Psychedelics: history, research, and possible roles in psychiatry

Vlad: That’s why I find what psychedelic research is telling us at the moment so remarkable, namely that the experience itself may have a modulatory role, or perhaps even a primary role, in the development and treatment of these mental health conditions.

.

.

Larisa: Hello and welcome to the Mental Health for Romania podcast! I’m Larisa, I’m a psychiatry researcher, and today I have Vlad with me. Vlad, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Vlad: Yes. Hi, Larisa, thank you first of all for the invitation.

Larisa: Sure.

Vlad: I completed a master’s in neuroscience last year, which I started in Bordeaux and finished in Berlin, where I currently live. And now I work at the Mind Foundation for psychedelic research. Here I work on education, educating the general public about psychedelic therapy and research. But also for.. I also work on building a scientific community around this subject.

Larisa: Great, very interesting. As you heard from Vlad’s introduction, the reason we have him as our guest today is precisely so that he can share some of his knowledge and experience with us regarding psychedelic substances, a subject that is still largely considered taboo, but one that is being quite extensively investigated in psychiatric therapies and is therefore highly relevant to the work of our NGO. So, to start today’s episode, Vlad, could you briefly tell us what psychedelic substances are, in case there’s someone listening to the episode who isn’t familiar with them?

Vlad: Sure, sure. In general, when we talk about psychedelic substances, we are talking about a particular class of chemical compounds that have traditionally been referred to as hallucinogens, specifically serotonergic hallucinogens. This refers to the fact that the common mechanism of action of psychedelics involves the serotonergic system, and particularly the 5-HT2A receptor, which is part of this serotonergic system. Serotonin, for those who don’t know, is a neurotransmitter that has a neuromodulatory role in the functioning of the brain. And the effects of these psychedelic substances are, in fact, the reason why they are so well known, and these effects include profound alterations in perception, consciousness and one’s sense of self, visual distortions, as well as emotional experiences and events with a certain emotional significance. I could also give a few examples: for instance, LSD, which you have probably heard of; in Romanian, it would be lysergic acid diethylamide; psilocybin, which is the compound responsible for these effects in magic mushrooms. But there are hundreds of psychedelics, with various differences in their effects. Some of them are found in nature, such as psilocybin or mescaline in the peyote cactus, while some are entirely synthetic, such as N-bomb or those in the 2CX class. And LSD is an example of a semi-synthetic psychedelic.

Larisa: Very interesting. Thank you, Vlad. You’ve just told us that psychedelics work by having an effect on the serotonergic system, particularly by modulating the receptor you mentioned. Could you tell us a little more about how they actually came to be used in the context of psychiatry and mental health disorders?

Vlad: Yes, right. Psychedelic substances in general have a very interesting history, stretching back thousands of years. However, when we talk about their history, we usually mean their modern history. This modern history begins at the start of the last century, when a Swiss chemist named Albert Hofmann accidentally discovered the LSD molecule while trying to find a treatment for the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Yes, and he accidentally absorbed the substance through his skin and, not long afterwards, was overwhelmed by these powerful psychological effects.

Larisa: So it was a more or less accidental discovery, in terms of its use in psychiatry.

Vlad: Yes, exactly. This… the compound was being studied for a completely different medical use, and no one expected it to have such powerful psychological effects. And following this discovery, there was already immediate interest from psychiatry, and there were various attempts to see how this experience, this psychological effect, could be used in therapy or in psychiatric research. And there were several models initially. Based on descriptions of the effects, the theory was formulated that the effects of LSD would mimic the psychological states seen in psychosis or schizophrenia. And this is where the theory of psychedelics as psychotomimetics came from. And that was their first use, so to speak, primarily for researching psychotic states, but they were then also used by therapists to try to understand the experience that patients with psychosis or schizophrenia go through.

Larisa: Mhm.

Vlad: But this initial paradigm quickly evolved into the psychedelic and psycholytic paradigms because it was observed that there were not only negative effects, effects that mimicked psychotic states, but also profound alterations in emotions and in the sense of meaning, as well as a sense of wellbeing associated with the experience that persisted afterwards. And so the idea was essentially born that these substances could also have benefits in treating certain psychological conditions.

Larisa: Mhm, brilliant, very interesting! And in terms of the effects of psychedelics on certain disorders, what are their potential therapeutic applications, at least the potential applications that we currently know about or that are currently being researched?

