Underground MDMA-, LSD- and 2-CB-assisted individual and group psychotherapy in Zurich

By Pjotr777 · Dec 26, 2018 ·
Rating:
5/5,
  1. Pjotr777
    Underground MDMA-, LSD- and
    2-CB-assisted individual and group
    psychotherapy in Zurich: Outcomes,
    implications and commentary
    Ben Sessa and Friederike Meckel Fischer


    Abstract
    Underground psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy has persisted in Europe despite the banning of the substances LSD and
    MDMA in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. This article describes the work of a Zurich-based psychotherapist providing
    individual and group psycholytic psychotherapy, whose practice persisted for several years before she was arrested in 2009.
    The article provides commentary on the psychopharmacological, moral, ethical and legal issues of this case and discusses these issues in the context of the growing medical research of psychedelic substances as mainstream treatments for psychiatry.


    Introduction
    Psychedelic (hallucinogenic) substances have been used
    for thousands of years by archaic and non-Western cul-
    tures for psycho-spiritual healing. Following the dis-
    covery of LSD in 1943, these drugs were researched
    extensively by psychiatry (Hofmann, 1980). Most psy-
    chedelic research ended by the 1970s amidst widespread
    recreational drug use. Work with psychedelic agents
    was largely absent for the next 40 years until a recent
    resurgence of interest in these compounds as adjuncts
    for psychotherapy (Sessa, 2005).
    Despite the hiatus of clinical research since the 1960s,
    throughout the world there have been some small pock-
    ets of continued underground use of psychedelics for
    psychotherapy. This article, which arose from several
    interviews between UK psychiatrist Ben Sessa and
    German psychiatrist Friederike Fischer, describes one
    such project delivering individual and group psycholytic
    therapy that ran for several years in Switzerland until
    2009. The project came to an end when Dr Fischer and
    her husband were arrested, put on trial and sentenced.
    Friederike’s background history
    and training
    Friederike trained as a medical doctor in Germany spe-
    cialising in industrial medicine and psychotherapy.
    She further trained in the USA as a Holotropic
    Breathwork facilitator with Dr Stanislav Grof, who
    had worked extensively with LSD-assisted psychother-
    apy during the 1960s and 1970s (Grof, 1980/2001).
    In Switzerland between 1988 and 1993, there was a
    brief period of relaxation in the Swiss legislation con-
    cerning clinical use of psychedelic substances, and a
    psycholytic therapy training group was set up to
    instruct therapists in the use of mainly MDMA and
    LSD. Psycholytic therapy involves drug-assisted psy-
    chotherapy with repeated low to moderate doses – as
    opposed to traditional ‘psychedelic’ psychotherapy,
    which involves a single or infrequent use of a very
    high dose of the drug. After Friederike had her first
    personal experience with MDMA, she ‘knew immedi-
    ately that it could be used therapeutically’. She and her
    husband joined the training group whilst also working
    in her own private psychotherapeutic practice provid-
    ing non-drug psychotherapy, Holotropic Breathwork
    group therapy and Family Constellation work.

    Beginning individual therapy with
    psychedelic drugs

    When Friederike began offering individual psycholytic
    psychotherapy sessions, some clients were recom-
    mended by word-of-mouth, but most had already had
    extensive non-drug psychotherapy with her. Only a
    very small percentage of her clients (4%) went on to
    drug-assisted therapy.
    Those chosen to progress to psycholytic work were
    those clients deemed to be ‘stuck’ or failing to progress
    in traditional non-drug psychotherapy.

