Macrodosing to microdosing with psychedelics: Clinical,social,and cultural perspectives

Abstract

To date, the clinical and scientific literature has best documented the effects of classical psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, and dimethyltryptamine (DMT), in typical quantities most often associated with macrodosing. More recently, however, microdosing with psychedelics has emerged as a social trend and nascent therapeutic intervention. This variation in psychedelic practice refers to repeat, intermittent ingestion of less-than-macrodose amounts that do not cause the effects associated with full-blown “trips”. Microdosing paves the road to incorporating psychedelic drugs into a daily routine while maintaining, or even improving, cognitive and mental function. Unlike macrodosing with psychedelics, the influence of microdosing remains mostly unexplored. And yet, despite the paucity of formal studies, many informal accounts propose that microdosing plays an important role as both a therapeutic intervention (e.g., in mental disorders) and enhancement tool (e.g., recreationally—to boost creativity, improve cognition, and drive personal growth). In response to this relatively new practice, we provide an integrative synthesis of the clinical, social, and cultural dimensions of microdosing. We describe some of the overarching context that explains why this practice is increasingly in vogue, unpack potential benefits and risks, and comment on sociocultural implications. In addition, this article considers the effects that macro- and microdoses have on behavior and psychopathology in light of their dosage characteristics and contexts of use.

Keywords

classical psychedelics LSD macrodose microdosing psilocybin

Introduction

Punctuated by a checkered history, psychedelic substances produce mind-altering experiences that may have therapeutic and recreational value (Nichols, 2016; Vollenweider et al., 1998). Classical psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, and dimethyltryptamine (DMT), mainly work through 5-HT_2A receptor agonism, inducing altered states of consciousness by affecting perception, mood, and thought (Preller & Vollenweider, 2016; Vollenweider et al., 1998). Here is a typical description that captures the experience of ingesting a full dose classical psychedelic:

Without causing physical addiction, craving, major physiological disturbances, delirium, disorientation, or amnesia, [it] more or less reliably produces thought, mood, and perceptual changes otherwise rarely experienced except in dreams, contemplative and religious exaltation, flashes of vivid involuntary memory, and acute psychosis. (Grinspoon & Bakalar, 1979, p. 9)

In line with the modern cultural and scientific interest in psychedelics, more recently, the practice of microdosing, with a typical protocol of ingesting one-10th to one-20th of a regular dose every 3 to 4 days, has emerged (Fadiman, 2011). As a recent practice with illegal substances, there have been great differences in substance, dose, frequency, and duration between users (Kuypers et al., 2019). However, microdosing was commonly conceptualized as the frequent use of psychedelic substances in low doses (e.g., 10–15 µgrams of LSD) (Szigeti et al., 2021). It has become a popular practice, with many thousands of individuals reporting benefits in creativity and productivity, and paving the road to microdosing becoming interchangeable with nootropics (Machek, 2019), “smart drugs” (d’Angelo et al., 2017), or “mental tonics” (Pollan, 2019, p. 304). Positive anecdotal reports continue to appear in the media with sparse scientific support from controlled studies.

In this review, we examine research findings with classical psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin, DMT) in high and low doses, explore commonalities and differences in between two cases, contextualize the recent practice of microdosing, and discuss the clinical, social, and cultural implications of this new practice.

Macrodoses

Plants and plant-based derivatives possessing mind-altering effects have been a part of ritualistic settings for centuries (Schultes, 1969). Despite their rich history and documented use by indigenous healers in different cultures, psychedelics did not appear in modern medicine until the isolation of mescaline from the peyote cactus by Arthur Heffter in 1896 (Heffter, 1896) and the synthesis of LSD from ergot fungus by Albert Hofmann in 1938 (Hofmann, 1979). Thereafter, Hofmann accidentally stumbled upon the psychoactive properties of LSD, and since then, psychedelics have become a focus of interest for their therapeutic potential in clinical and research settings. Several clinical trials have been subsequently published showing promising results, especially in the treatment of alcohol dependence (Bowen et al., 1970; Hollister et al., 1969; Kurland, 1985; Tomsovic & Edwards, 1970), opioid dependence (Savage & McCabe, 1973), end-of-life distress in cancer patients (Grof et al., 1973; Kurland, 1985; Kurland et al., 1972), and pain (Kast, 1967; Kast & Collins, 1964). However, scholars have subsequently criticized the majority of these trials as methodologically weak and suboptimal (e.g., for not having control groups or blinding) (Rucker et al., 2018). In addition, a mixture of social trends, confusion, fear, and political tension (e.g., many young Americans who used psychedelics recreationally dodged the Vietnam draft) complicated the picture (Nutt et al., 2013). Simultaneously, public opinion concerning psychedelics responded to “media sensationalism, lack of information, and cultural biases, rather than evidence-based harm assessments” (Johansen & Krebs, 2015). So, pitted against a backdrop of problematic recreational use and the zeitgeist against a growing counter-culture (Dyck, 2005), in the 1960s LSD and psilocybin made their way into the “Schedule I” category of drugs, deemed by the U.S. government to have a high potential for abuse without an accepted medical benefit.

However, in retrospect, conventional clinical wisdom has confirmed that LSD and psilocybin rank as some of the least harmful recreational drugs, certainly less than alcohol and tobacco (Nutt et al., 2010). Moreover, classical psychedelics are seen as an anomaly among illicit drugs because they have extremely low potential of abuse, as they do not cause compulsive drug seeking, and are not associated with withdrawal syndrome (Johnson et al., 2008; O’Brien, 2001). In contrast to other illicit drugs, population studies have found no association between psychedelic use and negative mental health outcomes (Krebs & Johansen, 2013). Instead, a lifetime of use of psychedelics is found to be correlated with lower levels of psychological distress (Hendricks et al., 2015), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior (Hendricks et al., 2014 , 2018), and reduced intimate partner violence (Thiessen et al., 2018).

