36C3 - Psychedelic Medicine - Hacking Psychiatry?!

36C3 preroll music

Herald: OK! Let’s come to the talk. So,
next up is Andrea Jungaberle. She is

talking about drugs and how drugs affect
the psychiatry. Oh, that is a hard word.

Why don't you do it, huh? I know now.
And the question is, after the—what

is “Verbot” in English?
Andrea Jungaberle: Prohibition.

Herald: Prohibition right, after the
prohibition in the ’70s, not much thinking

about how these drugs work and how could
they improve psychiatry, has been done, so

now everybody’s asking, is this the magic
bullet cure? I don’t believe so. But more

about this by Andrea.
Well, warm welcome, please.

applause

Andrea: So hello, everybody. I'm very
happy to be here and able to talk to you

on a topic that is very important to me
and I think very important to many people

now and in the future. So the topic today
is psychedelic medicine, hacking,

psychiatry. And just to give away the
punchline, it's not a magic bullet and

will never be. But on the other hand,
there are lots of things to know and think

about in this context that I would like
to introduce you to. But first, a few

words about myself. I'm a medical doctor,
specialized in emergency medicine /

intensive care. I work and live in Berlin.
And I'm also one of the founders of MIND,

the European Foundation for Psychedelic
Science, and its current medical director.

One more sentence about us. That's our
core team. So MIND is a members-based

Psychedelic Science Association. We
have run 450 members worldwide and a core

team of about 50 people. That is a nucleus
of paid staff, lots of very dedicated,

very good volunteers and great interns
from different disciplines like the

neurosciences, psychiatry, psychology, and
pharmacology, for example. So we work to

establish psychedelic science as an
evidence-based method and also educate

about it in Germany and Europe around it.
Okay, but let's dive in at the deep end.

Psychedelics. What are psychedelics? Well,
the term comes from the Greek Psyche

Delos, which could be translated as
“manifesting the mind of the psyche.” So

many were talking about psychoactive
substances with a certain, well, capability

of transforming one's perception,
introspection, sensory qualities in a very

typical way that is sometimes described as
dreamlike, but not necessarily so. The

classic psychedelics that are also called
hallucinogens, which I don't like as a

term because they don't induce
hallucinations. What they do is induce

pseudo-hallucinations; so somebody on a
psychedelic substance, usually in 99%

of the time is aware that they have
taken a substance and what they're

experiencing is due to the substance. So
it's not a hallucinogen, but a pseudo-

hallucinogen. But these substances, like
the classics—LSD, psilocybin, or DMT—

function in a very specific way and they all
are working on the serotoninergic system.

So serotonin is one of the key
neurotransmitters and there's one receptor

which is the 5-HT2A receptor, which is,
like, the smallest common denominator of

all those substances, which doesn't say
that they all work just on this one, but

they affect a whole plethora of
neurotransmitters and receptors. But this

is the key where they all work. There are
other substances that are classified as

somehow psychedelic, like the
entactogens—ecstasy, MDMA is one of the

kind—which works also on the serotonin
system. Dissociatives, like ketamine,

work more on the NMDA receptor and some
others; they are just basically chemical

random, like Amanita, which is the Fly
Agaric Mushroom, or Datura, or Salvia. OK.

This is the only slide I'm going to bother
you with this dry kind of science. But I

think it's important to be clear about
this because even though psychedelics are

a pop cultural meme, hardly anybody knows
anything about it, to be honest. Most

people associate them with being drugs of
the same danger profile as methamphetamine

or opioids. Think there is an addiction
factor which in fact does not exist with

classic psychedelics. And basically it has
been the dirty corner of perception for

many people for a very long time. Recently,
things have changed a bit. Psychedelics

have come mainstream. Firstly, because
there is a perception shift on drugs in

general due to the cannabis perception and
medication changing. And also because

people like, for example, Michael Pollan,
who's a classic mainstream author writing

on cooking and nutrition, have turned to
writing about psychedelics. And another

factor that has helped psychedelics in one
way and harmed them and another is the

whole microdosing craze we have seen,
especially in the tech and developmental

scenes, and especially in the Bay Area and
Silicon Valley. OK, but where do they come

from? In this talk, I am not going to
speak about psychedelic, psychoactive

substances in other cultural frameworks.
There are cultures like in the Amazonian

basin or some Aztec people in Mexico
who have been using psychoactive

substances, psychedelics, in a very
ritualized sense for millennia, perhaps,

or at least centuries. But this is not us.
So let's talk about what happened here in

