How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound?
I’m going to say few to none.
This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
> [...] and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.
What's the supporting empirical support for this very complex claim?
One one hand I'm inclined to believe the study because it confirms the placebo effect. (Which is very well established, plus the theory and the data are simple. The result is completely in concordance with the regular ineffectiveness of most low-dose not-really-psychoactive medications - meaning how SSRIs and other anti-depressants are about as effective as placebo.) On the other hand it's also possible that the study is junk, like most studies.
> How many of the participants tested that their drugs actually contained the correct amount of the correct compound?
"The inclusion criteria were: >18 years of age, good understanding of English, intention to microdose with psychedelics, previous experience with psychedelics (either micro- or macrodosing), no use of psychedelic drugs from a week before the start until the completion of the post-regime timepoint (other than the study’s microdoses), and willingness to follow the study protocol."
Of course it's still citizen science. So who knows really.
I’m going to say few to none.
This study seems very unreliable, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility that it is junk science published to drive down stock prices of psychedelic health companies.