After a lacuna in the field of psychedelic research that lasted from the 1970s to the 1990s, we are now witnessing an incipient “psychedelic renaissance” (Sessa, 2012). In this second coming of psychedelic research, contemporary studies have examined the clinical benefits of psychedelics in the treatment of depression (Carhart-Harris, Bolstridge, et al., 2018; Carhart-Harris et al., 2016; Osório et al., 2015; Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019; Sanches et al., 2016), end-of-life distress with terminally-ill patients (Gasser et al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2016; Grob et al., 2011), alcohol dependence (Bogenschutz et al., 2015), tobacco dependence (Johnson et al., 2014), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Moreno et al., 2006).

Microdoses

Unlike the vast literature addressing macrodoses, or the nascent effort to study megadoses (Brown et al., 2017) of psychedelics, the effects of low doses remain underexplored. However, anthropological accounts mention the use of psychedelic substances in low doses for a variety of therapeutic effects (e.g., to increase libido, to reduce appetite, to increase courage, and to treat some inflammatory and infectious disorders; Prioreschi, 1991). Reported accounts of use among the Aztecs document their consumption of small amounts of psilocybin-containing mushrooms, ingested over several consecutive days, for rheumatic pain and fever (Schultes, 1940), as well as to increase visual acuity for hunting (McKenna, 1999).

Albert Hofmann mentioned the use of very low doses of LSD as an antidepressant or psychostimulant (Horowitz, 1976). However, there was no formal research on microdosing prior to the prohibition of psychedelics in 1967, and the practice didn’t become popular until after the publication of James Fadiman’s book, The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide, which was the first to describe microdosing with psychedelics in detail (Fadiman, 2011). Fadiman outlined the benefits of microdosing, 3-day cycle, and guidelines for dosing. This book contains dosing scripts, including anecdotal case reports, mostly emphasizing positive improvements. Following Fadiman’s book, many stories on microdosing appeared in the popular media, with a particular focus on people working in the technology sector (Dean, 2017; Glatter, 2015). Among the benefits of microdosing, individuals reported improvement in creativity and productivity. Moreover, they preferred microdosing to psychostimulants as a cognitive enhancer (d’Angelo et al., 2017). Non-scientific literature and practices of microdosing have grown in proportion to scientific attention and inquiry into psychedelic use in moderate to high doses.

Different from its use and definition in clinical pharmacology (Tewari & Mukherjee, 2010), in psychedelic literature microdose defines a dose range that does not cause marked perceptual alterations (such as hallucinations), so it is labeled sub-perceptual, sub-hallucinogenic, and sub-psychoactive doses. LSD and psilocybin comprise the most common substances used in microdosing when following a schedule-protocol of intermittent ingestion, spaced across a week (Anderson, Petranker, Rosenbaum, et al., 2019; Hutten et al., 2019). Intermittency stems from concerns about tolerance, which some studies report as occurring within three days (Cholden et al., 1955; Isbell et al., 1956). In the case of DMT, however, tolerance seems irrelevant, probably because of its shorter half-life and drug metabolism (Galvão et al., 2018; Schindler et al., 2018). Another reason to microdose every few days, rather than daily, speaks to the persisting effects of psychedelics (Carhart-Harris, Bolstridge, et al., 2018; Garcia-Romeu et al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2006, 2008, 2011). Accounts in the popular and trade press mention that the beneficial effects of microdosing would carry over for one or two days after ingestion (Fadiman, 2011; Waldman, 2018). However, in an online survey, microdosers reported positive effects for only the dosing day (Polito & Stevenson, 2019).

Preclinical studies with microdosing report a mixed bag of effects, from anxiogenic (Horsley et al., 2018) to anxiolytic and antidepressant (Cameron et al., 2019; Sakloth et al., 2019). Studies with rats reveal that males gain weight whereas females do not. Female rats display a decrease in dendritic spine density whereas males do not (Cameron et al., 2019). A preclinical study with 52 male rats found no evidence of abuse potential of repeated treatment with low doses of LSD (Sakloth et al., 2019). However, issues related to interspecies scaling make such data difficult to generalize (Kuypers et al., 2019).

Online surveys and observational studies on microdosing reported improved creativity, mood, and cognition (Johnstad, 2018; Polito & Stevenson, 2019; Prochazkova et al., 2018), increased sociability (Webb et al., 2019), lower dysfunctional attitudes, lower negative emotionality, higher wisdom, and open-mindedness (Anderson, Petranker, Christopher, et al., 2019). However, the first double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of microdosing found no significant changes in perception, concentration, and consciousness (Yanakieva et al., 2019). In an online observational study, reduction in depression and stress levels, lower levels of distractibility, increased absorption, and increased neuroticism have been reported at the sixth week follow-up evaluation of microdosing (Polito & Stevenson, 2019). In a web-based prospective survey about microdosing, positive expectations seemed to index improvements in mental health (Kaertner et al., 2021). In a placebo-controlled study with a self-blinding protocol, there were no significant differences in psychological outcomes between microdosing and placebo groups (Szigeti et al., 2021). Whereas this online survey and self-blinding study, respectively, question whether microdosing differs from a placebo, most publications are sanguine about the beneficial effects of microdosing (cf. Raz & Wong in this issue). However, a few studies investigated downsides and challenges regarding microdosing (Anderson, Petranker, Christopher, et al., 2019; Hutten et al., 2019; Polito & Stevenson, 2019). The most common negative responses were problems with dosing, physiological discomfort (e.g., temperature dysregulation, insomnia, reduced appetite, headaches), increased anxiety, and the illegality of obtaining psychedelics.