    Initial individual assessment with
    MDMA therapy sessions
    The client would start with psycho-education, the
    nature of the psycholytic experience and what to
    expect under the influence of the substance. Clients
    were then offered an individual drug-assisted session
    with MDMA. Only when the client was familiar and
    comfortable with the MDMA experience, sometimes
    after several individual sessions, would they be invited
    to join the larger therapeutic psycholytic group.
    Friederike: ‘It takes time to get to know and to be
    with a substance
    ...
    to recognise the peaks and troughs
    and how to manage one’s responses and challenges’.
    The initial individual sessions would also be used to
    stress the importance of the rules and boundaries
    employed by the group. Once a client was ready, they
    were offered the opportunity to join the therapeutic
    group, where other adjunctive drugs could be con-
    sidered alongside MDMA, such as LSD or 2-CB.
    Characteristics of clients in the
    psycholytic group
    Ninety-seven of Friederike’s clients were given psycho-
    lytic therapy, and 60 participated in the psycholytic
    groups. The gender mix was 50/50, and the age range
    of clients was 18 to 70 years. There was a wide range of
    different social statuses amongst the participants but
    most were well educated and intellectually high achiev-
    ing. The average length of stay in the group was 25
    sessions dispersed over several years.
    Friederike led all the group sessions herself and her
    husband Konrad, whilst not a therapist, also attended
    most sessions. His role was one of a passive observer,
    providing an important containing element in the context
    of the complex systemic dynamics that often occurred.
    Structure of the group sessions
    The psycholytic group met over a weekend once a month
    (10 times a year) at the home of Friederike and Konrad
    in Zurich. The substance-assisted therapy session took
    place all day Saturday, but the group’s participants
    stayed from Friday to Sunday to take part in other
    non-drug aspects of the therapeutic milieu.
    On Friday, participants arrived at 7 pm and had
    dinner together with their hosts, sharing how they
    had been since last month’s session and discussing
    what they would like to achieve on the Saturday ses-
    sion. Between 8pm and 10.30pm they all met for a
    (non-drug) group sharing in which they related how
    they had been since last month’s session and discussed
    what they would like to achieve on the Saturday session
    and how they would phrase their intention-question.
    Each client produced a written protocol which sum-
    marised the experience in the last session and which
    was the ‘entry ticket’ for the new one.
    On Saturday morning, Friederike prepared the
    medicines according to participants’ individual needs.
    Friederike set the dosages for beginners. Very experi-
    enced participants would decide jointly with Friederike
    what dosage to take. After a light breakfast everyone
    started the session with a
    Promise Ritual
    , in which they
    confirmed the following:
    I promise to keep silence about the present people,
    about the location and the holy medicine. I promise
    to harm neither others nor myself during or after the
    session. I promise to return from the session in a more
    healed and wiser way and I carry the responsibility of
    what I am doing here myself.
    Then all participants held hands, wished themselves a
    good journey, took the first medicine together (usually
    MDMA) and immediately lay down.
    Friederike and Konrad always took the same
    substance as the participants. In the early stages of
    the psycholytic therapy, she experimented with not
    taking the drug herself but found that her guidance
    and therapeutic interventions were more effective
    (as described by her clients) when she took the sub-
    stance together with them.
    For the next 90 minutes, everyone remained still and
    silent, with eyes closed lying on mattresses or sitting.
    Then Friederike played the first of a number of differ-
    ent pieces of music ranging from classical to New Age,
    in varying tempos to ‘awaken’ the participants to the
    effects of the substance, whereupon they then formed a
    circle and focused their attention on beginning the psy-
    chotherapeutic work.
    For the next three hours, Friederike led the group
    members in their individual and group work (which is
    described in detail later). Then breaking at 1 pm,
    participants used the bathroom and ate before
    Friederike handed out to each person the second sub-
    stance – usually LSD, but sometimes 2-CB.

    There followed another period of silence followed by
    music to bring the clients to the point where the MDMA
    and the LSD or 2-CB met. At the second peak, they
    would begin the intensive psychotherapeutic work
    again, which could last for another five to six hours.
    At around 9 pm, the session ended and the group
    enjoyed a meal together, followed by a walk. No one
    was allowed to leave the group alone. By midnight, all
    the guests had settled to bed.
    On Sunday morning, they meet for a non-drug ses-
    sion to discuss and integrate the previous day’s work.
    The guests then settled their invoices and went home.
    The cost per guest was between 300 and 400 Swiss
    Francs (£190–£250) per weekend, which included the
    cost of the substances. Some clients who were strug-
    gling to pay would stay behind and help with chores
    by way of payment.
    In the following two weeks, all the participants sent
    Friederike a written report of their experience. Any of
    the participants were free to contact Friederike at any
    time and arrange an individual 1:1 (non-drug) session
    before the next psycholytic session if desired.

