一篇于 2026 年 1 月 30 日发表的报导聚焦「微剂量」（microdosing）致幻剂用于忧郁症的证据落差：相较于逸闻式宣称（例如约 5% 剂量即可提升情绪与精力），一项由墨尔本 MindBio Therapeutics 进行的第 2B 期临床试验显示，LSD 微剂量在临床上并未胜过安慰剂。该试验纳入 89 名成人、为期 8 周（原文 eight-week），以 MADRS 量表评估主要忧郁症状；受试者的 LSD 剂量为 4–20 μg（原文 4 to 20μg）。结果是：LSD 组主观幸福感有上升，但 MADRS 改善反而不如以咖啡因药丸作为「主动安慰剂」（active placebo）的对照组。

报导将此解读为「微剂量的效益可能多半来自安慰剂效应」，并以 Jay A. Olson 在 2020 年的实验作支撑：研究者给 33 名参与者安慰剂，却让他们相信没有安慰剂组，并以情境布置与研究人员表演强化预期；多数人仍回报出现药效。Olson 因而主张，在致幻剂研究中，预期与环境可产生强于微剂量本身的效果；同时，社会对致幻剂的炒作也会「加压」这种效应，使受试者在进入试验前即带著可被自我实现的治疗叙事。

MindBio 第 2B 期采「double-dummy」设计：告知受试者可能拿到 LSD、咖啡因或 methylphenidate（但实际未给 methylphenidate），以降低把感受直接归因于 LSD 的确定性；并依改良 Fadiman protocol 每 3 天一次（原文 once every three days）给药。Jim Fadiman（86 岁）批评：咖啡因本身具精神活性，可能解释对照组较佳表现；他援引 MindBio 先前第 2A 期开放标示研究（open label）在《Neuropharmacology》报告 MADRS 下降 59.5%（原文 59.5 percent）、效果可持续约 6 个月（原文 six months）。Justin Hanka 则强调第 2B 期为三盲、主动安慰剂对照的高标准试验，并表示公司将转向以「Booze A.I.」等新方向；而 Ayelet Waldman（2017 年出版《A Really Good Day》）则认为即使改善源自安慰剂，只要可测量且可重复，对个人也仍具意义。

A January 30, 2026 report highlights a gap between microdosing hype and controlled evidence for depression: despite anecdotes claiming that about 5% of a psychedelic dose can lift mood and energy, a Phase 2B trial suggests the clinical benefit may be overstated. Melbourne-based MindBio Therapeutics tested LSD microdoses in 89 adults with major depressive disorder over 8 weeks (eight-week), measuring symptoms with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Participants received 4–20 μg LSD (4 to 20μg). Top-line results released by CEO Justin Hanka indicate that while people on LSD reported upticks in well-being, their MADRS outcomes were worse than those of an active-placebo group given a caffeine pill, implying that a modest coffee-like stimulant effect can outperform LSD microdosing on this endpoint.

The article frames these findings as consistent with a strong placebo effect in psychedelic contexts, where expectation and setting can generate perceived (and sometimes measurable) changes. It cites a 2020 experiment by Jay A. Olson: 33 participants were given a placebo but told they were receiving a psilocybin-like drug and led to believe there was no placebo group. With “optimized expectation” cues—trippy lighting and researchers acting out effects—a majority reported drug-like sensations despite no drug. Olson argues that placebo responses in psychedelic studies can exceed what microdosing produces, and that public misconceptions treat placebo effects as weak or unreal; instead, hype and prior beliefs can prime participants to experience and report improvements.

A key methodological twist is MindBio’s double-dummy design: participants were told they might receive LSD, caffeine, or methylphenidate (though no methylphenidate was actually given), which dilutes certainty about what any felt effect “means,” and everyone followed an adapted Fadiman protocol dosing once every three days (once every three days). Jim Fadiman, 86, rejects the conclusions, arguing caffeine’s psychoactive properties may explain the control group’s advantage, and he points to MindBio’s earlier Phase 2A open-label study in Neuropharmacology reporting a 59.5% MADRS decrease (59.5 percent) lasting up to six months (six months). Hanka counters that the triple-blind, active-placebo-controlled Phase 2B trial is a higher-standard test and says the company will pivot to projects like “Booze A.I.”; meanwhile, Ayelet Waldman (whose 2017 book A Really Good Day describes microdosing) says that even if benefits are placebo-driven, feeling better can still matter.