Discussion

Recent systematic reviews have reported that, when administered in supportive and controlled settings, classical psychedelics in macrodoses bring about immediate, substantial, and sustained outcomes, even after a single dose (Aday et al., 2020; Bouso et al., 2018; Dos Santos et al., 2018; Muttoni et al., 2019; Reiche et al., 2018). After careful screening of individuals to control for the risk of relevant psychiatric and medical conditions, clinical interventions ensure a good tolerability and safety profile, largely devoid of persistent side effects. Research shows promising results for the treatment of depression, anxiety related to terminal illnesses, and addiction. In addition, psychedelics have recently been dubbed “psychoplastogens,” acknowledging their role in neural plasticity and thereby intimating, for example, their potential in treating neurodegenerative disorders (Ly et al., 2018; D. E. Olson, 2018). In addition, some scholars have claimed that these substances possess anti-inflammatory properties and may be good candidates for treating such disorders, perhaps in lieu of steroids (Flanagan & Nichols, 2018). Even more, as agents propelling an altered state of consciousness, psychedelics have been proposed as treatment options for disorders of consciousness (Scott & Carhart-Harris, 2019). These promising directions, largely motivated by the rekindling of psychedelic research, have recently motivated the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant psilocybin “breakthrough therapy” status for treatment-resistant depression. Altogether, these steps seem to herald the first attempts to include psychedelics in mainstream clinical medicine.

According to anecdotal reports and preliminary evidence, microdosing with psychedelics has potential as a psychostimulant or cognitive enhancer, antidepressant, and psychoplastogen, with its own clinical benefits (Kuypers et al., 2019). For example, microdosing can offer a treatment option for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, and neurodegenerative disorders. However, these relative merits come with related risks, as in the case of psychostimulants, microdosing may trigger potential for psychological abuse by enhancing mood, energy, and cognition (Maier & Schaub, 2015). In addition, frequent and chronic exposure to psychedelics may lead to cardiac valvulopathy by repeated activation of the 5-HT_2B receptor (Elangbam et al., 2008).

The illegality of psychedelics increases health risks because thousands of users obtain their substances from unknown sources or prepare their materials by themselves. Some countries have acknowledged the risks and changed their laws to mitigate them. Portugal, for example, decriminalized illicit drugs as a harm-reduction approach in 2001; thereafter, it reaped a decrease in problematic drug use and drug-related harms (Hughes & Stevens, 2007).

Due to its legal and regulatory status, research with psychedelics faces many challenges (Kuypers et al., 2019). Because of their legal status in many countries, research with psychedelics often relies on self-report and online surveys. On the one hand, this method offers the advantage of reaching out to many participants, regardless of the drugs’ legal status. On the other hand, it poses disadvantages when it comes to representative samples, reliability, and selection bias (Hutten et al., 2019). Last, but not least, some caveats to research with self-reports and surveys include problems with drug purity, concomitant drug use, precise dosing, and screening for psychiatric and medical conditions. And yet, microdosing is an advantageous focus for such research, not requiring as much clinical oversight as macrodosing (Anderson, Petranker, Rosenbaum, et al., 2019).

Also, future research might benefit from comparing data from psychedelic-naive participants with that of experienced individuals, and microdosing offers a safer and gentler entry point by largely bypassing the stigma and fear around these substances, especially for those new to them. Given that cultural factors fuel both the psychedelic experience (Bunce, 1979) and placebo effects (Moerman & Jonas, 2002), future research may benefit from conducting cross-cultural studies between places where psychedelics are illegal and stigmatized and those where they are legal and embraced (Carhart-Harris, Roseman, et al., 2018). As a case in point, following attitudes toward cannabis, public opinion is beginning to change, with some U.S. locales and communities creating the necessary climate to decriminalize the use of psychedelics (e.g., Denver, CO; Oakland and Berkeley, CA). In this regard, legal change may catalyze science, and vice versa.

Many sources, from historical records, phenomenological reports, recreational accounts, and scientific experiments with psychedelics suggest that their effects may be context-dependent both in the psychological and environmental sense. The importance of contextual factors in the psychedelic experience has long been known and utilized by indigenous people and shamans in traditional ceremonies (Carhart-Harris, Roseman, et al., 2018). Psychedelic pioneers were interested in the cultural uses of plant medicines, and the term “set and setting” in psychedelic experience was introduced by Timothy Leary (Leary et al., 1963). He defined “set” as pre-existing psychological factors one brings to an experience including personality, psychopathology, preparation, expectation, assumption, and intention; and “setting” as environmental context including physical (e.g., flowers, blankets, songs), social (e.g., shamans, clinicians, group of friends), and cultural elements (e.g., public opinion, media representation, legal and regulatory stance) in which the experience occurs. Additionally, cultural discourse differs between psychedelic substances (Dyck, 2018). For example, whereas psilocybin and ayahuasca have a long history as respected “plant teachers” for centuries, LSD is merely a laboratory product of modern science with a much shorter history of use. As the cultural climate changes, so will the effects (Becker, 1967). Apart from the pharmacological effects, this cultural dynamic would further constitute the context-dependent effects of psychedelics.

Psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy has benefited from—and improvised on—increased awareness of the importance of cultural factors (Fadiman, 2011). For example, in one study, LSD-induced changes in brain dynamics associated with changes in personality traits were observed only under conditions including listening to music (Lebedev et al., 2016). However, when contextual factors are neglected, psychedelic experience has been found to be clinically ineffective (Carhart-Harris, Roseman, et al., 2018). When the context is manipulated in a negative way, as in the military experiments with psychedelics in the 1950s, harm, such as deteriorating in mental states, has been observed (Albarelli, 2009). These damaging results increased the unwarranted stigma and fear around psychedelics for a long time (Carhart-Harris, Roseman, et al., 2018).

