How do people today-- how do researchers in this area weigh the sort of possible negative, uh, effects versus the positives?

Yeah.

So it's an interesting question because we're at an interesting point in the psychedelic renaissance when it comes to this question of harms and adverse effects.

Because for the first, you could say, twenty, twenty-five years or so, bearing in mind that this research started happening again, wasn't even in the early nineties, it was right at the end of the eighties, I think, that the first studies started happening again in, um, Switzerland and the US.

And so up till probably around 2015 at least, the message was basically, look, all the risks were overblown, psychedelics are very safe, right? And it wasn't that they are totally safe, but the claim was, look, whenever you have a case of someone having a sort of lasting psychotic break or whatever, the sort of things people were worried about, if you dig more deeply, it almost always turns out that there's some preexisting vulnerability, that they either have some personal history or some history in their immediate family of some kind of psychotic mental illness.

And so the claim was we've figured out now how to bring that risk down effectively to zero if you screen people adequately and if you don't let anyone into the trials who has any kind of risk factors or vulnerability, and if you make sure people are prepared adequately and supervised adequately and so on, we just don't really see it.

We don't see any of this, uh, lasting kind of what's called hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, these kind of lasting changes to perception or flashbacks after an experience, and you don't see any of these psychotic breaks or whatever.

I see