I believe these treatments deserve serious study. In fact, some of the most promising work in modern psychiatry is happening in this space. Psilocybin has FDA breakthrough therapy designation for treatment-resistant depression, MDMA-assisted therapy has shown meaningful promise in PTSD, and ibogaine is generating legitimate research interest in opioid use disorder and traumatic brain injury.
But promise is not proof.
In my new Psychiatric Times article, I make the case that psychedelics deserve real science, not political shortcuts, podcast-driven enthusiasm, or regulatory acceleration built on weak evidence. The core issue is not whether we should study these compounds. We should. The issue is whether observational data, open-label studies, and viral claims are being asked to carry more weight than they should.
When a treatment has real risks, especially one like ibogaine with known cardiac concerns, the answer cannot be to lower the evidentiary bar. It has to be to raise the quality of the research. That means adequately powered randomized trials, careful safety monitoring, standardized outcomes, and enough humility to admit what we do not yet know.
Psychiatry does need better tools. Our patients need them badly. But if we want innovation that lasts, it has to be built on rigor, not hype.
My latest piece in Psychiatric Times: “Psychedelics Deserve Real Science”.