    The choice and dosages of substances
    used for the sessions
    MDMA: 80–130 mg
    LSD: 50–200mg
    2-CB: 15–30 mg

    Combining substances
    Most psycholytic sessions began with MDMA, then
    LSD or 2-CB were added mid-way. Sometimes sessions
    began with 2-CB or with LSD or on rare occasions
    other substances such as ayahuasca or psilocybin were
    used. Crucially, all the participants (including
    Friederike and Konrad) at any given session always
    all took the same substance at the same time; only the
    doses changed between individuals.
    The use of MDMA as a
    psychotherapeutic agent
    MDMA exerts its effects at 5-HT
    2A
    and 5-HT
    2B
    recep-
    tors, creating feelings of reduced anxiety and depression
    and a sense of euphoria and well-being (Brunner and
    Hen, 1997; Graeff et al., 1996). Its effects at 5-HT
    2A
    receptors (where ‘classical’ psychedelics such as LSD
    predominantly act) facilitate original and innovative
    thinking (Nash et al., 1994). MDMA also exerts effects
    at alpha-2 receptors, producing calmness and relax-
    ation. MDMA’s actions at dopamine and
    noradrenaline receptors causes increased stimulation
    and motivation (Cozzi et al., 1999; Fitzgerald and
    Reid, 1990; Lavelle et al., 1999). And effects at the
    hypothalamus cause oxytocin release, increasing
    feelings of empathy and bonding (Thompson et al.,
    2007). Taken together, all these neurobiological aspects
    of MDMA provide the optimal psychological condi-
    tions to make it a useful drug for psychotherapy
    (Greer and Tolbert, 1986; Sessa, 2011).
    Psychological dynamics within group
    psycholytic work
    As clients progress through the course of monthly ses-
    sions, they gain experience with the substance-induced
    mental spaces in order to explore and challenge their
    individual psychological issues. Friederike describes
    three successive stages of the psycholytic therapy,
    akin to a client’s personal development: ‘Primary
    School’, ‘Middle School’ and ‘High School’.
    The ‘Primary School’ stage
    Over an average of 10 sessions, participants develop the
    basic strategies required to work with MDMA and
    other substances. A fundamental skill is ‘The Self
    Reflecting I’; learning to be self-reflective and con-
    stantly aware of one’s personal identity in order to
    ‘let go’ in a non-judgmental manner. Such mindfulness
    is essential to cope with the psychological material
    released especially with LSD and 2-CB. Becoming
    ‘The Empathic Observer’ provides a neutral reference
    point to explore thoughts without resistance.
    Friederike begins the therapeutic phase of the drug
    session by asking the clients ‘Where are you?’ – which
    encourages clients to visualise their problems in a
    watchful manner without allowing themselves to
    attach to a particular thought.
    Biographical scenes of childhood emerge; with asso-
    ciated reflections upon parents and memories of psycho-
    logical trauma such as sexual, physical or emotional
    abuse. These experiences were worked through with
    trauma-specific work. Friederike guided the participants
    through the re-living of the traumatising moment by stay-
    ing connected to the client’s adult part, by giving safety,
    by encouraging the child-self to go through and by help-
    ing the client in the end to distinguish between the present
    and the past. Often these experiences required live-body
    work, since trauma is stored in the body too. Thus the link
    between the event and the trauma was cut. Sometimes,
    Friederike will initiate a symbolic role-play scenario
    ‘‘modified constellation work’’, with Konrad as the
    role-played mother or the father. The clients are encour-
    aged to engage in a verbal dialogue with one another, in
    character, to play out the psychological dynamics and to
    Sessa and Fischer
    explore the systemic issues – all the time using the
    Empathic Observer stance as a non-judgmental reference
    point.
    Progression through the ‘Primary School’ stage leads
    to the process of ‘Correcting New Experience’, in which
    they address specific personal issues and previously
    unexplored relationship dynamics. Very often they
    experienced the hitherto buried deep love between
    their parents and themselves. They may experience dra-
    matic personal revelations – within and outside the
    psycholytic sessions – and may wish to make major
    life changes, such as marrying (or divorcing) their part-
    ner, taking new responsibilities or leaving their job.
    Friederike would always reflect with them the import-
    ance of ‘being with’ the issues and gaining more experi-
    ence with the substances before making such drastic
    life-changing decisions.
    The ‘Middle School’ stage
    This might last for another 10 sessions. By now, the clients
    can recognise the substance