Europe or in the Western world, including
America. This guy up here, sorry, that's

the wrong one. The pointer isn't strong
enough. We'll work like this. This nice

guy up here is Albert Hofmann. In 1938, he
was developing several substances that

were supposed to work on atonia and in
postpartum women, but also on other

problems like blood pressure and he,
among other things, developed the

thing that later became LSD. But
back then, he didn't see any sense in

pursuing it medically because it didn't
work the way he wanted it to and he

shelved it. And for some reason in ’43, he
took it out the shelf again to retest it

for other purposes, and accidently gave
himself the first noted LSD trip. This

happened not because he was a shitty
chemist, but because the amount that is

needed to induce an effect is so low as it
has never been noted before in any other

substance. So 20 micrograms of LSD can
already produce a notable change in

perception. So when he came out of that
experience, this first one he had, after

accidentally dosing himself, he decided
to go for, well, a trial on himself and

trying to be safe. He used what he thought
was a very low dose of the substance he

discovered, which turned out to be 250
micrograms of LSD, which was his… I hear

the laughter. It’s rather a high dose
trip, especially for somebody who just

didn't know what was expecting him out
there in his own mind. And this is the

famous bicycle day trip where he rode home
on his bike thinking that the world was

collapsing around him, basically. So even
this wasn't a nice trip, the first one. So

what happened next was that he reported to
his superiors at Sandoz Chemical in Basel,

and they had the idea of turning this
into a substance for many doctors,

psychiatrists, psychologists, to experience
what it would be like to be psychotic. So

its first application of LSD was as a
psychotomimetic. And as a psychoto-

mimetic, thousands of dosages were
distributed worldwide from the

Czech Republic to Harvard University to
everywhere. And doctors tried it out. What

happened then was that a small group of
young, ambitious psychologists around

Timothy Leary tried it out too, and
thought this is not just something for

doctors. This is not just a psychoto-
mimetic and brought it out basically into,

yeah, the real world. And people were
experimenting with LSD quite a bit in the

’60s before it was forbidden in ’71. Not
because it turned out to be so dangerous.

They were not so many accidents. Not so
many people had dire side effects. But

because the political will to cope with
the substance and its implications wasn't

existent in the Nixon era. So. ’71,
underground goes into subculture. But the

genie was out of the bottle and it was not
going to go back in. And psychedelics, not

only LSD, but also Psilocybin, later on
MDMA. And these days, more than 500 new

psychoactive substances that have been
brought up on the black market are around

us. And people use them. It's a societal
reality that our juridical system doesn't

keep up with, to be fair. So it's been in
many subcultural setting from people just

going dancing and having a good time to
self-exploration to pseudo-chamanic or

chamanic settings. And I think most people
will at least know somebody who have

experienced psychedelics at least once.
And then something else changed. A few

years ago, let’s say, 10-ish, 10 years ago,
psychedelics started coming back. There

had been research, for example, at the
University of Zürich around psychedelics

before that already. There had been trials
before. But the big comeback of substances

like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA as tools to
augment psychotherapy was within the last

10 or 15 years. So these people up here
are some of the people worldwide working

with these substances, trying to develop
them into medications. So … not

over-the-counter, but prescription
medications to be applied within the

setting of psychotherapy. So the idea is
never that somebody can walk into a

pharmacy saying, oh, I'm depressed, I want
to buy psilocybin to treat myself, but to

have a structured therapeutical session in
which the effects can be contained and the

benefits enhanced. So the ones that are
most promising these days are psilocybin

for depression, which is already heading
for the third stage, third and final stage

of approvement as medication within the USA
and consecutively hopefully in Europe. And

