On: The high-stakes race to engineer new psychedelic d...

[NickC25]

Probably a mix of both. People who have some experience with drugs might want the benefit of the trip, but people who are a little more hesitant of the idea of mind-altering substances that last 8+ hours, such as LSD, might be more comfortable with some sort of watered-down experience backed by a major pharma brand and delivered by a licensed therapist.

Of course, drug companies and lobbyists also dream of such outcomes.

[criddell → NickC25]

Is an inexpensive drug that can "cure" PTSD after a very small number of doses a dream or nightmare for drug companies and lobbyists?

[NickC25 → criddell]

A nightmare - as said companies will have a fixed amount of revenue per patient, and it won't be recurring.

Wall Street doesn't like companies that go against the ingrained model of "extremely expensive long term care as a service".

[colinsane → NickC25]

what of the insurance companies though? if they no longer have to pay for recurring treatments, then more of the customer’s monthly premium can go to the shareholder. Wall Street gets their recurring revenue one way or another.

[criddell → colinsane]

Insurance is regulated. Typically they can only hold on to about 20% of the premium. If they collect too much money, you will get a rebate check mailed to you.

[vorpalhex → criddell]

Someone does lsd and shoots up a gas station.

Was it the lsd or were they just already nutters? Nobody knows.

Telling people to take strong drugs that are purity tested and in a supervised clinical setting is sensible, not some conspiracy.