A psychiatrist pulls back the curtain on psychedelics, exposing hype, weak data, and hidden conflicts of interest.

Dr. Daniel Heringer, a psychiatry resident in Cleveland, sits down with mentor Dr. Nassir Ghaemi to clarify terminology—why “hallucinogen” is the accurate medical term and why the popular label “psychedelic” can mislead clinicians and the public.

They review the science: randomized trials for psilocybin, MDMA, and ketamine show at best modest advantage over placebo and no clear superiority to standard antidepressants. Blinding is problematic, and the high‑profile MAPS PTSD study suffered ethical breaches and data‑fabrication allegations. Esketamine’s FDA approval rests on a marginal benefit and a controversial withdrawal design.

The conversation moves to why hype persists—massive financial stakes in cannabis and new hallucinogen markets, and a psychiatric research landscape stuck on outdated diagnoses that drive groupthink. Their bottom line: most claims about transformative psychedelic breakthroughs are overstated and often driven by profit motives.

Subscribe for more evidence‑based psychiatry discussions.