MDMA, so what is used? What people want to
find if they buy ecstasy, not that they

always get it, but MDMA is the substance
they're trying to get, for post-traumatic

stress disorder (PTSD). In the U.S., even
the Veterans Association has jumped on the

bandwagon and has sponsored this research,
which is interesting at least. But isn't

that harmful? Aren't these substances
very dangerous? Well, not in the way you

think and not as much as you might think.
This graphic up here is something that was

put together by a group of 40 experts who
discussed what substances have what harm

on the user and what harm on the people
around the users. So, for example, alcohol

is harmful for the person, giving them a
liver disorder, making them addicted and

so on, so on. But also because people get
aggressive when they use it or drive

dangerously, for example, when they're
intoxicated, it's dangerous to others. If

you check out. I have to walk over here
now. Sorry to the camera people. The

substances we're talking about for
treatment are not up there with the very

dangerous ones. We have the shrooms down
here, the LSD is there, ecstasy is there.

So very low danger to the user and almost
no danger to other people. If you compare

that to alcohol, heroin, tobacco, it's all
up there. And, to be quite fair, we’re all

part of a giant field study anyway. Because
these substances are being used. This is

data from the 2017 Global Drug Survey,
which is a self-reporting study where

people talk about their own drug use
and fill in forms online. This is not a

statistically sound sample of the general
population because to fill out that trial,

you have to have a certain interest. But
the people that have filled this out—

we're talking about a number of
over 115.000 worldwide—say that

they have, in their lifetime, partially
used LSD. … were the numbers …? MDMA,

mushrooms and LSD, so MDMA 35%,
mushrooms almost 25%, LSD over 22%.

And if you look around you, of
how many people do you know who

ended up in an emergency department
or in a psychiatric ward due to _only_ using

those substances? Actually, looking at
this giant field study that the illegal

market has provided us with, it seems to
be rather safe because these people

are not using clear dosages of a clean
substance and still there's hardly

anything happening. OK. But what about
microdosing? Well. We don't know much

about microdosing, in fact. There are no
scientifically randomized controlled

studies, as to yet; the first ones are just
starting. There are self-reporting studies

where people have filled out online forms.
And it seems to be that what people are on

one hand trying to achieve is, yes,
enhancing creativity, getting better work

performance. But a lot of them are trying
to treat, cure, enhance that latent or

apparent depression, and the other thing
is: microdosing—which is defined mostly as

using a very low, almost subliminal dose
of a psychoactive substance such as LSD—is

being done by people with all sorts. There
are people microdosing MDMA and ibogaine,

which is, if you look at the receptor
profiles, just insane basically and

frankly can't do what they hope it does.
And when we took a look at people who

microdose, we can't say how much of
the effect they’re feeling is really from

microdosing that substance or if we have a
top-notch, first-grade placebo effect going

on where people feel much better because
they have taken this and believe in it.

Let's not turn down placebo. Placebo is
extremely valuable medically. It’s

actually shown that placebo effect, for
example, enhance the endogenous opioid

production. So your body revs up towards
healing, towards feeling better with the

placebo effect. But this could also be
done with a sugar pill. And there's one

thing I just want to leave with you in
this group. If anybody of you is

microdosing and has preexisting heart
condition: don't! Simply because some of

the subreceptors, especially with LSD that
are being activated in prolonged micro

dosing for a long time can be cardiotoxic
and possibly harm your heart. Just again,

there's not clear data about this yet.
Just to leave it with you, if you suffer

from a heart condition: don’t!
Depression. That keyword I had with the

microdosing as well. But let's go
deeper into this, because if we want to

talk about how psychedelic medicine can
really make a difference in psychiatry,

depression is like, yeah, the first-line
thing to think and talk about and why is

