Accepting the Exceptional

Dear friends and colleagues,

We are the heralds of a new generation. We must carry the torch forth as a guiding light for those that may follow. We must understand that in the realm of psychedelic therapy, we still face a high level of stigmatization from the mainstream establishment. Indeed, there are powers that be that seek to crystallize the realm of knowledge as it thus stands.

It is not irregular to see domains, fields of knowledge, stagnate with an older generation that is resistant to seeing see positive movement and new discoveries. Trained and learned with decades of knowledge, they see a higher image of the field as it stands. Exciting new research reveals itself only as partial and minute vector laid upon a vast landscape that, by necessity, exceeds it. Indeed, it is their job to be the stewards of the domain and the voices of skepticism and reason. We would be remiss to neglect to wisdom that they hold in heeding caution.

We must also recognize when it is no longer reasonable skepticism, but, instead a judgmental attitude toward the community, practitioners, and champions of the space. That, in fact, as advocates of new and exciting work, we may be seen as juvenile and ignorant. "We need more research!" They harken from the towers. Yet, the promising research that does emerge, in its eminence of grandiose effect sizes unparalleled by anything yet provided, is shunned under the never-ending claim, "We need more research."

Of course we need more research. We are doing the research. It will come. It requires a passion, vision, and assumption of the burden of risks to break through the rigidity of a stagnant establishment. Those that do pioneer this work must hold the torch in choosing to continue seeing this through, grinding it out, even in the face of uncertain future. A career must be risked on this passion of an idea. It is not a naive, uncalculated risk, though. Instead, it is a deep look at what is shown as fact in the clinical, scientific outcomes.

What if it is not a sober-minded scientific analysis of the data driving opinions, but, instead, the ego of the establishment refusing to buy-in to the excitement? I cannot deny my own ego and passion with the work, but I can say that I have been trained to look at and interpret scientific data, and if the scientific data provides astounding results then I am simply acknowledging that. I am not against the idea that new information may come out that contradicts the assumptions I have formed based on the facts I have consumed. Perhaps we come to discover that the outcomes we see are simply due to biochemical changes happening at the cellular level, and that there is no credence or effect of the perceptual experience of ingesting the drugs. Perhaps we don't need the drugs at all and the outcomes we've seen have been entirely driven by some other factors. Alas, as we conduct the research we shall find out, but I'll be damned if I don't think we have at least discovered something interesting with psychedelic therapy.

What a mystery these compounds elicit. What is more fascinating to a true scientist than discovering and explaining a mysterious phenomenon? It this not the driving feature of scientific investigation? It should not be in service of the ego, money, power, or fame, but rather a genuine curiosity to understand what is happening when we observe something as-of-yet entirely unexplainable. When dealing in the psychological realm, there is hardly anything more fascinating than what we see reported in the psychedelic experience; overwhelming joy, acceptance of death and trauma, ego dissolution, mystical experiences, entity encounters. Yet, as I lay out those terms we see an increasing level of stigmatization association with them, that harmful force that underlies and mixes in with that which we seek to extinguish; racism, judgment, discrimination, hate. Why allow such forces to silence proud champions of new discovery, happy in the joys of the fact that we may find global healing with pre-existing, but otherwise BANNED, therapeutic agents? Chemicals that are relatively accessible and hardly contribute to the gnashing, painful, everlasting economic growth model that we have employed to our eternal detriment?

Ah, yes, and we see the term 'psychedelic exceptionalism' thrown around in this same manner. My friends, I in the same boat as you all, I should hope. I am interested in the healing. I want people to be better off. I want to see the trauma handled, resolved, so that people may go on living happy lives. I want an uncovering of joy for the human species. I make no exceptions to what may bring about such an occurrence, or what compound may cause harm relative to another. When I see the real human experiences leading to largely positive outcomes in controlled therapeutic settings, and data to validate that, why would I be accused of making such exceptions? We need to do away with this idea. We should see psychedelics as the norm, not an exception, as one day their use will be normalized, and we should not be recoiled by harmful labels or accusations of making exceptions that one drug is more or less harmful than another. I make no exception that psychedelics are more or less harmful than other drugs, but, rather, emphasize and suggest that each substance should be considered in its own light according to the safety, context, and healing capability that it may hold. Our opinions and attitudes should reflect the data and the truth that we have thus far concerning their ability to heal or harm. In the right contexts, I see tremendous healing occurring, and I don't think anyone should be upset or offended or off-put by a recognition and embrace of the possibility of real, powerful healing occurring.