The therapy in question isn't replacing your prozac with magic mushrooms, it is a series of brief intense therapy sessions where the patient is given a dose and talked to while they are under the influence of the drug.
It's just really obvious to everyone involved whether the patent got psilocybin, LSD, or whatever else. Double blinds would work to an extent with dosages, but still limited.
You can't do a double blind study of the effects of lighting someone's hair on fire on their ability to solve math problems, that's about the realm of the situation here.
Researchers need to study therapy sessions compared to therapy sessions with psychedelics. If they have enough people, include a third arm with traditional antidepressant medication.
It's not blinded, but at least we would have data to compare to existing treatments. Double-blind isn't the only way to run a trial.
I wouldn't think it's missing the point, you have a different topic there.
And the A/B comparison doesn't have much room for common ground to control for. Perhaps not a single study comparing both, but separate studies (many) of different treatment methods and replications of those treatment methods and then meta-analysis studies on the whole lot. (and much of this already exists)
The therapy in question isn't replacing your prozac with magic mushrooms, it is a series of brief intense therapy sessions where the patient is given a dose and talked to while they are under the influence of the drug.
It's just really obvious to everyone involved whether the patent got psilocybin, LSD, or whatever else. Double blinds would work to an extent with dosages, but still limited.
You can't do a double blind study of the effects of lighting someone's hair on fire on their ability to solve math problems, that's about the realm of the situation here.