Co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD may buffer against challenging experiences and enhance positive experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) experiences can range from very positive to highly challenging (e.g., fear, grief, and paranoia). These challenging experiences contribute to hesitancy toward psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy among health care providers and patients. Co-use of 3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) with psilocybin/LSD anecdotally reduces challenging experiences and enhances positive experiences associated with psilocybin/LSD. However, limited research has investigated the acute effects of co-use of MDMA and psilocybin/LSD. In a prospective convenience sample (N = 698) of individuals with plans to use psilocybin/LSD, we examined whether co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD (n = 27) is associated with differences in challenging or positive experiences. Challenging experiences were measured using the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire and positive experiences were measured using the Mystical Experience Questionnaire and single-item measures of self-compassion, compassion, love, and gratitude. Potentially confounding variables were identified and included as covariates. Relative to psilocybin/LSD alone, co-use of psilocybin/LSD with a self-reported low (but not medium-high) dose of MDMA was associated with significantly less intense total challenging experiences, grief, and fear, as well as increased self-compassion, love and gratitude. Co-use of psilocybin/LSD and MDMA was not associated with differences in mystical-type experiences or compassion. Findings suggest co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD may buffer against some aspects of challenging experiences and enhance certain positive experiences. Limitations include use of a convenience sample, small sample size, and non-experimental design. Additional studies (including controlled dose-response studies) that examine the effects and safety of co-administering MDMA with psilocybin/LSD (in healthy controls and clinical samples) are warranted and may assist the development of personalized treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".