Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other Trump officials embrace psychedelics after FDA setback
A presidential administration finally seems to agree.
'This line of therapeutics has tremendous advantage if given in a clinical setting and we are working very hard to make sure that happens within 12 months,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told members of Congress.
His suggested timeline for green-lighting psychedelic therapy surprised even the most bullish supporters of the drugs. And it comes as psychedelics are making inroads in deep red states like Texas, where former Trump cabinet secretary and ex-governor Rick Perry has thrown his full support behind the effort.
The administration's embrace of psychedelics has sparked both excitement as well as concern from those in the field, who worry the drugs might be discredited if they appear to be rushed onto the market or are too closely linked with Kennedy, who is known for controversial views on vaccines, antidepressants and fluoride.
'I'm quite optimistic,' says Rick Doblin, whose organization has pursued the medical use of MDMA (or ecstasy) since the 1980s. 'But I'm also worried that the message the public might get is 'Well, RFK likes psychedelics and now it's approved.''
Under President Joe Biden, the FDA rejected MDMA as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, citing flawed data and questionable research. Regulators called for a new study, likely taking several years. It was a major setback for Doblin and other advocates hoping to see the first U.S. approval of a psychedelic for medical use.
But the agency appears ready to reconsider. FDA chief Marty Makary, who reports to Kennedy, has called the evaluation of MDMA and other psychedelics 'a top priority,' announcing a slate of initiatives that could be used to accelerate their approval.
One new program promises to expedite drugs that serve 'the health interests of Americans,' by slashing their review time from six months or more to as little as one month. Makary has also suggested greater flexibility on requirements for certain drugs, potentially waiving rigorous controlled studies that compare patients to a placebo group.
That approach, considered essential for high-quality research, has long been a stumbling point for psychedelic studies, in which patients can almost always correctly guess whether they've received the drug or a dummy pill.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and FDA also recently hired several new staffers with ties to the psychedelic movement.
'These are all very promising signs that the administration is aware of the potential of psychedelics and is trying to make overtures that they're ready to approve them,' said Greg Ferenstein, a fellow at the libertarian Reason Foundation, who also consults for psychedelic companies. 'We didn't hear anything about that in the Biden administration'
A spokesperson for HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
As a presidential candidate, Kennedy discussed how his son and several close friends benefited from using psychedelics to deal with grief and other issues.
A number of veterans lobbying for psychedelic access have already met with Trump's Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins.
'What we're seeing so far is positive,' Collins told House lawmakers in May.
But some experts worry the hope and hype surrounding psychedelics has gotten ahead of the science.
Philip Corlett, a psychiatric researcher at Yale University, says bypassing rigorous clinical trials could set back the field and jeopardize patients.
'If RFK and the new administration are serious about this work, there are things they could do to shepherd it into reality by meeting the benchmarks of medical science,' Corlett said. 'I just don't think that's going to happen.'
As officials in Washington weigh the future of psychedelics, some states are moving ahead with their own projects in hopes of nudging the federal government. Oregon and Colorado have legalized psychedelic therapy.
And last month, Texas approved $50 million to study ibogaine, a potent psychedelic made from a shrub that's native to West Africa, as a treatment for opioid addiction, PTSD and other conditions. The research grant — the largest of its kind by any government — passed with support from the state's former GOP governor, Perry, and combat veterans, some who have traveled to clinics in Mexico that offer ibogaine.
Ibogaine is on the U.S. government's ultra-restrictive list of illegal, Schedule 1 drugs, which also includes heroin. So advocates in Texas are hoping to build a national movement to ease restrictions on researching its use.
'Governmental systems move slowly and inefficiently,' said Bryan Hubbard of Americans for Ibogaine, a group formed with Perry. 'Sometimes you find yourself constrained in terms of the progress you can make from within.'
Ibogaine is unique among psychedelics in both its purported benefits and risks. Small studies and anecdotal reports suggest the drug may be able to dramatically ease addiction and trauma. It was sold for medical use in France for several decades starting in the 1930s, but the drug can also cause dangerous irregular heart rhythms, which can be fatal if left untreated.
Some veterans who have taken the drug say the risks can be managed and ibogaine's healing properties go far beyond antidepressants, mood stabilizers, counseling and other standard treatments.
Marcus Capone struggled with anger, insomnia and mood swings after 13 years as a Navy Seal. In 2017, at the urging of his wife Amber, he agreed to try ibogaine as a last resort. He described his first ibogaine session as 'a complete purge of everything.'
'But afterward I felt the weight just completely off my shoulders,' he said. 'No more anxiety, no more depression, life made sense all of a sudden.'
A nonprofit founded by the Capones, Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, has helped over 1,000 veterans travel abroad to receive ibogaine and other psychedelics.
But federal scientists have looked at the drug before — three decades ago, when the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded preliminary studies on using it as an addiction treatment. The research was discontinued after it identified 'cardiovascular toxicity.'
'It would be dead in the water,' in terms of winning FDA approval, longtime NIDA director Nora Volkow said.