Vlad: Right, in the first phase of psychedelic research, which we were just talking about, the research that took place in the 1950s and 60s, there were several studies that demonstrated the feasibility of using these experiences in the treatment of alcohol dependence, for example, and later, some attempts to treat depression. Unfortunately, this research was abruptly halted at the beginning of the 1970s, when the majority of psychoactive substances were made illegal internationally. This made psychedelic research very difficult to conduct, and many people working in the field had to move into other areas. However, in recent years, starting in 2016, these efforts were resumed by certain research teams, and the first application explored during this second wave of psychedelic research was treatment-resistant depression. This refers to a form of depression in patients who have tried several traditional antidepressants and none of them has worked, and this was essentially the reason why permission was granted to conduct psychedelic research with patients who no longer had any other options.

Larisa: Mhm, precisely because they were being investigated as a potential new treatment option for these patients who had, in a sense, exhausted the existing treatment options.

Vlad: Exactly, and from this initial round in 2016, they were investigated for the treatment of major depressive episodes, for treating psychological distress at the end of life, for example, and for depression and anxiety in terminally ill cancer patients. There have also been several studies into obsessive-compulsive disorder, and in all of these applications, the results have been at least promising.

Larisa: I’m really glad that, in a way, when we talk about psychiatry, we tend to think that progress has been fairly slow over the last 50 or 60 years, but it’s good to also discuss potential new treatment options, because we realise that we are nevertheless making small steps towards introducing new treatment options in this area, particularly for depression.

Vlad: Mhm, yes, certainly, and it’s interesting that these treatments started out as alternatives, alternative options, and were seen as a last resort for a short period. However, in recent years, and even in the last few months, this type of research has proliferated, and in April this year a very important study was published, led by Robin Carhart-Harris from Imperial College London, which showed that… The aim of the study was to compare psilocybin as an antidepressant with a major traditional antidepressant, namely escitalopram, or, in Romania, under the brand name Cipralex. And this study, involving 60 participants, showed that there was no significant difference between the two types of treatment. This means that treatment with psilocybin is at least as effective as treatment with escitalopram. The difference between the two is that, as part of the psilocybin treatment, the drug is administered twice, three weeks apart. Escitalopram, on the other hand, is a medication taken daily throughout the study, which lasted six weeks.

Larisa: Mhm. Brilliant! I read the study too, and I was really pleased to see the results. Of course, it’s… they’re still at a fairly early stage. I think the study lasted six weeks, if I’m not mistaken. But the results are promising nonetheless, and even in terms of the way it is administered, as you said, hypothetically speaking, it would be much easier to take a medication, as you said, only twice in that time interval.

Vlad: Once every three weeks.

Larisa: Once every three weeks, so twice over the course of the six-week clinical trial, rather than taking an antidepressant every day. Because, of course, in this case, it is a pill, but naturally you have to remember to take it at regular intervals and so on. So it would, in a way, be easier from the point of view of administration as well.

Vlad: Certainly. Especially because many of these traditional antidepressants come with certain side effects. And even in this study, if I’m not mistaken, there were four patients who had to discontinue treatment with escitalopram because of these adverse effects. By contrast, in the other group, the psilocybin group, all the patients received both doses.

Larisa: That seems incredible to me, especially since we put out an invitation to our followers on Instagram to send us questions about their curiosity regarding psychedelic substances and two of the questions we received were specifically about adverse effects and how safe psychedelic therapy might be. So it’s really good to know that, in this study, the severe adverse effects that prevented participants from completing the study were actually caused by a medication that is already available on the market, rather than by the psychedelic substances that were used. However, speaking of adverse effects, could you tell us a little about severe adverse effects, or whether severe adverse effects associated with psilocybin or other psychedelic substances have been observed at all, at least in this therapeutic context?

Vlad: First of all, I think it’s worth mentioning that, from a physiological point of view, psychedelics are the safest psychoactive substances we know of. And when I refer to physiological effects, I mean the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, all, all effects of this kind. And the fact that, in general, very small doses of psychedelics lead to a profound alteration of consciousness means that you don’t need to consume a large quantity that could be risky with other substances, for example, where there is also a lethal dose. And, primarily, when people talk about the potential adverse effects of psychedelic substances, they are referring to the psychological effects. And here, indeed, these profound alterations in consciousness do not come without risks. Particularly at high doses, there is always a risk of acute anxiety or confusion, a very profound alteration in perception, which can lead to panic. It is worth noting, however, that in these studies, the psychological effects I mentioned are not considered adverse effects, because they can occur during therapy and often do. However, many researchers believe that these effects are part of the therapy and contribute to the therapeutic effect achieved afterwards. So, in light of these facts, psychedelic substances are relatively safe. However, all the participants in these studies went through a fairly strict screening process, so it is less clear how the general population, without any kind of selection, would respond to such an experience. For example, it is considered that if a patient or client has a psychological predisposition towards psychosis, they would automatically be excluded from the study. However, this is not taken into consideration with, for example, illegal recreational use, and that is why there are many more negative effects that have the potential to persist with this type of use.