    s’ mental spaces more easily
    and are developing a preference for different substances
    and dosages. They learn to guide their inner processes
    themselves, with less intervention from Friederike. They
    can go deeper into the experience and pose mental ques-
    tions to themselves about biographical issues but must not
    allow themselves to believe they have all the answers.
    Looking more closely at systemic and dynamics
    issues, the clients are able to make connections with
    other aspects of their lives and lifestyles, for example
    their relationships at home, employment, with their
    partner and their children. There is a greater emergence
    of spiritual experiences and the clients begin to under-
    stand the issue of projection – that what they see on the
    outside is a reflection of what they feel on the inside.
    The ‘High School’ stage
    This could last for up to 20 sessions. By now, the clients
    have fully integrated the concepts of being still and not
    attaching to emotional experiences. They fully know
    the substance and can conduct psycholytic sessions on
    their own. They might use lower doses and need less or
    no music as they have learned how to remain still and
    rise higher with less external input.
    Clients begin to fully integrate their learning into
    their everyday normal lives. Acquired mindfulness pro-
    vides peace and tranquillity to cope with their life prob-
    lems in a new way. They have changed. Their new skills
    are transferable to everyday life.
    Spiritual insights provide an awareness of being part
    of a greater whole, something bigger than oneself.
    Clients often state that underlying all experience is the
    concept of
    love
    ; binding together all other aspects of life.
    This is very powerful for clients who have up till now
    never enjoyed any significant experience of love. Feeling
    love is a fundamental characteristic of psychedelic sub-
    stances and particularly MDMA. The substance gives
    the clients an opportunity to see themselves as loving
    and, crucially,
    lovable
    individuals, which offers immense
    healing potential for clients with traumatic histories.
    Clinical outcomes of the psycholytic
    group work
    In common with many psychotherapists, Friederike did
    not routinely collect quantitative psychological measures
    of her clients’ progress. But of the 97 clients who under-
    went psycholytic psychotherapy, the qualitative out-
    comes were overwhelmingly positive. There were no
    serious adverse reactions to the substances, no psychoses,
    no hospitalisations and no suicides of any clients who
    were actively undergoing psycholytic therapy. Almost
    all of the clients describe improvements in their relation-
    ships and well-being at home and work. Some stayed
    with their partners, some found the strength to leave.
    Some stayed in their jobs and some developed new inter-
    ests, lifestyles and employment – generally away from a
    more consumerist lifestyle. For example, one man left a
    highly paid corporate job and trained as a counsellor and
    another became a social worker.
    How it all came to an end
    In 2009, Friederike and Konrad were arrested when an
    ex-client informed the police. The ex-client, together
    with her husband had initially been successfully engaged
    in non-drug and psycholytic therapy. The couple had
    initially praised Friederike for their positive experiences
    using MDMA and LSD. But during the course of their
    therapy, the couple later separated as a result of personal
    insights gained by the husband. On moving out of the
    marital home, then husband briefly lodged with
    Friederike and Konrad for want of a place to stay.
    Subsequently, the wife blamed Friederike for her hus-
    band’s decision to end the marriage and decided to
    inform the police about the underground therapy. She
    told the police that Friederike and Konrad had used
    MDMA and LSD to ‘brainwash’ her husband and
    turned him against her. She denied any positive aspects
    of the sessions she had had. The police then put
    Friederike and Konrad’s house under surveillance and
    tapped their telephone and emails, looking for evidence
    of drug dealing.
    Arrested and put on trial
    In October 2009, the police raided the home and found
    four tablets and two capsules of MDMA, four tabs of
    blotter LSD and seized written documentation and the
    couple’s computers. Friederike and Konrad were
    arrested and put into custody in separate prisons for
    almost two weeks, during which time they were inter-
    rogated. The police found no evidence to suggest the
    couple were dealing drugs and they were allowed home.
    The trial took place in July 2010. The prosecution
    case charged that Friederike and Konrad were dealing
    drugs, making a large profit and were endangering soci-