But Volkow said her agency remains interested in psychedelics, including ibogaine, and is funding an American drugmaker that's working to develop a safer, synthetic version of the drug.
'I am very intrigued by their pharmacological properties and how they are influencing the brain,' Volkow said. 'But you also have to be very mindful not to fall into the hype and to be objective and rigorous in evaluating them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
12 minutes ago
- CNET
Whole Milk Is Popular Again, But Is It Right For You? We Asked Dietitians
In the 1990s, Got Milk? ads became popular because of a marketing campaign created by the California Milk Processor Board, encouraging people to drink more cow's milk through celebrity-packed ads and commercials. It was successful for a time, but eventually the interest dwindled and soon after plant-based milks started to gain popularity. Since the 2000s, we've seen every version of plant-based milks you can imagine, ranging from soy, oat, almond, pistachio, macadamia, pea -- you name it, and it probably exists in your supermarket aisle. Now it appears that whole milk is gaining popularity again with wellness influencers and others. I spoke to dietitians to better understand why this is happening, what benefits whole milk has and who should be cautious about drinking it. Why dairy is having a moment again A few factors could be contributing to whole milk regaining popularity: the concept that "natural" is better, people wanting fewer additives in their food and the current Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Make America Healthy Again" initiative. Clara Nosek, a non-diet registered dietitian, points out that cow's milk became less popular in the first place because it was disparaged by popular culture, blamed for any stomach issues and called inflammatory for a long time. "The shift back to dairy seems partly driven by rampant chemophobia," says Nosek, elaborating, "Many of those plant-based milks contained ingredients like gums and preservatives for stability and added sugars for palatability, which are also demonized." Chemphobia relates to being fearful of chemicals found in everyday life. Still, there is often a misunderstanding of how chemicals function and the importance of knowing their dosages, among other things. Chemphobia, along with the appeal-to-nature fallacy (the idea that something "natural" is better), makes cow's milk look more enticing because it has fewer ingredients compared to non-dairy milk. "Cow's milk started to look like the more 'pure' option and the appeal-to-nature logic pushed even further down the chemophobia spectrum, as seen in the growing popularity of raw cow's milk," Nosek explains. Raw milk is unpasteurized cow's milk, and interest in it has also risen thanks to a push by some wellness influencers and even the secretary of health and human services. Health officials have spoken out about the dangers of drinking raw milk and its risk of foodborne illnesses, especially after this past year when raw milk was recalled due to bird flu. Benefits of drinking whole milk Whether you drink cow's milk or not, there's no denying that milk has plenty of benefits. Whole milk, in particular, can provide you with lots of nutrients. Lauren Manaker, a registered dietitian and nutritionist, says, "It's a natural source of high-quality protein, calcium and it provides essential vitamins like B12 and D, which are hard to replicate in the same way with plant-based alternatives." Additionally, whole milk consists of fat, carbs and other micronutrients like potassium, B vitamins and vitamin A. "No one needs to drink whole milk, and the nutrients are easily available in other foods; however, it is an easy and affordable way to get those nutrients," explains Nosek. Other factors that may make whole milk more appealing are its flavor and taste, since it's creamier, and the higher fat content makes it taste richer compared to plant-based milks. Manaker points out that one eight-ounce glass of whole milk contains 16% of your daily recommended value of protein. "A growing body of research also suggests that whole-fat dairy is not associated with increased risk for obesity, diabetes or cardiovascular disease; in fact, this type of dairy may even help reduce the risk for these chronic diseases," she says. A downside to whole milk The downside to this is that the added fat and sugar in each serving can add up, and adults have to be more mindful of it if they're watching their saturated fat and carbohydrate intake. "I would recommend discussing the volume consumed with a dietitian to ensure meal and snack balance," advises Nosek. Parents who give their children cow's milk should follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For example, children ages 12 to 23 months get 1⅔ to 2 cups equivalents of dairy daily, while children two years and up should get two to three cups daily. You may also want to consider how these different milks impact the environment. What about other forms of cow's milk? Other forms of cow's milk include 1% milk, skim and fat-free milk. The only difference between these milks and whole milk is the fat content. "When the fat is removed from milk, the fat-soluble vitamins (A and D) availability is lowered, but they're usually added back by way of fortification," explains Nosek. Manaker adds that you still get the same 13 essential nutrients, like high-quality protein, calcium, vitamin D and B12 and iodine, with these milks. "The fat in whole milk does contribute to its creamier texture and slightly higher calorie count, but when it comes to the vitamins and minerals, you're not missing out by choosing a lower-fat option," Manaker says. What if your stomach can't handle dairy? Realistically, not everyone can handle cow's milk. If you're lactose intolerant or have a milk allergy, chances are you opt for a dairy-free milk instead. Keep in mind that there are certain nutrients you may be missing out on with plant-based options. "Real milk is a complete protein, whereas most plant-based proteins are incomplete, meaning they are missing some of the essential amino acids, or building blocks, our bodies need," explains Manaker. She also points out that the protein in dairy, known as whey and casein, keeps you feeling fuller longer while providing energy to fuel your day, and helps with muscle recovery-even while you sleep. If you're not a fan of plant-based milks, but still want to get the benefits of cow's milk without the upset stomach, Nosek recommends trying out lactose-free options. Some brands that make lactose-free milks include: Fairlife, Lactaid, Horizon Organic and Organic Valley. Keep in mind, lactose-free options are best for those with lactose intolerance (the inability to digest lactose, the natural sugar in milk) and