Set and setting theory and placebo response theory are two fields which consider how extra- or non-pharmacological/biological factors related to cognition and meaning modulate and shape the response to a given therapy (Hartogsohn, 2016). The literature on placebo effects shows that non-pharmacological factors constitute a substantial part of therapeutic effectiveness (Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1999). For example, in the case of antidepressants, placebos and antidepressants seem clinically comparable for the treatment of mild-to-moderate depression (Kirsch, 2014; Munkholm et al., 2019). By some twist of placebo irony, some clinicians know antidepressants may be effective at the sub-therapeutic dose, pointing to the placebo component as part of the effective treatment (Furukawa et al., 2002; McCormack et al., 2011). The so-called “meaning response” paradigm understands placebo effects as psychological and physiological effects generated by the meaning associated with healing and illness, as well as the rituals and symbols associated with a given therapy (Moerman & Jonas, 2002). Similarly, placebo effects are further conceptualized as contextual healing (Miller & Kaptchuk, 2008). By the same token, psychedelics have been framed as meaning-response magnifiers, or as hyperactive placebo catalysts, perhaps by amplifying contextual factors and expectations (Hartogsohn, 2016, 2020). Compared to regular doses with psychedelics, contextual factors (setting) may be less influential in lower doses, however psychological factors such as expectations and beliefs (set) would still play a big role in drug response as in microdosing (Kaertner et al., 2021; Szigeti et al., 2021). Positivity bias refers to an effect among individuals with extensive psychedelic experience who appear partial toward microdosing and praise its benefits (Anderson, Petranker, Rosenbaum, et al., 2019; Kaertner et al., 2021). Moreover, positive reports and media headlines may shape and amplify response expectancies associated with microdosing. These social, situational, and cultural factors shape and drive subjective drug effects (Becker, 1967). As a result, some individuals may be predisposed to experiencing what they expect, what they believe will follow, and what other people around them seem to experience, as was demonstrated in a recent study with an inert pill presented as a psychedelic, in which confederates pretended to enact the symptoms of a “trip” (J. A. Olson et al., 2020).

Because the effects of a microdose can be minimal, subtle, and ambiguous, microdosers may interpret small changes as being in line with their expectations (Polito & Stevenson, 2019). In this regard, very small microdoses may pass as placebos, but how low a dose may constitute a placebo remains unclear. Although the dose that constitutes a microdose remains challenging to determine and operationalize, the posology calls for amounts that range from infinitesimal but non-homeopathic to about one-10th of a macrodose. The jury is still out on whether users should subjectively detect a microdose for its beneficial effects. However, detectability raises important questions concerning the role of other components (e.g., expectation, conditioning, and placebo responses and effects) within the microdosing context. Future studies with microdoses would likely provide a better scientific understanding of contextual factors and placebo response by resolving practical (e.g., problems with blinding), and ethical (providing a sub-optimal context) challenges with psychedelic research.

However, either in high or low doses, working with psychedelics involves a number of risks and ethical concerns (Sloshower, 2018). First, integrating indigenous plants and practices into mainstream medicine carries the risk of cultural appropriation and commercialization of indigenous knowledge by non-indigenous people. It may appear disrespectful to neglect ritualistic and sacred elements of psychedelic experience. From an indigenous perspective, the use of psychedelic plants in Western medicine continues a history of colonization, bioprospecting, and extraction of pristine cultural heritage, without consent (Gerber et al., 2021). Second, there are ethical medical concerns, such as the principle of “do no harm”. While classical psychedelics are considered physiologically safe, there are still psychological risks such as acute psychological distress and prolonged psychosis in high doses, especially for patients with pre-existing psychological problems (Johnson et al., 2008). Even if rarely, acute psychological distress and delusions can lead to dangerous behavior to the self and others in unsupervised conditions (Strassman, 1984). Cultural bias, the resulting stigmatization, and legal problems also pose risks to psychological health. Ethical concerns relevant to microdosing include lack of adequate controlled studies concerning efficacy and safety as well as therapeutic value and associated risks. However, with their increasing popularity, many individuals informally follow self-dosing protocols without proper knowledge and guidance. In this way, alongside positive anecdotal reports, placebo effects may well play a key role in microdosing. In addition, microdosing for cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns regarding fairness and equality; it may incite social competition and perfectionism (Colzato, 2018). As with psychostimulants, which have been used excessively for cognitive enhancement (Farah, 2012), microdosing at the workplace or school may receive the same label as doping in sports. Lastly, as researchers learned in the past, integrating psychedelics into mainstream psychiatry requires a social responsibility to avoid further prohibition or criminalization of their use (Sloshower, 2018). Further prohibition would not only jeopardize research on psychedelics and their potential for therapeutic use but also risk criminalizing traditional rituals, thereby violating the rights of indigenous and religious people.

Conclusion

Research with classical psychedelics in typical doses shows promising results for various psychiatric and medical conditions. Because there is a scarcity of formal studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up periods, the benefits and risks of microdosing are unclear at this time. On the one hand, abundant informal accounts combined with the results of current early research into psychedelics together suggest that microdosing is likely beneficial both clinically and socially. On the other hand, some researchers are unconvinced whether microdosing is anything but a placebo. The jury is still out.

Therefore, more rigorous investigation into the effectiveness and safety of short- and long-term use is the only responsible course of action to take. With the ethical concerns in mind, we call for better studies featuring adequate experimental designs and follow-up periods. Such studies promise vital information about the applicability of microdosing, and perhaps even macrodosing, in clinical and recreational settings. Specifically, mood and performance enhancing effects of microdosing should be studied further. Moreover, microdosing could serve as a gentle entry point for psychedelic research. In fact, we are cautiously optimistic that microdosing is set to become a prominent field of investigation in mental health and behavioral science.

Table 1.

Macrodosing vs. microdosing.