that? Depression is a very serious
psychiatric disorder. People who are

severely depressed—and that's many people;
statistically, in Germany, every 8th

woman is likely to suffer from a severe
depressive episode. At one point in their

life or the other. People who are
depressed lose social functioning. They

have very decreased life expectancy
partially through suicide, partially

because they don't manage to care for
themselves. These people lose themselves

and are being lost for others, too. And
there is treatment for depression, yes,

but in many cases it only has a limited
capacity. And even though depression is a

worldwide epidemic—with rates from
3% of the population in China to

22% of the population in Afghanistan
suffering from it—there have not really

been new forms of treatment for two, two
and a half decades‽ So the stuff we're

working with is partially working, partly
not: about one third of patients don't

react to the medication at all, even
though there's different types. And those

who do usually have very low rates of
acceptance because of the side effects.

Because many people use antidepressants,
and the best combination is cognitive

behavior therapy—so what is called in
German “Verhaltenstherapie,” cognitive

behavioral therapy—in conjunction with
antidepressants. That might work, but for

some it doesn't. And those who take the
medication don't feel well. It's not that

they're back to normal. They're just less
depressed. But usually they're like dimmed

in on all sides. So they are still not
getting happy. The libido is decreased.

Their activity levels are decreased.
People are suffering quite a bit from the

side effects and it's really not nice. So.
I was just … just to tell you one

little story. I told you I’m an
emergency medicine doctor. And just

to illustrate how bad depression can get:
A few weeks ago, I was being called out to

an attempt of suicide. A woman had jumped
out of her window on the fourth floor. We

found her lying in her yard and she was...
injured, badly injured, but still alive,

and we stabilized her and took her to
hospital, and when the nurse kind of

pulled up her data in the emergency room,
she went like, oh, no, not again, because

this woman had jumped out the same window
just half a year before. That's how bad

this disease can be. So how desperate
people get and how terribly important it

is for us not to look away, but try to
find better new therapies. And this is, in

my opinion, with psychedelic medicine …
Psychedelic therapy can be a real game

changer. The one therapeutic application
we have the best data for is psychedelics

for treatment-resistant depression. There
are several studies going on in the UK, in

the States, and Switzerland, but also in
the Czech Republic and so on, so on. And

what they seem to be finding is that even
though they're still working with small

samples because you have to fan out; if
you try to bring out a medication like

that, you have to show first that it's
safe with healthy people and then you

start with a small sample of sick people
and then you enlarge it from there. And

they’re now in this enlarging process …
that's treating depression with psilocybin

especially does not only decrease
depression in those patients, but also

does one great thing: it decreases
anxiety! Not only talking about state

anxiety, so how anxious people are at this
very moment in living their lives, but

that trait anxiety. So how anxious people
are as a part of their personality, which

is a good thing to gauge how likely people
are to relapse back into depression,

people that are very anxious, very
insecure about life, are far more likely

to relapse. OK, so you see, there's a lot
happening worldwide studying this, but

this is Germany on that. A scientific
desert. We're in the largest country;

It’s also the scientifically perhaps most
important country when it comes to medical

research in Europe. There’s zilch
happening. There hasn't been a study on

psychoactive compounds in this context,
forever, like 30 years, the last one on

entactogens like 20 years ago. But
studying psychedelic here hasn't happened.

And we want to change that. Let’s …
applause

So we as the main foundation had, perhaps,
let's call it groundbreaking, what a

groundbreaking conference this September
in Berlin at the Charité buildings.

We had 600 participants, over 50
speakers from worldwide, everybody

basically, almost everybody who's
important in this dialog scientifically

was around. So from the pharmacology, the
psychiatrist, the psychologist, the

therapist, but also philosophers talking
about a culture of older sets of mind have

been around. And we have been trying to
bring this to the German public and try to

lay groundwork for doing new science in
Germany. And what's to come next is this.

