Abstract

Abstract.In 1962, Ontario’s Addiction Research Foundation launched the first double-blind randomized controlled trial of LSD therapy as a treatment for alcoholism. The study, which found that LSD was not effective, was heavily criticized by other therapists working with the drug. These critics argued that the Toronto researchers who carried out the study were biased against LSD and used an anti-therapeutic method that was destined to produce negative results. Instead of creating a comfortable and supportive environment, they stressed, the Toronto group restrained patients to a bed in a hospital ward, used an unusually large dose of LSD, and hardly provided any careful therapeutic support. Some even compared this method to a “form of torture.” Historians have paid little attention to the study, mentioning it only as an example of flawed or naïve LSD therapy that contrasted with the more advanced “psychedelic” approach developed in Saskatchewan. In this paper, I take a closer look at the Toronto psychiatrists who carried out the study and created the unique method that was employed. I show that they were actually quite excited about LSD and were more sophisticated in their approach to its use than has been appreciated by historians and critics. In many ways, they had their own brand of LSD expertise that differed from that of the Saskatchewan group. Some of the problems with the ARF study, then, did not stem from negative bias or a lack of competency, but instead resulted from the awkward relationship between LSD therapy and controlled trials.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call