	Macrodosing		Microdosing
	Advantages	Disadvantages	Advantages	Disadvantages
Clinical & Research	* Promise for treatment of depression, substance use disorders, and end-of-life related distress * Limited dependence potential * Long-lasting benefits with a few drug sessions	* Regulatory status * Challenging experiences – “bad trips” * Concerns about risk of psychosis * Require long clinical oversight * Difficult to blind	* Promise for the treatment of ADHD and depression * No robust perceptual disturbances * Less challenging experiences * Less need for clinical oversight * Easy blinding	* Regulatory status * Unknown risks associated with chronic use * Potential for abuse (perhaps similar to psychostimulants) * Small, subtle effects, too difficult to detect * Benefits based mostly on anecdotal reports
Recreational	* Potential for personal growth and well-being.	* Illegal * Fear and anxiety * Impurity of substance creates uncertainty in dosing * Concomitant drug use * Risks related to dangerous behavior in an uncontrolled environment	* Less stigma and fear * Fits into daily routine, perhaps even enhance it	* Illegal * Impurity of the substance creates uncertainty in dosing * Unknown risks associated with chronic use * Potentially offers an unfair advantage as a performance enhancer

Footnotes

Ceren Kaypak, MD, is a psychiatry resident at Marmara University Faculty of Medicine in Istanbul, and she has been a visiting resident in the Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry at McGill University. Dr. Kaypak’s clinical work focuses on social and cultural determinants of mental health and mental health services for minority populations. She researches placebo effects and altered states of consciousness such as hypnosis, psychedelics, and meditation.

Amir Raz, PhD, is the Founding Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Brain and Behavioral Sciences at Chapman University in Southern California. He completed the contributions that appear in this issue during his tenure at McGill University and his interactions with members of the Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry. Professor Raz studies the cognitive neuroscience of attention, placebos, and altered states of consciousness such as hypnosis. With peer reviewed publications in some of the leading science journals, Raz is one of the most prominent scholars in the field with several academic books and multiple academic accolades.

References

Aday

J. S.

Mitzkovitz

C. M.

Bloesch

E. K.

Davoli

C. C.

Davis

A. K.

(2020). Long-term effects of psychedelic drugs: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 113(2020), 179–189. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.017

Albarelli

H. P.

(2009). A terrible mistake: The murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s secret Cold War experiments. Trine Day.

Anderson

Petranker

Christopher

Rosenbaum

Weissman

Dinh-Williams

L.-A.

Hapke

(2019). Psychedelic microdosing benefits and challenges: An empirical codebook. Harm Reduction Journal, 16(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0308-4

Anderson

Petranker

Rosenbaum

Weissman

C. R.

Dinh-Williams

L.-A.

Hui

Farb

N. A.

(2019). Microdosing psychedelics: Personality, mental health, and creativity differences in microdosers. Psychopharmacology, 236(2), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5106-2

Becker

H. S.

(1967). History, culture and subjective experience: An exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 8(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/2948371

Bogenschutz

M. P.

Forcehimes

A. A.

Pommy

J. A.

Wilcox

C. E.

Barbosa

P. C. R.

Strassman

R. J.

(2015). Psilocybin-assisted treatment for alcohol dependence: A proof-of-concept study. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114565144

Bouso

J. C.

dos Santos

R. G.

Alcázar-Córcoles

MÁ

Hallak

J. E.

(2018). Serotonergic psychedelics and personality: A systematic review of contemporary research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 87(April) , 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.02.004

Bowen

W. T.

Soskin

R. A.

Chotlos

J. W.

(1970). Lysergic acid diethylamide as a variable in the hospital treatment of alcoholism. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 150(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197002000-00003

Brown

R. T.

Nicholas

C. R.

Cozzi

N. V.

Gassman

M. C.

Cooper

K. M.

Muller

Ribaudo

A. S.

(2017). Pharmacokinetics of escalating doses of oral psilocybin in healthy adults. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 56(12), 1543–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-017-0540-6

10.

Bunce

(1979). Social and political sources of drug effects: The case of bad trips on psychedelics. Journal of Drug Issues, 9(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204267900900207

11.

Cameron

L. P.

Benson

C. J.

DeFelice

B. C.

Fiehn

Olson

D. E.

(2019). Chronic, intermittent microdoses of the psychedelic N, N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) produce positive effects on mood and anxiety in rodents. ACS chemical Neuroscience, 10(7), 3261–3270. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00692

12.

Carhart-Harris

R. L.

Bolstridge

Day

Rucker

Watts

Erritzoe

Pilling

(2018). Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: Six-month follow-up. Psychopharmacology, 235(2), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x

13.

Carhart-Harris

R. L.

Bolstridge

Rucker

Day

C. M.

Erritzoe

Kaelen

Feilding

(2016). Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: An open-label feasibility study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(7), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30065-7

14.

Carhart-Harris

R. L.

Roseman

Haijen

Erritzoe

Watts

Branchi

Kaelen

(2018). Psychedelics and the essential importance of context. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32(7), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118754710

15.

Cholden

L. S.

Kurland

Savage

(1955). Clinical reactions and tolerance to LSD in chronic schizophrenia. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 122(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-195509000-00001

16.

Colzato

L. S.

(2018). Responsible cognitive enhancement: Neuroethical considerations. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 2(4), 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0090-3

17.

d’Angelo

L. S. C.

Savulich

Sahakian

B. J.

(2017). Lifestyle use of drugs by healthy people for enhancing cognition, creativity, motivation and pleasure. British Journal of Pharmacology, 174(19), 3257–3267. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.13813

18.

Dean

(2017, January 4). Micro-dosing LSD: The drug habit your boss is gonna love. GQ. https://www.gq.com/story/micro-dosing-lsd

19.

Dos Santos

R. G.

Bouso

J. C.

Alcázar-Córcoles

M. Á.

Hallak

J. E.

(2018). Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of serotonergic psychedelics for the management of mood, anxiety, and substance-use disorders: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 11(9), 889–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2018.1511424

20.