Larisa: Mhm, very well put. So, when psychedelic substances are used for therapeutic purposes, this would be done in a very structured way and, as you said, there would be a thorough assessment of the characteristics of the people who would be eligible to take part in such therapy. Whereas when they are used recreationally, there would, yes, be no regulation whatsoever, and they would essentially be taken ‘by guesswork’, both in terms of the dose and in terms of the characteristics or medical history of the people taking them.

Vlad: Exactly!

Larisa: So that’s presumably where these severe adverse effects would come from, which we were probably asked about as well. And we received another question in the same area, namely: can psychedelic substances be harmful when we’re talking about their use in medicine, in the same way as drugs in general?

Vlad: Yes, I think a distinction needs to be made here: when we talk about drugs, we are referring to a very broad range of substances, or classes of substances, with various physiological and psychological effects, so we cannot talk about the risks of drugs in general; we should instead refer to the type of substance we are talking about. And the type of substance in question today is psychedelics, which, as I said, are safe from a physiological point of view, while from a psychological point of view, all psychedelic substances carry a certain degree of risk. However, this risk is very… it is reduced in a medical context, because there are experienced therapists who accompany patients throughout the psychedelic experience, and there is an initial screening process that prevents severe effects that could lead to psychosis in patients who are predisposed to it. Recreational use is much more complicated in the absence of these safeguards, in the absence of support from a therapist, and if we are talking about drugs in general, recreational use of certain classes of drugs is certainly much riskier than the use of psychedelics. However, as I said, even psychedelic use is not without risks.

Larisa: Thank you very much, Vlad. Following on from this distinction between recreational use and regulated use, with the presence of safeguards and, of course, with trained therapists, as you mentioned, I’d like us to talk about a few myths or assumptions that are… that are somehow present or circulate among us; I think we’ve all heard them in one form or another. In particular, you’ve already told us something about the effects of psychedelic substances on certain psychological processes. But we received this specific question about altering one’s perception of reality, namely: can you tell us whether psychedelics can do that and, more importantly, whether they can somehow help you find meaning, a sense of purpose in life, potentially for someone who may feel lost and, I don’t know, has thought about turning to these substances precisely for that reason?

Vlad: Regarding the alteration of one’s perception of reality, in the acute sense, this is one of the main psychological effects of psychedelics. During the experience, the senses are altered, and the sense of… the sense of reality is altered. Sometimes, users say that they gain access to a reality that is “more real than real”, for example. So there are various effects of this kind at the acute level, but most of these effects disappear once the experience ends, which for psychedelics can typically mean anywhere from 20 minutes to 12 hours or, in some cases, longer. However, no, normally these altered perceptions of reality do not persist. What can persist, and it has been suggested that this could be one of the therapeutic effects, is the fact that you have experienced the world from a… from a new perspective. You have seen that things are not necessarily quite as your senses tell you they are, and that you can be more flexible about the ideas you hold. This can be very useful in the case of depression or anxiety, which are characterised by rigid thinking and a story about oneself that does not change very much over time. As for finding oneself, there are certainly all sorts of stories online or in books, or simply stories people tell about how they found themselves during a mushroom trip or found their true purpose in life during the experience.

Larisa: Mhm.

Vlad: And on that note, I want to say that it is absolutely not guaranteed that you will have such an experience. The fact that you have taken a psychedelic substance in no way guarantees that you will find yourself, or even that you will have a positive experience. This depends very much on what is known in English as “set and setting”, meaning your initial psychological state and the environment in which the experience takes place. And if these two are favourable, then they can facilitate an experience of finding one’s true self. At the very least, you can experience that feeling, which can then lead to behaviours that are genuinely beneficial to that person. But of course, this needs to be done in a controlled, considered and careful way, not at a party, for example.

Larisa: Exactly, very, very well put. And it’s interesting that it’s precisely through this effect of psychedelics that they can somehow facilitate the therapeutic process, by giving you greater flexibility in your thinking, and that experience may, as you said, help you or facilitate a less rigid perception of yourself or of the circumstances you find yourself in. Is there a myth that you’ve personally heard and that you’d like to address now?

