> we chose to use 1 mg/kg – the inflection point of the dose-dependence curve – to assess psilocybin’s effect on structural plasticity.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431629v1....

For psilocin, 25 milligrams is enough for many (or a good start...). Just like with THC though, it's tough to gauge how much is appropriate per person per experience per environment. A tenth of a gram may not be enough if you've previously consumed it the day(s) before.

Johns Hopkins uses pure psilocybin about the equivalent of 2.5 grams of dried mushrooms.

2.5 grams? That's enough for an exeperienced psychonaut to have a good time. That's way higher than what I would believe a therapy session would be going for, so I'm not buying these numbers one bit.

I would love to know, too! Oh. A search engine. What's this?

"Eighty participants, ages 21 to 65, who meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) will be stratified by study site and randomized with a 1-to-1 allocation under double-blind conditions to receive a single 25 mg oral dose of psilocybin or a single 100 mg oral dose of niacin. Niacin will serve as an active placebo."

Is this the "new study" the article is referring to with "a single dose of psilocybin given to mice"? Oh. Some text. What's this?

> Eighty participants, ages 21 to 65, who meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) will be stratified by study site and randomized with a 1-to-1 allocation under double-blind conditions to receive a single 25 mg oral dose of psilocybin or a single 100 mg oral dose of niacin. Niacin will serve as an active placebo.

I'm not convinced these participants are mice.

(As an aside, I love the way they talk about double blind conditions as if you're not going to be able to tell whether that pill was 25mg of psilocybin.).

It's possible to have a blind participant if they've not had psilocybin before and they are going to receive either psilocybin or one of a multitude of other psychoactive substances (at least that's how Johns Hopkins did it).

You go to all the trouble to type up a smart ass response to show how smart you are with being able to use a search engine, yet you totally fail to provide the link which you found. This quote is meaningless without context of what study you found.

I'm pretty sure you can find the link using Google, also.

That is not the study referenced in the article. That's an older study.

You are right. That is not the same study. Thanks for pointing that out.