Dyck

(2005). Psychedelic psychiatry: LSD and post-World War II medical experimentation in Canada [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. McMaster University.

21.

Dyck

(2018). Who is keeping tabs? LSD lessons from the past for the future. In B. C. Labate & C. Cavnar (Eds.), Plant medicines, healing and psychedelic science (pp. 1–17). Springer.

22.

Elangbam

C. S.

Job

L. E.

Zadrozny

L. M.

Barton

J. C.

Yoon

L. W.

Gates

L. D.

Slocum

(2008). 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT)-induced valvulopathy: Compositional valvular alterations are associated with 5HT2B receptor and 5HT transporter transcript changes in Sprague-Dawley rats. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, 60(4–5), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2008.03.005

23.

Fadiman

(2011). The psychedelic explorer’s guide: Safe, therapeutic, and sacred journeys. Simon & Schuster.

24.

Farah

M. J.

(2012). Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100438

25.

Flanagan

T. W.

Nichols

C. D.

(2018). Psychedelics as anti-inflammatory agents. International Review of Psychiatry, 30(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2018.1481827

26.

Furukawa

T. A.

McGuire

Barbui

(2002). Meta-analysis of effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants in depression: Systematic review. BMJ, 325(7371), Article 991. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7371.991

27.

Galvão

A. C.

de Almeida

R. N.

Silva

E. A.

Freire

F. A.

Palhano-Fontes

Onias

Lobão-Soares

(2018). Cortisol modulation by ayahuasca in patients with treatment resistant depression and healthy controls. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, Article 185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00185

28.

Garcia-Romeu

R Griffiths

W Johnson

(2014). Psilocybin-occasioned mystical experiences in the treatment of tobacco addiction. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 7(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874473708666150107121331

29.

Gasser

Holstein

Michel

Doblin

Yazar-Klosinski

Passie

Brenneisen

(2014). Safety and efficacy of lysergic acid diethylamide-assisted psychotherapy for anxiety associated with life-threatening diseases. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202(7), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000113

30.

Gerber

Flores

I. G.

Ruiz

A. C.

Ali

Ginsberg

N. L.

Schenberg

E. E.

(2021). Ethical concerns about psilocybin intellectual property. ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science, 4(2), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00171

31.

Glatter

(2015). LSD microdosing: The new job enhancer in Silicon Valley and beyond. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-microdosing-the-new-job-enhancer-in-silicon-valley-and-beyond/?sh=e6b96f3188a8

32.

Griffiths

R. R.

Johnson

M. W.

Carducci

M. A.

Umbricht

Richards

W. A.

Richards

B. D.

Klinedinst

M. A.

(2016). Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30(12), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116675513

33.

Griffiths

R. R.

Johnson

M. W.

Richards

W. A.

Richards

B. D.

McCann

Jesse

(2011). Psilocybin occasioned mystical-type experiences: Immediate and persisting dose-related effects. Psychopharmacology, 218(4), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2358-5

34.

Griffiths

R. R.

Richards

W. A.

Johnson

M. W.

McCann

U. D.

Jesse

(2008). Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108094300

35.

Griffiths

R. R.

Richards

W. A.

McCann

Jesse

(2006). Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology, 187(3), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5

36.

Grinspoon

Bakalar

J. B.

(1979). Psychedelic drugs reconsidered (vol. 168, p. 9). New York: Basic Books. Chicago.

37.

Grinspoon

Bakalar

J. B.

(1981). The psychedelic drug therapies. Current Psychiatric Therapies, 20, 275–283.

38.

Grob

C. S.

Danforth

A. L.

Chopra

G. S.

Hagerty

McKay

C. R.

Halberstadt

A. L.

Greer

G. R.

(2011). Pilot study of psilocybin treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.116

39.

Grof

Goodman

L. E.

Richards

W. A.

Kurland

(1973). LSD-assisted psychotherapy in patients with terminal cancer. International Pharmacopsychiatry, 8(3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1159/000467984

40.

Hartogsohn

(2016). Set and setting, psychedelics and the placebo response: An extra-pharmacological perspective on psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30(12), 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116677852

41.

Hartogsohn

(2020). American trip: Set, setting, and the psychedelic experience in the twentieth century. MIT Press.

42.

Heffter

(1896). Ueber cacteenalkaloide. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft, 29(1), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/cber.18960290145

43.

Hendricks

P. S.

Clark

C. B.

Johnson

M. W.

Fontaine

K. R.

Cropsey

K. L.

(2014). Hallucinogen use predicts reduced recidivism among substance-involved offenders under community corrections supervision. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 28(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881113513851

44.

Hendricks

P. S.

Crawford

M. S.

Cropsey

K. L.

Copes

Sweat

N. W.

Walsh

Pavela

(2018). The relationships of classic psychedelic use with criminal behavior in the United States adult population. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881117735685

45.

Hendricks

P. S.

Thorne

C. B.

Clark

C. B.

Coombs

D. W.

Johnson

M. W.

(2015). Classic psychedelic use is associated with reduced psychological distress and suicidality in the United States adult population. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114565653

46.

Hofmann

(1979). How LSD originated. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 11(1–2), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1979.10472092

47.

Hollister

L. E.

Shelton

Krieger

(1969). A controlled comparison of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and dextroamphetamine in alcoholics. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125(10), 1352–1357. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.125.10.1352

48.

Horowitz

(1976). Interview with Albert Hoffman. High Times, 197611. Chicago

49.

Horsley

R. R.

Páleníček

Kolin

Valeš

(2018). Psilocin and ketamine microdosing: Effects of subchronic intermittent microdoses in the elevated plus-maze in male Wistar rats. Behavioural Pharmacology, 29(6), 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0000000000000394

50.

Hughes

C. E.

Stevens

(2007). The effects of the decriminalization of drug use in Portugal (Discussion paper). The Beckley Foundation.