    ety at large because LSD was an intrinsically dangerous
    drug. (Of note, the prosecution case never stated that
    their use of MDMA was also endangering society.
    Interestingly, there is no concept of MDMA-associated
    neurotoxicity under Swiss law.)
    In Friederike and Konrad’s defence, a number of
    influential psycholytic therapists and neuroscientists
    (Ede Frecska, Peter Gasser, Stanislav Grof, David
    Nichols, Rick Strassman and Michael Winkelman) tes-
    tified that LSD is
    not
    a dangerous drug and that it has
    no significant physical or psychological adverse effects
    when given in a controlled clinical setting. On the basis
    of this evidence, the charge that the couple were endan-
    gering society with their use of LSD was completely
    rejected.
    Friederike submitted further literature from Albert
    Hofmann, Torsten Passie and others as evidence that
    they had paid careful attention to Set and Setting
    throughout their practice of psycholytic therapy and
    that their project was non-profitable and not about
    dealing or recreational/hedonistic drug use. Rather
    the substances were being used with great care and
    attention in the context of a therapeutic setting.
    Friederike told the judge directly:
    For me psychedelics like MDMA and LSD are not
    drugs. They are psycho-integrative substances that
    have been used for thousands of years. (It) is not like
    getting drunk. The clients are in a clear state of elevated
    consciousness in which they can carry out psychothera-
    peutic work.
    The court hearing lasted just three hours. Friederike
    describes the waiting for the sentence to be passed as
    ‘the most frightening few hours of my life’, as she knew
    there was a chance she could receive a custodial jail
    sentence of up to 20 years for the alleged charges.
    However, the judge understood that they were not deal-
    ing and that their clients had willingly used the drugs in
    the context of a clinical intervention. The sentences
    were relatively lenient. Konrad was fined 10,000 Swiss
    Francs (£6500) and received a 2-year probation sen-
    tence. Friederike was fined 2000 Swiss Francs (£1300)
    and given a 16 months suspended sentence with a fol-
    lowing probation period of two years.
    Other outcomes
    The local media branded the couple as ‘evil’ and false
    accusations were made that Friederike and Konrad
    were conducting ‘sex orgies’ as part of a cult and that
    they were pushing drugs upon unsuspecting or vulner-
    able people for vast personal profits. Consequently, the
    Zurich Health Council threatened to remove
    Friederike’s professional license. She subsequently vol-
    untarily gave up her qualification as a psychotherapist
    rather than endure going through such a disciplinary
    procedure.
    Commentary
    This remarkable story generates many issues worthy of
    commentary. There are matters around the relative
    effectiveness and safety of psycholytic therapy and the
    particular manner in which it was conducted in this
    instance. There are questions around the legal aspects
    of these substances, the drug laws as they currently
    stand and moral and ethical issues around Friederike
    and Konrad engaging in this project in the first place.
    What could they have done differently?
    Friederike knows she strayed from the usual bound-
    aries between client and therapist in allowing her ex-
    client’s ex-husband to lodge briefly with her and
    Konrad. However, she states that in the case of psycho-
    lytic psychotherapy, it is sometimes more delicate to
    find the proper distance between therapist and client.
    Nevertheless, it is arguable that it is essential to do so.
    Another idiosyncrasy of this project is that
    Friederike could not consult widely with other clinical
    colleagues for supervision. It was difficult for her to
    share her thoughts, feelings and needs with anyone out-
    side the project. Any clinician operating in isolation is
    at risk of failing to see potential pitfalls or new angles
    for therapy and is also completely ‘at the mercy’ of
    one’s clients.
    Friederike relied entirely upon trust to keep the pro-
    ject under wraps. The ‘Promise Statement’ made at the
    beginning of each drug session helped keep the project
    hidden to some extent. But no matter how skilled and
    containing any therapist is, it is inevitable that at some
    point a dynamic may occur in which a client is over-
    whelmed by issues that arise as a result of the therapy
    and may wish to complain. When this occurs in trad-
    itional psychotherapy, the therapist may seek support
    from colleagues or from professional bodies such as
    lawyers or medical insurance companies. In this
    instance, Friederike had no such supports available,
    which left both her and her clients vulnerable.