Vlad: Yes, I would say that I’ve very often heard the idea that if you use psychedelic substances frequently or in large quantities, you will develop schizophrenia or psychosis, or that you will generally go mad. There is a grain of truth to this, namely that if you have a genetic predisposition to such psychiatric conditions, then a psychedelic experience can trigger the onset of the condition prematurely, and can represent a first psychotic episode. And this has happened in certain documented cases. However, the frequency of use or the intensity of the experience are not, in themselves, associated with the development of a psychotic disorder. In other words, if you do not have such a predisposition and you have a psychedelic experience, even if you go through some difficult moments during the acute experience, so to speak, these are not inherently dangerous.

Larisa: I see.

Vlad: What can be dangerous is how you react to them. But the idea that the more you use them, the closer you are to madness is definitely a myth.

Larisa: Mhm, so we’re essentially coming back to what you said about set and setting, and then each person’s medical history.

Vlad: Exactly.

Larisa: Thank you very much for clarifying that. Moving on, and coming back to the research in this field, could you tell us a little about the methodological limitations when it comes to conducting research? Given that we’re talking about substances that, as you said, until fairly recently weren’t even permitted, even for research purposes. And given that they somehow investigate subjective experience, which can be more difficult to measure, at least quantitatively, what are some of the methods used to study them, and what are some of the other limitations that researchers in the field still face?

Vlad: Mhm, yes, that’s a very good question, and you made a good point that one of these limitations stems from the fact that we don’t have any advanced methods for measuring consciousness or subjective experience. And this often relies on questionnaires and personal accounts, which are generally not considered to be as reliable as quantitative measurements. That is one of the limitations of psychedelic research. Another important limitation is the fact that it is difficult to conduct placebo-controlled studies in this context. Just to give a little context: usually, studies of any medication or pharmaceutical intervention have a control group known as the placebo group. In this group, patients believe they are going to receive the active treatment, but they actually receive an inactive substance that would have no physiological or, in this case, neurobiological effect. However, the effect of expectation leads to a beneficial clinical effect, and this is how the efficacy of new medicines is routinely assessed. You have an experimental group receiving the active substance and a control group receiving the placebo. However, when it comes to psychedelics, when this system with a placebo group is used, patients and therapists can realise fairly quickly which group they are in. In other words, many people nowadays have some idea of what a psychedelic experience involves, and so they can work out fairly quickly which group they are in. So they can’t be double-blinded, In other words, they can’t be double-blinded, and this influences the final results to some extent. There are certain expectations that come into play, and at this level of expectations there is also a broader expectation, particularly in recent years, that psychedelic therapy could be something revolutionary in psychiatry. And obviously, that brings a certain emotional baggage and certain expectations with it when a patient enters therapy. That’s why many of the studies so far need to be taken with a grain of salt, with some caution; they are not definitive, and that’s why we may need more studies than usual to definitively establish their clinical efficacy.

Larisa: Of course, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Vlad. It’s very important to take these methodological aspects into consideration when we talk about the efficacy of one intervention compared with another. And given that, as you told us earlier, we had this study with a favourable result, published in April, so fairly recently, how would you say the research currently stands when it comes to using these substances to treat mental health conditions? That’s also one of the questions we received, namely, what do you think comes next, or what is currently happening in this area?

Vlad: In a nutshell, I’d say that the current state of the research is far from definitive, that much we know for certain. Much more research is needed before these treatments can become part of mainstream psychiatry, firstly to demonstrate their efficacy, but also to convince therapists and researchers in the field that these traditionally stigmatised approaches actually have an important effect. Yes, this recent study is a major step forward and has brought a great deal of attention to the field of psychedelic research. Another important study also came out in April or May, I think, focusing on MDMA, which is included within the broader definition of psychedelics. MDMA is the active compound in ecstasy tablets; it is an empathogen, or entactogen, which until now has mainly been associated with party culture and electronic music culture. However, as I was saying, this study came out in May and looked at the use of MDMA in the context of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Larisa: Ok.

Vlad: So, a major finding from this study was that, among the 90 patients, most of whom were war veterans suffering from PTSD, 88% experienced a reduction in their symptoms and 64 went into remission. This is a major result in psychiatry and, undoubtedly, results like these encourage further research in the field and greater acceptance of these kinds of treatments within mainstream psychiatry.