51.

Hutten

N. R.

Mason

N. L.

Dolder

P. C.

Kuypers

K. P.

(2019). Motives and side-effects of microdosing with psychedelics among users. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 22(7), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyz029

52.

Isbell

Belleville

R. E.

Fraser

H. F.

Wikler

Logan

(1956). Studies on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25): 1. Effects in former morphine addicts and development of tolerance during chronic intoxication. AMA Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry, 76(5), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurpsyc.1956.02330290012002

53.

Johansen

P-Ø

Krebs

T. S.

(2015). Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: A population study. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114568039

54.

Johnson

M. W.

Garcia-Romeu

Cosimano

M. P.

Griffiths

R. R.

(2014). Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco addiction. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 28(11), 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114548296

55.

Johnson

M. W.

Richards

W. A.

Griffiths

R. R.

(2008). Human hallucinogen research: Guidelines for safety. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108093587

56.

Johnstad

P. G.

(2018). Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of psychedelic microdosing. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 35(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1455072517753339

57.

Kaertner

Steinborn

Kettner

Spriggs

Roseman

Buchborn

Carhart-Harris

(2021). Positive expectations predict improved mental-health outcomes linked to psychedelic microdosing. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81446-7

58.

Kast

(1967). Attenuation of anticipation: A therapeutic use of lysergic acid diethylamide. Psychiatric Quarterly, 41(4), 646–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575629

59.

Kast

E. C.

Collins

V. J.

(1964). Study of lysergic acid diethylamide as an analgesic agent. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 43(3), 285–291. https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Citation/1964/05000/Study_of_Lysergic_Acid_Diethylamide_as_an.13.aspx

60.

Kirsch

(2014). Antidepressants and the placebo effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000176

61.

Kirsch

Sapirstein

(1999). Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication. Prevention & Treatment, 1(2), Article 2a. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.1.1.12a

62.

Krebs

T. S.

Johansen

P-Ø

(2013). Psychedelics and mental health: A population study. PLoS One, 8(8), Article e63972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063972

63.

Kurland

A. A.

(1985). LSD In the supportive care of the terminally ill cancer patient. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 17(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1985.10524332

64.

Kurland

A. A.

Grof

Pahnke

W. N.

Goodman

L. E.

(1972). Psychedelic drug assisted psychotherapy in patients with terminal cancer. Journal of Thanatology, 2(1–2), 644–691. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-23665-001

65.

Kuypers

K. P.

Erritzoe

Knudsen

G. M.

Nichols

C. D.

Nichols

D. E.

Nutt

(2019). Microdosing psychedelics: More questions than answers? An overview and suggestions for future research. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 33(9), 1039–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881119857204

66.

Leary

Litwin

G. H.

Metzner

(1963). Reactions to psilocybin administered in a supportive environment. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 137(6), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196312000-00007.

67.

Lebedev

A. V.

Kaelen

Lövdén

Nilsson

Feilding

Nutt

D. J.

Carhart-Harris

R. L.

(2016). LSD–Induced entropic brain activity predicts subsequent personality change. Human Brain Mapping, 37(9), 3203–3213. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23234

68.

Greb

A. C.

Cameron

L. P.

Wong

J. M.

Barragan

E. V.

Wilson

P. C.

Paddy

M. R.

(2018). Psychedelics promote structural and functional neural plasticity. Cell Reports, 23(11), 3170–3182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.022

69.

Machek

S. B.

(2019). Psychedelics: Overlooked clinical tools with unexplored ergogenic potential. Journal of Exercise and Nutrition, 2(3), https://journalofexerciseandnutrition.com/index.php/JEN/article/view/50

70.

Maier

L. J.

Schaub

M. P.

(2015). The use of prescription drugs and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement in Europe. European Psychologist, 20(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000228

71.

McCormack

J. P.

Allan

G. M.

Virani

A. S.

(2011). Is bigger better? An argument for very low starting doses. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.091481

72.

McKenna

(1999). Food of the gods: The search for the original tree of knowledge: A radical history of plants, drugs and human evolution. Random House.

73.

Miller

F. G.

Kaptchuk

T. J.

(2008). The power of context: Reconceptualizing the placebo effect. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(5), 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.070466

74.

Moerman

D. E.

Jonas

W. B.

(2002). Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(6), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-6-200203190-00011

75.

Moreno

F. A.

Wiegand

C. B.

Taitano

E. K.

Delgado

P. L.

(2006). Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of psilocybin in 9 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(11), 1735–1740. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.v67n1110

76.

Munkholm

Paludan-Müller

A. S.

Boesen

(2019). Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: A reanalysis of a network meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 9(6), Article e024886. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886

77.

Muttoni

Ardissino

John

(2019). Classical psychedelics for the treatment of depression and anxiety: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 258(November), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.076

78.

Nichols

D. E.

(2016). Psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 68(2), 264–355. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.115.011478

79.

Nutt

D. J.

King

L. A.

Nichols

D. E.

(2013). Effects of schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(8), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3530

80.

Nutt

D. J.

King

L. A.

Phillips

L. D.

(2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558–1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6

81.

O’Brien

C. P.

(2001). Chapter 25: Drug addiction and drug abuse. In J. G. Hardman et al. (Eds.), Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics (11th ed., pp. 607–627). McGraw-Hill.

82.

Olson

D. E.

(2018). Psychoplastogens: A promising class of plasticity-promoting neurotherapeutics. Journal of Experimental Neuroscience, 12(January). https://doi.org/10.1177/1179069518800508

83.

Olson

J. A.

Suissa-Rocheleau

Lifshitz

Raz

Veissière

S. P.

(2020). Tripping on nothing: Placebo psychedelics and contextual factors. Psychopharmacology, 237(5), 1371–1382 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-020-05464-5.

84.

