> I did fairly deep research on this beforehand, looking into actual pharmacological aspect of interactions with things like dopamine, etc
While you can read about mechanisms and in vitro this and that all day, this is not the same as quality applied clinical research, which frankly just doesn't exist in any meaningful quantity. I am a practitioner, and I am very sympathetic to the movement of alternative treatments counter to established standards of care, however at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that the controlled research is non-existent or poor, and things like the MAPS manual are essentially woo.
And specifically the problems I have is that ironically, these alternative treatments which are supposedly trying to overcome boundaries of established care are extremely proscriptive themselves.. they're limited, just differently, and the justifications have very little evidence based backing.
Many studies have been done, not just in vitro but in real people with just about the most severe mental issues there are: severe depression and PTSD, and the results have been positive, and these studies have been published in peer reviewed journals and been well received by the scientific and medical community.
So can you describe what evidence you're looking for and what would satisfy you?
Also, you say you're a practitioner. I wonder what you are a practitioner of exactly. If it's some sort of traditional therapy you should be aware that for PTSD and severe depression the evidence is that traditional therapy is very ineffective. So what would you suggest for those suffering from these conditions if not psychedelic-assisted therapy, which from my reading is actually far more effective for these conditions than traditional therapy?
While you can read about mechanisms and in vitro this and that all day, this is not the same as quality applied clinical research, which frankly just doesn't exist in any meaningful quantity. I am a practitioner, and I am very sympathetic to the movement of alternative treatments counter to established standards of care, however at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that the controlled research is non-existent or poor, and things like the MAPS manual are essentially woo.
And specifically the problems I have is that ironically, these alternative treatments which are supposedly trying to overcome boundaries of established care are extremely proscriptive themselves.. they're limited, just differently, and the justifications have very little evidence based backing.