I think the point is that there hasn’t really been 3-phase double blinded trials to determine dosing, safety, tolerability, and efficacy as well as side effects.
Much of what we have is anecdotal.
Much of what we have is anecdotal.
I am not sure your comment is accurate, the effects and benefits are definitely not anecdotal.
Re Depression treatment: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=dep...
Psilocybin is well known to be one of, if not the single safest psychoactive compound known to man, in terms of physical toxicity. Obviously, mental harm can be a possibility.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-toxicity-of-re...
That does mean there are certain assurances of neutrality we simply can't have. It doesn't mean that efficacy and safety can't be studied: they can.
Also, dosing matters. Can the apparent positive effects occur at low doses where possibly it isn’t very perceptible? This is important and a double blind approach is warranted.
I don't think it's as important for the attending scientists, who are also going to have a pretty accurate guess. What's more important is that they have some training in 'trip sitting' and that the experimental environment be appropriately designed, DMT: the Spirit Molecule has a number of stories about how things go poorly when this aspect is neglected.
Doesn't help: any normal person can tell the difference between a full dose of psilocybin and a low dose of amphetamines.
"You'll be given either a psychedelic or a stimulent, followed by x testing" - then knowing which drug you're getting doesn't mean you know if you're in the placebo group or not?