My opinion: people are likely commonly capable of working through things without the use of psychedelics, and we are crediting the substance and not the human being.
I'm not anti-drugs by any stretch, just feel like a lot more research needs to be done before we can start stating things like they're facts. Can you otherwise disprove that it wasn't placebo effect and the individual wouldn't have otherwise figured it out without a placebo or with a sugar pill he was told was a microdose of psychedelics that would unlock the secrets of the universe?
Not sure why you think studies aren't controlling for placebo? Although it's obviously notoriously hard with psychedelics.
Just to be clear: I agree that more studies are needed, just disagree with the rest of your statements.
So you openly admit that this is difficult to assess? That much we can agree on at least.
You can't control if exercising is placebo either, can you? But the consensus is that it's physically and mentally beneficial. I don't think controlling for placebo is of great use here although it obviously has to be taken into account.
The logic of the comment should hold for any analogous scenario.
You either have to argue why one or all of the above analogies doesn't hold (what element is crucially different, so that the same counter-argument can't apply to your psychedelics argument), or to argue that the points made for those other things are wrong.
Except if you believe that you've discovered some unique logic that only applies to a single specific case.