Larisa: You mentioned the issue of stigma, and assuming that the studies continue to show favourable results, perhaps also using larger and more diverse groups of people, what role do you think the stigma that already surrounds psychedelic substances and drugs more generally would play? What effect do you think this stigma would have on patients? Do you think they would be willing to try this treatment?

Vlad: Yes, that’s a good question, and I expect this stigma surrounding psychoactive substances to make the acceptance of psychedelic therapy more difficult. However, it’s worth mentioning that this stigma, which is generally directed towards altered states of consciousness, has many historical roots, far more than scientific ones. As you probably know, there was the famous ideological conflict in America in the 1960s, during the hippie era, when there was this clash between the mainstream American worldview and the counterculture, which was very much based on these psychedelic substances, psychoactive substances more generally, as well as the freedom to alter one’s consciousness and a rejection of tradition. And this led to a great deal of discussion framed in negative terms around drug use and altered states of consciousness in general, and in the early 1970s this ultimately led to the majority of psychoactive substances being made illegal. This gradually developed into a stigma surrounding altered states of consciousness in general, associating them with something bad, something immoral and, above all, something illegal. And it’s interesting to mention in this context that alcohol and caffeine also lead to alterations in consciousness, yet these two substances are legal and people don’t associate them with drugs in the same way. In other words, there is this category of ‘drugs’, and then separately there are alcohol and caffeine, which are actually also substances that produce subjective alterations in consciousness.

Larisa: Absolutely.

Vlad: Yes, and obviously this needs to be taken into consideration, as it will probably make it more difficult for psychedelics to be accepted.

Larisa: Very, very interesting. Yes, I think the cultural and historical context is very important, as you said. More than the substance itself, it’s really about society’s perception of that substance and the associations that are made between certain legal regulations and these substances. I also wanted to briefly touch on the theory of chemical imbalance, which was once a dominant idea and, in a way, is still very much present in psychiatric research and in the way we approach the treatment of psychiatric disorders in general. You’ve told us that psychedelics work, on the one hand, by somehow altering subjective experiences, and precisely through the insight they can provide. What do you think is the role of subjective experiences, or rather of the neglect of subjective experiences, which has been the predominant paradigm up to now in the context of these treatments?

Vlad: Yes, this is a subject that I’m very passionate about, and my interest in this topic comes from a debate within psychedelic research. This debate concerns the mechanisms of action of psychedelics. On the one hand, there are theories suggesting that psychedelics promote mental flexibility, facilitate meaningful, powerful experiences that can lead to change, and can also increase a sense of connection with the outside world, with other people and with oneself, with the patient’s sense of self. And all of this is based on the subjective experience during the administration of psychedelics. On the other hand, there are also investigations into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying these effects. It is clear that every subjective experience has a neurobiological correlate, and research has shown that during a psychedelic trip there are certain changes in brain connectivity, functional changes, meaning that certain parts of the brain communicate with one another that would not otherwise communicate in this way. But there are also changes at a microscopic level, with an increase in the number of connections between neurons themselves, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, an area that is relevant to depression and anxiety. And this debate stems precisely from the question of which of these mechanisms is actually responsible for the therapeutic effect, and whether you need both, or whether, for example, the neurobiological component alone is what matters. And this is why there have also been attempts to develop non-hallucinogenic psychedelics, meaning psychedelics that act on the serotonergic system, on this receptor, but do not lead to subjective experiences or hallucinations. And my view is that this attempt to find non-hallucinogenic psychedelics is based on a broader paradigm in science at the moment, namely the reductionist view that everything can be reduced to its physiological or neurobiological basis, and that mental illnesses and psychiatric conditions are essentially malfunctions at the level of the brain that can be repaired. And this is where the idea of a chemical imbalance came from in the last century, following the discovery of serotonin and imipramine, which was the first serotonergic antidepressant. The idea emerged that depression was essentially a chemical imbalance: that you didn’t have enough serotonin in your brain. And this was the main theory for several decades, reflecting this attitude within psychiatry and pharmacology that these conditions are essentially defects that can be repaired chemically or through physical interventions. However, human consciousness and subjective experience are rarely mentioned in this type of discourse; it is almost as though they are parallel phenomena that do not influence the clinical process, that they have no real relevance to therapy itself. And that is why I find what psychedelic research is telling us at the moment so remarkable: that the experience itself may have a modulatory role, or perhaps even a central role, in the development and treatment of these mental health conditions.

