The profit motive would clearly prioritize finding an expensive medication that must be taken regularly and indefinitely. Psychedelic research up to now is pointing to small numbers of uses having lasting positive effects. There is a fear that research driven by a profit motive will try to not just not investigate this further but actively gloss over this potential medicine.

> The profit motive would clearly prioritize finding an expensive medication that must be taken regularly and indefinitely.

The idea that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately avoiding one-time treatments is a myth.

If you assume profit is the ultimate motive, there's nothing stopping a pharmaceutical company from charging $10,000 for a long-lasting depression treatment.

It's not like pharmaceutical companies are going to stumble upon a perfect treatment and then decline to patent it.

Also, patents don't last forever. Common SSRI anti-depressants are available for $4-5/month.

Everyone I've known who took such medication have altered their personalities in noticeable (unpleasant) ways. It may be worth it for the person in question, but one should be aware of it.

Maybe I’m too self involved, but I’ve never noticed someone microdosing psychedelics til they have told me

Selection bias. Plenty of people take SSRIs with positive experience.

They're just not advertising it to the world. People who have bad experiences are much, much more likely to communicate this to other people.

This may be true, but even in the cases that I mention the experience of those taking the medication was positive, it is just other people who noticed the shift in personality.