With our P.I., so a principal investigator,
Gerhard Gründer, who is a

new pharmacologist from the University of
Mannheim ZI. We are about to apply for the

1st psilocybin depression study in Germany
this next year. So in 2020, we're

putting in the applications, we've already
put the first paperwork in, and what we

want to do is do a double standard study,
both at the ZI Mannheim and the

Charité Berlin. Those are the two most
renowned psychiatric research facilities

in Germany. And it's a collaboration from
the ZI, Charité, and the MIND Foundation.

Each group contributing their knowledge,
their capabilities, and their strengths.

And what we want to do is this. We
want to do a double blind, randomized

controlled phase IIa study. Big word.
this basically means that … It’s a

top-notch level, internationally acclaimed
study. This is how these studies need to be

done to have any value. So it's double
blind, meaning that neither the patient

nor the therapist know what this patient
is getting. It's randomized. So this gets

assigned without anybody playing around
with it. And phase II means that it's a

safety and efficacy study, so not yet dose
testing and not yet comparing dosages, but

just trying to make sure it works. And we
are going to do that in a 144 participants

sample in total, in two locations, which
is huge. This will be the second or third

biggest sample worldwide doing this. And
the first one in Germany, as we said and

what we are going to test is 25
milligrams of standardised GMP. So

Medical Grade Psilocybin versus two active
placebos. One being a small dose of

psilocybin, which used to be the standard
thing to do. But now talking about

microdosing, what is if the small doses
already does something? And testing it

against another placebo that isn't
psilocybin, which is: there’s some physical

reaction, but is not psychedelic in this
sense. So in this design, every patient

will receive at least one—some two—high
dosages of psilocybin. So everybody who

gets accepted will have his try. And the
study design consists of preparation

sessions, dosing sessions where people
receive either placebo or psilocybin and

integration sessions. Integration is so
important and not only in a scientific

study on this topic, but if people are
working with psychedelics, experimenting

with psychedelics themselves, integration
is the key to do something with the

experience. Because if you don't work with
it actively, the experience is going to

fade. And you might remember something
about what you learned, but it will not

have the impact on you, your life, and how
you—yeah—benefit from what you've seen

and learned in that way. Right. Just one
more sentence. It's mixed funding, its

funding and progress. So we have some
public money coming in, but we're also

looking for donations and investment just
at the side. And this is almost the end of

my talk. What I want to say is the
following: What we try at the moment

is to establish safe and legal psychedelic
therapies in Germany, Europe, and the

world. This is going to take time. If
things go well, we might be there in five

to ten years—five if things go really
well. And I know that it's very tempting

for many people to say: “Well, I can
just go to somebody and have a

psilocybin session. I can go to somebody,
have an ayahuasca session.” And yes, you

can. But be aware if you do that, because
you're really suffering from psychiatric

disease, if you have a mental illness, if
you really are in distress. Be very

careful with yourself, because the thing
is, you need somebody to really support

you, really help you through somebody who
really knows what they're dealing with,

because otherwise you can do yourself more
harm than good. This picture down there

with the ambulance is a real picture.
Right. That's what I wanted to say.

Thank you very much for having me. If
you're interested in what we're doing,

check it out!
appplause

Herald: Andrea, thank you very much.
That gives us plenty of time for some

questions. People are lining up on the
microphones already. So we start with

microphone number two, please.
Mic 1: Thank you for this amazing talk.

That's really great. Just one question.
Wouldn't that be a problem for a double

blind study if a person can surely tell if
they're experiencing psychedelic effects?