Larisa: Absolutely, and I think it’s very important, as you said, to move away from this reductionist model, in which the biological or neurobiological paradigm is seen as predominant or, well, as the most important aspect, and to somehow integrate the psychological model, social factors and so on. Because I think it’s much more accurate to think of mental illnesses as a combination of these factors, rather than simply as a brain disorder that should be addressed solely from a pharmaceutical or pharmacological perspective.

Vlad: Mhm, mhm. Sure, sure.

Larisa: There is one more thing. I know we’ve gone on quite a bit with this episode, but there’s so much to say, and very briefly, if you could tell us a little about how it would work if psychedelic substances were introduced onto the market as treatments, compared with the antidepressants that are already available, and particularly, from a pharmaceutical industry perspective, whether it would be a profitable model or something that would be sustainable in the long term, given that administering these substances also requires a certain level of training for the therapeutic team?

Vlad: Yes, as I was saying earlier, there are certain obstacles to implementing psychedelic therapy within the current paradigm. One of them is social stigma, but another important obstacle is the interaction with the current pharmaceutical environment and the ideas that are prevalent within it. And it is important to mention that, as I said earlier, in order to have a long-lasting clinical effect, you only need a small number of doses of psilocybin or another psychedelic. In other words, whereas a traditional antidepressant would have to be taken every day, the same effect could potentially be achieved with a very limited number of psychedelic experiences. And, of course, it is much more profitable for a pharmaceutical company to sell a medication that needs to be taken every day than one that might only need to be taken twice a year, for example. So their interest in this area could be limited for precisely this reason, and that would obviously result in less funding, fewer efforts to promote psychedelic therapy and fewer attempts to implement it on a large scale.

Larisa: Mhm, very interesting.

Vlad: And a second point related to this question is that psychedelic therapy itself comes with certain challenges, as you mentioned: you need therapists on site to have a high level of training, the patient needs to be prepared before the experience, they need to meet with the therapist several times, and there needs to be a good therapeutic alliance between the therapist and the patient. All of these things, from a market perspective, mean additional costs, costs that can potentially be cut. With antidepressants, these costs don’t exist; many antidepressants are prescribed without the patient seeing a therapist regularly, and patients simply take them at home. And the net effect is that up to a quarter or a third of patients develop resistance to this type of treatment because the underlying causes of the condition are not addressed. And many patients, for example, who have undergone both types of therapy, psychedelic and traditional, say that traditional therapy does not address the underlying causes of the condition and is more like taking a painkiller for a toothache without actually treating the cause of the pain. So, for this reason, I believe that even though there are these social and financial challenges, this new model proposed by psychedelic therapy needs to be taken into consideration, regardless of the costs.

Larisa: Absolutely, thank you so much, Vlad. It was really interesting to hear more about psychedelic therapy, how these substances actually came to be investigated in the context of psychiatry, and about research in general, as well as what the next steps in this area might be. And if you also enjoyed listening to today’s episode and would like to find out more about psychedelic therapy or these substances specifically, we’ll consider going into more detail on this topic in future episodes as well, who knows. Before we wrap up today’s episode, I wanted to give you another opportunity, Vlad, to tell us a little bit about the Mind Foundation, where you work, and I wanted to ask you whether, for example, someone who was interested in getting involved in research in this field would have a way of doing so, or how someone might go about taking those first steps in this direction.

Vlad: Yes. As I was saying, I’ve been working at the MIND Foundation in Berlin for almost a year now, and our main goals are to promote findings from psychedelic research and to facilitate the implementation of psychedelic therapy in today’s society. If you’d like to get involved in this field of research, or if you’d like to find out more, you can visit our website. Larisa, perhaps you could share it with the listeners, if you’d like.

Larisa: Sure, we’ll include it in the episode description if you’re interested.

Vlad: And we generally try to promote this kind of interest and support people who want to get involved in psychedelic research. One such initiative is the uniMIND groups, which are student- and professor-led journal clubs across Europe. There is also a uniMIND group in Romania, in Cluj, at the Faculty of Psychology at Babeș-Bolyai University, where we meet every two weeks to discuss these topics. So this is one way of getting involved in the field and finding out more. And personally, I hope that psychedelic research will also be conducted here in Romania, and I hope that the work of MIND and uniMIND will help make this easier and generate greater interest among researchers in our country.

Larisa: Absolutely, I hope so too, because it’s a very interesting field with a great deal of potential when it comes to therapeutic interventions for depression and beyond, as you also pointed out in today’s episode. Thank you very much if you’ve listened all the way to the end! As we said, if you’d like us to go into more detail on any particular topics, you can get in touch with us. Until the next episode, take care of yourselves and your mental health! Bye-bye!