Osório

F. d. L.

Sanches

R. F.

Macedo

L. R.

Dos Santos

R. G.

Maia-de-Oliveira

J. P.

Wichert-Ana

Hallak

J. E.

(2015). Antidepressant effects of a single dose of ayahuasca in patients with recurrent depression: A preliminary report. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 37(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1496

85.

Palhano-Fontes

Barreto

Onias

Andrade

K. C.

Novaes

M. M.

Pessoa

J. A.

Dos Santos

R. G.

(2019). Rapid antidepressant effects of the psychedelic ayahuasca in treatment-resistant depression: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, 49(4), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001356

86.

Polito

Stevenson

R. J.

(2019). A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics. PLoS One, 14(2), Article e0211023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211023

87.

Pollan

(2019). How to change your mind: What the new science of psychedelics teaches us about consciousness, dying, addiction, depression, and transcendence. Penguin Books.

88.

Preller

K. H.

Vollenweider

F. X.

(2016). Phenomenology, structure, and dynamic of psychedelic states. In A. L. Halberstadt et al. (Eds.), Behavioral neurobiology of psychedelic drugs (pp. 221–256). Springer.

89.

Prioreschi

(1991). A history of medicine: Primitive and ancient medicine, (vol. 1, pp. 509–514). Omaha NE: Horatius.

90.

Prochazkova

Lippelt

D. P.

Colzato

L. S.

Kuchar

Sjoerds

Hommel

(2018). Exploring the effect of microdosing psychedelics on creativity in an open-label natural setting. Psychopharmacology, 235(12), 3401–3413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5049-7

91.

Reiche

Hermle

Gutwinski

Jungaberle

Gasser

Majić

(2018). Serotonergic hallucinogens in the treatment of anxiety and depression in patients suffering from a life-threatening disease: A systematic review. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 81(February), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.09.012

92.

Rucker

J. J.

Iliff

Nutt

D. J.

(2018). Psychiatry & the psychedelic drugs. Past, present & future. Neuropharmacology, 142(November), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.12.040

93.

Sakloth

Leggett

Moerke

M. J.

Townsend

E. A.

Banks

M. L.

Negus

S. S.

(2019). Effects of acute and repeated treatment with serotonin 5-HT2A receptor agonist hallucinogens on intracranial self-stimulation in rats. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000253

94.

Sanches

R. F.

de Lima Osório

dos Santos

R. G.

Macedo

L. R.

Maia-de-Oliveira

J. P.

Wichert-Ana

Hallak

J. E.

(2016). Antidepressant effects of a single dose of ayahuasca in patients with recurrent depression: A SPECT study. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 36(1), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000436

95.

Savage

McCabe

O. L.

(1973). Residential psychedelic (LSD) therapy for the narcotic addict: A controlled study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 28(6), 808–814. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1973.01750360040005

96.

Schindler

E. A.

Wallace

R. M.

Sloshower

J. A.

D’Souza

D. C.

(2018). Neuroendocrine associations underlying the persistent therapeutic effects of classic serotonergic psychedelics. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9, Article 177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00177

97.

Schultes

R. E.

(1940). Teonanácatl: The narcotic mushroom of the Aztecs. American Anthropologist, 42(3), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1940.42.3.02a00040

98.

Schultes

R. E.

(1969). Hallucinogens of plant origin: Interdisciplinary studies of plants sacred in primitive cultures yield results of academic and practical interest. Science, 163(3864), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.163.3864.245

99.

Scott

Carhart-Harris

R. L.

(2019). Psychedelics as a treatment for disorders of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2019(1), Article niz003. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niz003

100.

Sessa

(2012). The psychedelic renaissance: Reassessing the role of psychedelic drugs in 21st century psychiatry and society. Muswell Hill Press.

101.

Sloshower

(2018). Integrating psychedelic medicines and psychiatry: Theory and methods of a model clinic. In B. C. Labate & C. Cavnar (Eds.), Plant medicines, healing and psychedelic science (pp. 113–132). Springer.

102.

Strassman

R. J.

(1984). Adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs. A review of the literature. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172(10), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198410000-00001

103.

Szigeti

Kartner

Blemings

Rosas

Feilding

Nutt

D. J.

Erritzoe

(2021). Self-blinding citizen science to explore psychedelic microdosing. Elife, 10, Article e62878. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62878

104.

Tewari

Mukherjee

(2010). Microdosing: Concept, application and relevance. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 1(2), 61–63. http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2010/1/2/61/71853

105.

Thiessen

M. S.

Walsh

Bird

B. M.

Lafrance

(2018). Psychedelic use and intimate partner violence: The role of emotion regulation. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32(7), 749–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118771782

106.

Tomsovic

Edwards

R. V.

(1970). Lysergide treatment of schizophrenic and nonschizophrenic alcoholics; a controlled evaluation. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 31(4), 932–949. https://doi.org/10.15288/qjsa.1970.31.932

107.

Vollenweider

F. X.

Vollenweider-Scherpenhuyzen

M. F.

Bäbler

Vogel

Hell

(1998). Psilocybin induces schizophrenia-like psychosis in humans via a serotonin-2 agonist action. Neuroreport, 9(17), 3897–3902. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199812010-00024

108.

aldman

(2018). A really good day: How microdosing made a mega difference in my mood, my marriage, and my life. Anchor Books.

109.

Webb

Copes

Hendricks

P. S.

(2019). Narrative identity, rationality, and microdosing classic psychedelics. International Journal of Drug Policy, 70, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.04.013

110.

Yanakieva

Polychroni

Family

Williams

L. T.

Luke

D. P.

Terhune

D. B.

(2019). The effects of microdose LSD on time perception: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology, 236(4), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5119-x

Macrodosing to microdosing with psychedelics: Clinical,social,and cultural perspectives

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Macrodoses

Microdoses

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References