Andrea: That is a problem. Yes, but this
is the way the authorities request the

study to be done. And interestingly
enough, there have been cases where people

couldn't tell. If people thought they were
either on a small dosage or on a high

dosage, or even if they where on an
inactive placebo. Right. So the self…

Yeah, self-suggestive capabilities of
people should not be underestimated

either.
Herald: Okay, then we're going to jump

over to number six.
Mic 6: Thank you very much for the

talk. I would like to hear your opinion on
the fact that, uh, like in the last 150

years, most drug agents were discovered
in Germany, and meanwhile, we have

the pity of scientifically Germany
lying in Arizona.

laughter
Andrea: Right. Germany has two points that

historically hold us back. One is the
forced human trials during the Nazi era

where substances, techniques, were tested on
concentration camp prisoners. And we have

the Contergan scandal that harmed so many
people and led to, in all of the world,

the stricter rules we have now. That's two
reasons why Germany is so reluctant to

expose itself in this kind of process. But
still, it is a pity. And I think it is

about time that the German not only
government, but also the scientific

establishment gets to understand that they
lose out and they are trading behind a

development that has
started and will continue.

Herald: And now we have a question
from the Internet, I hear.

Signal Angel: Yes! For people
struggling with depression, anxiety, or

mental illnesses: What specific options
are there in Europe with regards to

psychedelic-assisted therapy?
Andrea: Well, one is that you can try to

participate in the existing trial. So, for
example, in London, there's Kings College

and Imperial College, there's a group in
Bristol working, there's also therapy

happening in Switzerland and so on. And
there's also, if you happen to be lucky

enough to live in Switzerland, there's the
so-called compassionate use where

psychiatrists with special permits are
allowed to use LSD and MDMA as therapeutic

agents on a case-to-case basis that they
have to discuss with the authorities.

So that's all we can say for now:
study participation or compassionate use.

We just really hope that
things will rev up and we'll be able

to offer more in the future.
Herald: And microphone number 4, please.

Mic 4: Yeah. Hello. Thank you
very much for your talk.

My question is more related to
the history of the uses of psychedelics

in the US and to the MAPS Association
founded by Rick Doblin, but I was curious,

how would you explain that MAPS is so
actively criticizing the experiments led

in the 1950s and ’60s by the CIA, and yet
they accept donations of several million

dollars coming from the Mercer family, who
are among the largest shareholders of

Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart News, and
they also accept, they accepted recently

about three millions from members of Tea
Party. Isn't it a bit of an irony here?

applause
Andrea: That is a very good question. The

way I know Rick Doblin and many people
from MAPS personally, I know that they're

pursuing an honest goal. What they’re
trying to do is bring this into the world

and they have been doing that since 1986.
So they've been on this for almost 35

years. He's dedicated his life to doing
that. I don't fully understand his

motives. I don't have to, to be honest,
because I'm not speaking for him. I think

there is a huge necessity for integrity
because if we don't—as people working

with it scientifically—if we don't move
along with the necessary integrity, we're

opening the doors for other people to
don't care at all. But on the other hand,

finding the money, getting this done and a
lot … he was … Rick was criticized a lot,

for example, for accepting veterans;
snipers from Iraq into his therapy

program. Like, okay, are you not getting
people fit again to go out back to the

battlefield? And I find this all very
difficult because there is a thing that is

called perpetrated PTSD. There is a thing
of people only realizing afterwards what

they have done. And I would not … I
would be very careful in judging people in

distress. But you're very right. It's a
very delicate topic. And I think we all

have to be very aware that there are thin
paths we are threading in what we're

doing there. When we accept money that
comes from sources that don't follow

ethical standards.
Herald: Then we're going to switch over to

microphone number five.
Mic 5: Hello, I guess you have a really

nice answer to the following statement. So
I hope you will share your answer:

Little Greta twittered today that the
house is on fire and just that. So

actually that means an adequate reaction
would be to jump out of the window. So you

could argue that actually we should rescue
all the people that are really down, like

down and out, because they cannot help us
anymore. But actually, we should get the

people that are still happy to be a little
depressed instead of all getting them

happy. What do you say?
Andrea: There's always two ways of dealing

with a system: You can step out of it,
and you can try to change it from within.

