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

PMID:30102078 would seem pertinent. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

yes very pertinent, agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liviaamurphy444 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gksanders, Amcsparkplug.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 January 2023 and 30 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Td1678 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JustinxLane (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 1 January 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Td1678 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JustinxLane (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is PsyPost RS?

A recent edit [2] concerning psychedelic therapy and domestic violence is sourced to PsyPost [3], a website that says it is "dedicated to reporting on latest research". I don't think its use in this article is compliant with WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS, but I'd like to know what others think. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

FDA Grants Breakthrough Therapy Status To LSD Drug To Treat Anxiety

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2024/03/11/fda-grants-breakthrough-therapy-status-to-lsd-drug-to-treat-anxiety/?sh=5230d4437ccb

It is a form of LSD (lysergide d-tartrate) designated as MM120, is being developed by biopharma company MindMed as a treatment for general anxiety disorder (GAD).

I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor but thought I'd add this to the talk page as I think it would be notable for inclusion 134.134.139.78 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Already mentioned. Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverting changes based on false claims?

You just reverted my changes saying that the source is not reliable, however our source is reliable and our articles have also extra sources.

I believe that you should look more indepth into what do you consider reliable or not, becasue right now this piece of information has sources such as:

http://protest-muenchen.sub-bavaria.de/artikel/466

Do you consider this a Reliable Source ? a website in german which is not even secure? Compared to a website which cite sources on their articles. Mariaioana234 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The website in your edits is not reliable. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you cannot promote your shop's website by spamming it on Wikipedia. You have a history of doing that. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that the website is not reliable. Based on what?

The source is a well written article that cites sources of the information.

The question I asked you is about http://protest-muenchen.sub-bavaria.de/artikel/466

which is cited as a source. However you are avoiding to answer and still keep saying that the source is not reliable. Mariaioana234 (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Article in today's NY Times

An interesting article on psychedelic therapy appeared today: [4]. The author, science writer Caty Enders, writes: "I was for a long time a psychedelic proponent, bullish on the idea that a once-illicit treatment could have widespread benefits for the many who are suffering. But through my own experience in the psychedelic community and proximity to the science of psychedelic therapy, I’ve come to realize that the field is plagued with poor clinical trial design and questionable practices that have led researchers and clinicians to premature confidence in what psychedelics can do. The recent F.D.A. decision has added to my concern that Western medicine’s promotion of psychedelics might have oversold hope to the most vulnerable among us, while fueling an industry that was once projected to be worth over $7 billion by 2029." Perhaps her observations can be used in the article. NightHeron (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi NightHeron, interesting and seems relevant to cover here. I'd say go ahead and add it as far as how this is playing out in society, investment, etc. That said, for the specific point of the low scientific standards in the field, I think we need to cite something that's WP:MEDRS. Maybe Enders has some publications on this, and also I think Jeffrey Lieberman had a peer-reviewed editorial raising concerns along these lines. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 16:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gazelle55. I'm not in the medical field and am not the right person to write a well-sourced paragraph on this. I got interested in this issue in 2021 after reading an article [5] in the May 9, 2021 NY Times that was not at all skeptical and was based on interviewing Rick Doblin, who reminded me of the followers of Timothy Leary back around 50 years ago. I also saw that this Wikipedia article was pretty much all positive. I raised the issue at WP:FTN (see [6]) and at the WikiProject Medicine talk-page (see [7]). But other editors made a strong case that psychedelic therapy provides an important approach to helping people who are in desperate shape because of PTSD or other ailments, and so I dropped the matter. One of them referred me to an article titled "MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study" (see [8]) that appeared in Nature Medicine the day after the NY Times article and that stated in its abstract that their study showed that the therapy is "highly efficacious for individuals with severe PTSD". I was bothered by the claim in both the title and abstract that the research was double-blind, since I didn't see how patients would fail to notice whether or not they'd taken a psychedelic, and in fact the main body of the article acknowledged the difficulty in double-blinding, except perhaps with low doses. The title and abstract seemed to me to exaggerate what the main body of the article actually showed, and this made me wonder about the reliability of the authors. Interestingly, just today I tried to look at that article again, and learned that last month the journal had retracted the article (see [9]). After seeing the contrast between the gushing tone of the NY Times in May 2021 and the skeptical tone in the August 2024 article, I wondered again whether the Wikipedia coverage should change the tone and focus of Psychedelic therapy and related articles toward more skepticism. But, as I said, I have only a layperson's interest in medical research and no special knowledge of the subject. NightHeron (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wording on psychedelic therapy and suicidality

Hi NightHeron, thanks for taking the time to review my edits (specifically this one). I didn't mean to edit war but you're right that posting here would have been better.

I think you're right that my original wording (the edit before, not this one) did make the findings sound better established than they are, but I'd like to discuss my second version (the one in the diff I linked) further. The central change I'm interested is switching from "There is limited evidence that" (currently in the article) to "While existing research on suicidality and psychedelic therapy is limited, studies have tentatively found" (my proposed version). "There is limited evidence that" can be parsed as both "The amount/quality of the evidence is limited, but what it shows is" and "The evidence shows the following effect but its size/importance is small." I'm not disputing that limited could have multiple meanings both colloquially and scientifically, but I think in research we have a much greater appreciation for how difficult it is to get clear evidence on complex topics with human participants (e.g., what a small proportion of Cochrane reviews of medical interventions actually get rated "high quality evidence" despite a lot of research and being used in clinical practice). I think most or at least many people just expect that if a scientific study found something then that's how it is, and therefore they'd usually interpret "there is limited evidence that" as "it doesn't work very well." Of course, I'm doing and reading research so often that I'm not the best judge of how most readers in a general audience will interpret this -- so happy to discuss further -- but that's my best guess.

In your edit summary, you also raised the level of adherence to standards for medical research, and feel free to expand on that to give me a better sense of where you're coming from here. In my experience, pretty much every systematic review of a relatively small body of research draws attention to study heterogeneity, unrepresentative samples or high levels of exclusions, designs without proper blinding/placebo/counterbalancing, etc. Not to diminish this, I certainly think more research should be done, and done better, but I think the phrase "While existing research... is limited" covers the current situation. If the review says this is an unusually large concern here, then I think it would make sense to cover that. I'll also reply to your post about the NYT article in a moment -- but I think that was not specifically on the topic of effects on suicidality.

Another small adjustment I included was changing "reduction in suicidality scores" to "reduction in suicidality"... I think this could trip up some readers who aren't in the habit of thinking of psychological experiences quantitatively like that.

Anyway let me know your thoughts and if you'd be okay with the specific change above (as well as removing "scores"). Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 16:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The source makes quite a big deal of the limitations, so the current text seems appropriately caveated. Bon courage (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Gazelle55, I have no objection to your latest wording. NightHeron (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)