    Nevertheless, the plug could have been pulled at any
    time by any one of the clients in the years before it
    ended. The fact it lasted as long as it did clearly dem-
    onstrates a very high level of understanding of shared
    goals between therapist and clients – perhaps more so
    than one would normally see with traditional therapy.
    In retrospect, Friederike could have been more judi-
    cious in selecting clients going forward for psycholytic
    therapy, in order to avoid those not prepared to bear
    the responsibility of their own actions. However, in
    reality she
    was
    judicious – recruiting only 4% of her
    available pool of clients she held in non-drug therapy.
    So there is no evidence she had a cavalier approach to
    using substance-assisted therapy.
    Moral and ethical issues
    Some drugs are legal, widely advertised and socially
    sanctioned despite being more toxic than many others
    whose use is restricted (Nutt et al., 2010). This fact and
    the negative press reports against Friederike and
    Konrad reflect the general public’s critical feelings
    about illegal drugs. Many people erroneously believed
    Friederike made great profits from her work, even
    though the price charged for the entire weekend’s
    therapy is below what some psychotherapists charge
    for a single two-hour session of traditional
    psychotherapy.
    Friederike knew these substances offered her clients
    a therapeutic option not available through traditional
    psychotherapy. The substances could be used safely
    with appropriate set and setting controls, which she
    followed fastidiously. She was conservative in her
    selection of clients and careful to ensure they were ade-
    quately followed-up outside the sessions.
    Having exercised all these controls, Friederike
    nevertheless provided this therapy in spite of the
    illegality. Does this make her a foolish law-breaker?
    Or a brave clinician prepared to carry considerable per-
    sonal risk (for which she subsequently paid the price) in
    order to provide a viable clinical intervention for her
    clients?
    How widespread is underground
    therapy?
    It is estimated there are dozens of other underground
    psycholytic psychotherapy groups operating through-
    out Switzerland using MDMA, LSD and other
    agents. And it is conceivable that the practice
    is also going on in the UK. Many people today use
    psychedelic drugs as part of a healing and wholesome
    community cohesive experience, rather than sim-
    ply an act of hedonism; much more so than when
    they take other drugs such as alcohol and cocaine
    (www.bluelight.nd).
    In 2009, in Berlin, two deaths occurred in the context
    of an underground psycholytic therapy group session.
    Clients were accidentally given lethal doses of the drug
    methylone (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-eng
    lish/world-news/2009/09/21/berlin-therapy-deaths/doc
    tor-admits-i-gave-patients-drug-cocktail.html). This
    tragedy highlights the particular risks associated with
    a lack of quality controls involved with underground
    therapy.
    The future for psychedelic research
    After 60 years of widespread recreational LSD use by
    hundreds of millions of people, there have still been no
    recorded deaths or any clinically significant morbidity
    issues with the drug. Although LSD is an immensely
    powerful substance, it has been repeatedly demon-
    strated that it can be used perfectly safely in a clinical
    setting with due care and attention (Gasser, 2014).
    Similarly with MDMA, after 25 years of heavy recre-
    ational ecstasy use throughout the world, the morbidity
    and mortality rate remains very low and when taken in
    a controlled clinical setting, there is no substantial
    evidence for irreversible neurotoxicity (Sessa, 2007).
    Decades of anecdotal examples of the positive use of
    psychedelics as agents for healing are now being
    backed-up with contemporary clinical trials (Krebs
    2013). In the face of continued unremitting mental dis-
    orders – especially the anxiety-based disorders – we are
    seeing increasing numbers of clinicians looking for
    viable alternative treatment options. All of the contem-
    porary clinical psychedelic studies, though well
    designed, have nevertheless had to endure considerable
    ethical and legal barriers – far above those expected by
    conventional psychopharmacology trials (Sessa and
    Nutt, 2015).
    Psychedelic research studies completed in recent
    years include a DMT human dose-response study
    (Strassman, 1995), ketamine psychotherapy to treat
    heroin dependence (Kruitsky et al., 2007), the use of
    psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy to treat obsessive
    compulsive disorder (Moreno et al., 2006) and the use
    of MDMA to treat PTSD (Mithoefer et al., 2011). And
    worldwide, there are many more projects underway
    (www.maps.org/research/).
    The current renaissance in psychedelic research
    is flourishing. It is looking increasingly likely that
    within the next 10 to 15 years, clinicians wishing
    to use psychedelic-drug assisted psychotherapy will
    be able to carry out this form of treatment using regu-
    lated, legal and appropriately monitored structures
    (Sessa, 2012).

    Original Source

    Written by: Ben Sessa and Friederike Meckel Fischer, Mar 1, 2015, SagePub

    Share This Article

    dr ACE and TheBigBadWolf like this.

Recent User Reviews

  1. dr ACE
    "Interesting article"
    5/5, 5 out of 5, reviewed Feb 18, 2019
    Most excellent to see more positive light being shed on hallucinogenics in psychotherapy settings
  2. TheBigBadWolf
    "calling it interesting is not enough."
    5/5, 5 out of 5, reviewed Dec 27, 2018
    An informative article first-hand from the therapist and her sitter-by.
    Detailed info about the way the patients were chosen and how the treatment set and setting were set up, including doses and times that were used.
    The paragraphs about Swiss jurisprudence and how the trial went could have been a bit more explaining, but that doesn't lead me to rate the article lower.
    All in all, albeit a bit older article, what one needs to generally know about psychedelics in psychotherapeutic treatment. That it was "underground" may shed a dim light on the therapist for general public. DF readers know better.
    Pjotr777 and Smeg like this.

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!