It is always very difficult to go from
caring for the individual to things that

are right for all. And me being a doctor,
for example, I have simply decided to put

the individual in the center of my
concern, and I think others need to put

the greater good in the center of their
concern. I think it's inconsolable. We

can't do both at the same time. So it's
good to make your decision and do this

what you do with all your heart.
Herald: Then we're going to switch over to

the Internet again.
Signal Angel: Yes. And do you know of any

studies or evidence corroborating the
other side, like triggering mental

illnesses by using psychedelics, for
example, if you have a family history of …?

Andrea: Well, doing a randomized,
controlled study with that would be

unethical. So what we have is the
epidemiological and the anecdotal

evidence that is found. So, yes,
if you have a predisposition for

psychosis, for schizophrenia, for mental
instability, there is a large chance of

triggering that if you use psychedelics.
But on the other hand, many people try to

self-medicate with substances, be it
psychedelics or cannabis, because they're

feeling they're already on the edge of
some instability. But the current paradigm

for the studies is to exclude people
whose direct family is affected by

psychosis.
Herald: Number two just disappeared, so

we're gonna go straight over to four.
Mic 4: I would like to ask you whether you

changed your mind about anything related
to psychedelics in last few years or if

you have seen something in the
research that really surprised you?

Andrea: Let’s … Well, I am worried. In a
few respects. Like, for example, the whole

development around the 5-MeO scene, people
using bufo alvarius toxins for very, very strong

psychedelic experiences, sometimes risking
their live doing it. This whole scene

kind of lifting from the ground and going
in a very strange direction, in my

opinion. This is kind of worrying me
because I think people are not taking the

care they should be taking of themselves
in what they are doing. But otherwise, I

think scientific results we're seeing are
rather consistent. It's very important to

know that these are not magic bullets and
not expect too much. You can’t expect

something to cure everything. And
psychedelics seem to be a good idea

for people who are rigid, transfixed, not
able to transcend something. But people

who are already like in a chaotic state
are very unlikely to benefit. And I think

that's a very good basic rule. And
this is something I see proven

time and time again.
Herald: Number five, please.

Mic 5: Hi, thanks. Regarding certain
setting and how it can have such a huge

influence on one's experience, can you
comment on the setting of the new

psilocybin study in the upcoming year?
Andrea: Like all the studies that are

being ta… being done, certain settings
are being taken into consideration. These

people don't trip in a sterile white
hospital bed. They get to have their

psychedelic experience in a warm,
comfortable, organic, welcoming

environment. For example, on a couch with
a nice cushion, nice dim light, flowers,

music is extremely important. There have
been released scientific works around what

kind of music is beneficial for those.
Mendel Kaelen, for example, at Imperial

College is a specialist in this kind of
music and is being taken very seriously.

Also, those questions of how much physical
contact is beneficial, is allowed. What

could harm the patient is discussed very
precisely in all those groups I know,

because this is so much more than just a
pill. This is really about making sure

that people have a safe experience where
they can, yeah, come to healing inside

themselves
Mic 5: Thank you.

Herald: So we have time for one more
question. Number one, please.

Mic 1: I don't know if I want to hear the
answer, but do you think it would help

your cause if you would stop
take these drugs for fun?

Andrea: My answer to this is the
following: Imagine there was a food

thing, something that tasted nice; let’s
say chocolate and there were people

who could only survive if they got
chocolate. But because everybody else was

doing it too, and it was somehow
not okay, it would be forbidden for

everybody. Then I would say, well if you
replace chocolate with LSD, I think there

are people there who really need it. And
we have to be careful that recreational

use and playing around with drugs doesn't
spoil their chance to something lifesaving

because they need the chocolate. You might
get along without, but it's something we

have to take into consideration. This
doesn't mean it's wrong to have psychedelic

experience for your own benefit, for your
own betterment, for your own fun. But just

keep in mind, if you're hindering with
your wanting to have a good time that

somebody gets a life-saving therapy,
perhaps, then this is an ethical problem

we are facing.
Herald: Andrea, thank you so much.

That's your applause.
applause

36c3 rollout music

subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2020. Join, and help us!