You sound like you'd be interested in David Healy's work. Check out Children of the Cure if you haven't already. That, as well as a plethora of other shady things I learned in university, are responsible for reorienting me toward public policy rather than becoming a practicing psychologist.

I think you don't quite understand the comment.

Current pharmaceuticals are usually a (life)long prescription. It's not like antibiotics, where you get a dose for a few days or weeks and you're done. Antidepressants have to be taken for years. Every day. That means revenue every day. It's a treatment, not a cure.

MDMA on the other hand is a (potential) cure. You take it a few times under supervision and that's it.

Problem is, this takes away customers from the former group. And that means, far less revenue from "traditional" psychopharmacology products. MDMA cannibalizes other drugs.

It's not just supervision IMO.

I prepared myself for years before I took psilocybin for the first time, because I knew that it's going to bring up all of the subconscious shit that I carried around. So I "cleaned" myself enough emotionally beforehand, before taking the fungus.

Now, imagine your typical asshole walks into your medical treatment facility and demands psilocybin. Sure, you can give them psilocybin, but you cannot give them the sense of respect and understanding in front of these drugs.

Edit: by "your typical asshole" i mean, the typical asshole that you would encounter daily. Not you personally or sth.

Yeah, I guess you have a point.

As a species, we're horrible at statistical risk-based decision-making. My opinion is that we - as a society - should better educate and prepare children in statistical evaluation, and then as long as the behavior directly impacts only the individual, let people do what they want. The alternative is a morass of laws dictating personal behavior, with often unintended and arguably worse outcomes for society (c.f. The War on Drugs).

But in any case, FDA's job is to dictate the actions of companies, and prevent as well they can companies lying to and misleading consumers. Its mission is not to dictate individual behavior. And nor should it be.

FDA is there to stop cigarette companies from arguing or advertising to consumers that smoking is healthy, or that it makes you dick bigger, or whatever they think can make sales. FDA does not make rules preventing you from smoking.

What they're doing here is flexing control over a substance that has no giant, well-heeled organization pressuring them to allow companies to sell it.

I will note that I'm not an MDMA advocate; I've consumed a variety of chemicals, some in numerous quantities, but I've never knowingly taken MDMA. So my argument doesn't come from being butt-hurt about targeting my favorite drug; it's about the hypocrisy in the FDA wording of their warning.

Oh, I'll add: FDA doesn't make laws, but they're listened to by, and provide guidance for, lawmakers. And they do make decisions that decide whether a pharmaceutical or medical device company can bring a product to market, so they control legal supply. And this is only in the US, of course; the each country has their own version, and the EU has dozens from which corporations can pick and "give business to" to get approval to sell in that market.

Okay, you can be personally excited about therapeutic MDMA possibilities without making up a "gold standard'.

The study I've linked to above is specifically for psilocybin treating PTSD with an 80% efficacy rate after one entirely safe dose for 6 to 12 months.

The link you've supplied, as far as I can tell, does not report conclusive results for MDMA treating PTSD.

MDMA is not a gold standard, it's one non-standardized psychedelic therapeutic possibility that is physiologically more dangerous with fewer studies, more risks and more time commitment, therapeutic prerequisites and necessary conditions than psilocybin, without the resulting necessary controlled and conclusive clinical trials providing evidence of effective treatment.

I stand by my original point of seeing little reason to focus on more dangerous, less effective therapies when we already have a completely safe, simpler and so far more effective therapy according to conclusive controlled studies and patient testimony.