A Really Good Day(37)

Other than those few negative experiences, the reports Fadiman has received back are overwhelmingly positive. People described a series of benefits, which Fadiman separates into four categories: emotion, intellect, relationships, and physical. Emotional benefits included reductions in anxiety, elevations in mood, increases in equanimity, and feelings of being open, accepting, and happier. Intellectual benefits included improved focus, the ability to sustain creativity for longer stretches, and more effective problem-solving. People reported that their relationships improved. They didn’t have as many conflicts with the people in their lives, and some claimed to be more likable, more popular with colleagues and friends. I found the physical benefits Fadiman collected oddest of all. One woman insisted that her painful, irregular periods became less painful and grew more regular. Some people reported gradually finding themselves more willing to exercise and eat well. When I heard this, I joked to Fadiman that if he were to figure out some way to market the protocol as a weight loss tool he’d never have to worry about money again. Too bad I’ve not experienced that effect myself. I’m not exercising any more than before—though, come to think of it, I’m not indulging as often as usual in things like Dolly’s Naughty Cream doughnuts. Perhaps that’s because of the slight stimulating effects of the microdose, though that wouldn’t explain why this effect sustains through Transition Day and Normal Day. However it’s working, I’m eating fewer doughnuts though I’m managing to maintain my muffin top.

There were other unusual results reported to Fadiman. One individual claimed to have quit smoking after a five-year pack-a-day habit. Six cycles of the protocol was all it took, and the positive behavior sustained for eight months and counting. Another stopped smoking marijuana. Three stopped using Adderall. An individual with Parkinson’s disease reported that, though symptoms of the disease continued unabated, the person felt much less depressed than before attempting the protocol. Someone else passed a driver’s test after failing twice before. A stutterer experienced gradual but noticeable alleviation of symptoms. Most of all, a lot of people had a lot of really good days.

Fadiman considers his project to be a form of crowd-sourced field research, similar to a Phase Two clinical study, attempting to determine if the drug at this dose level provides any benefits. But what’s missing, of course, is a Phase One clinical study, to assess safety. Fadiman feels that the established safety of LSD and psilocybin at much more significant doses makes this less of a concern. I’m conservative and anxious by nature, and though I’m not worried enough not to do the experiment (or perhaps it’s better to say that I’m desperate enough to do it), I’m still not entirely comfortable. Furthermore, especially given the lack of controls, it’s possible that all these reports prove for certain is the power of the placebo effect. I wish I could participate in a formal double-blind control-group study, not this ad-hoc crowd-sourced experience.*4

Fadiman is eager for formal medical and psychiatric research into microdosing, both with psilocybin and with LSD. He has recently been contacted by two individuals, one in Australia and one in Europe, who seek to carry out just this research. The Australian, a graduate student, wants simply to systematize the same kind of self-reporting that Fadiman is doing, with people following a common reporting system, though still sourcing their own drugs and operating independently of clinical supervision. The student cannot, he says, get governmental permission for anything else. The European researcher, however, plans a formalized clinical study of the possible benefits of microdosing, using a double-blind model with a control group. This researcher believes that the current European resurgence of interest in psychedelic research makes approval likely.

Some American scientists with whom I spoke doubt the likelihood of having such a study approved in the United States. The FDA would be troubled, they say, by any such study’s “ambulatory” nature. They don’t believe that an institution would be willing to seek approval for a study that dosed participants with a Schedule I substance and then sent them out into the world effectively under the influence. Other American scientists, however, disagree. They point out that researchers send people out into the world dosed with medications that we know compromise their abilities to function in all sorts of ways. We give people high doses of opioids, for example, sometimes sending them home with supplies of the drugs to self-administer. Furthermore, were that the only issue, an inpatient study could easily be crafted. These scientists believe that, given the success of the psilocybin studies at UCLA, NYU, and Johns Hopkins, it is possible, even likely, that we will see a microdosing study in the future. I hope so, and I hope my family history and my own ad-hoc experiment don’t preclude my participation.

The psychedelic researchers I interviewed expressed more interest in how microdosing can increase functioning and well-being in healthy people than in its potential antidepressant benefits. Their curiosity has been piqued by reports of Silicon Valley executives and engineers who have started microdosing as a way to improve productivity and encourage creative thinking at work. Microdosing has become something of a performance-enhancing mini-trend in the tech world, enough of one to justify an inundation of articles in magazines and online extolling its virtues.*5 According to Rolling Stone magazine, the typical microdoser is not, in fact, a middle-aged mom of four hoping to be less of a raging bitch, but an “übersmart twentysomething curious to see whether microdosing will help him or her work through technical problems and become more innovative.”*6