The major lesson to be learned from this little known set of studies is that all too often controversial treatments are touted as promising on weak evidence and flawed studies. It is extremely difficult to evaluate the evidence from methodologically flawed studies, especially when the available data are largely qualitative (i.e., narrative descriptions). Whatever promise LSD might have had was never going to be validated through these types of studies.
So says the study:
“Flashback to the 1960s: LSD in the treatment of autism,” Jeff Sigafoos, Vanessa A. Green, Chaturi Edrisinha and Giulio E. Lancioni, Developmental Neurorehabilitation, January ? March 2007; 10(1): 75?81.
The authors of the new study are variously at the University of Tasmania, the University of Texas, and the University of Bari.
(Thanks to investigator David Jackson for bringing the study to our attention.)
NOTE: The image shown here is from the US Drug Enforcement Agency, which so far as we know takes no official position for or against the efficacy of LSD as a treatment for autism.
NOTE ON THE NOTE: Investigator (and law professor) Jonathan Weinberg writes: “For what it’s worth, it *is* DEA’s position that LSD has ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.’ (That’s consistent with your statement: the agency might in theory be open to the possibility that LSD is effective in treating autism, and still take the position that such a use is not ‘currently accepted.’) DEA also takes the position that marijuana has ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” so its metric for what is ‘currently accepted’ may be different than some other folks’.”