are not suitable for those with milk allergies (an immune reaction to the proteins in milk) because they still have milk proteins. If you're allergic to cow's milk, it's best to stick to plant-based milk options instead. "While supplements can help fill some gaps, like calcium, vitamin D and B12, it's always better to get nutrients from whole foods whenever possible," explains Manaker. She recommends adding allergy-friendly protein options like eggs, meat, fish or plant-based sources like beans and lentils to your diet, and for iodine, seafood or iodized salt. Takeaway The sudden popularity surrounding dairy shows that people are starting to show more interest in food options without additives. While this isn't inherently a bad thing, it's important to remember that cow's milk may not be the right fit for everyone based on dietary restrictions. But if you're interested in adding cow's milk into your diet (and dairy agrees with you), you can reap the benefits of the many vitamins and nutrients it provides. If you're allergic to milk, you may not have the option to drink cow's milk, but you can still try your best to get the same nutrients through other foods in your diet. If you'e planning on making changes to your diet or aren't sure if adding cow's milk is right for you, it's best to consult with a registered dietitian or your doctor first.
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Government shutdown talk is starting early ahead of a difficult funding fight in Congress this fall
WASHINGTON — It's become tradition. Congressional leaders from both major political parties blame each other for a potential government shutdown as the budget year draws to a close. But this year, the posturing is starting extraordinarily early. The finger-pointing with more than two months to go in the fiscal year indicates the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual as a Republican-controlled Congress seeks to make good on its policy priorities, often with no support from the other political party. Democratic leadership from both chambers and the two panels responsible for drafting spending bills met behind closed doors recently to discuss the strategy ahead. The leaders emerged demanding that Republicans work with them but were careful to avoid spelling out red lines if Republicans don't. 'We are for a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's what always has been done,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The onus is on the Republicans to help us make that happen.' On the Republican side, lawmakers describe the Democrats as itching for a shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Schumer had threatened a shutdown should Republicans pass a bill to roll back $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funds. Republicans subsequently passed those cuts. 'It was disturbing to see the Democratic leader implicitly threatening to shut down the government in his July 'Dear Colleague' letter, but I'm hopeful that he does not represent the views of Senate Democrats as a whole,' Thune said. The federal government is operating on a full-year continuing resolution that provided about $1.7 trillion in spending for defense and non-defense programs. The funding expires Sept. 30. President Donald Trump requested a comparable amount for the coming fiscal year, but the Republican proposed dramatically overhauling how that money is distributed to include more for defense and border security and significantly less for health, education, housing and foreign assistance. So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate has yet to approve any, but those bills that have advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee are enjoying bipartisan support while the House bills are generally advancing out of committee on party line votes. This week, the Senate is expected to consider the appropriations bill to fund military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, generally one of the easier spending bills to pass. One or two others could get added to the package. Congress got off to a late start on the funding process. Republicans prioritized Trump's tax and spending cut bill. Most lawmakers agree Congress will need to pass a stop-gap measure before Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown and allow lawmakers more time to work on the full-year spending measures. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed this year's funding bill that expires in two months. But in the end, Schumer and nine Democratic colleagues decided a government shutdown would be even worse. They voted to allow the bill to proceed and overcome a filibuster, giving Republicans the ability to pass it on their own on a final vote. Schumer took considerable heat from progressives for his strategy. House Democratic leadership issued a statement at the time saying 'House Democrats will not be complicit.' And members of his own caucus publicly expressed disagreement. 'If we pass this continuing resolution for the next half year, we will own what the president does,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'I am not willing to take ownership of that.' Some liberal groups threatened to hold protests at various events Schumer was planning to promote a new book, and some of those events ended up being postponed due to security concerns. The Democratic frustrations have only grown stronger in the ensuing months. First, the Democrats watched the Trump administration slow-walk or block hundreds of billions of dollars from going out in part through the work of its Department of Government Efficiency. Then they watched as Republicans passed Trump's big tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic votes. Finally, they watched as Republicans this month canceled $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds when much of it had been previously agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Meanwhile, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, declared that the appropriations process 'has to be less bipartisan.' Democrats complain that much of the work taking place in the House has been a waste of time, since those partisan bills have no chance of getting 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. 'At this point in time, why have appropriations if they can just unilaterally through rescissions whack it all away?' said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 'I think what you're seeing is more frustration than I've ever witnessed.' Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington. That could make it harder to blame Democrats for a shutdown. But in the end, any bill will need some Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 'Our concern is that from their standpoint, they want to have a shutdown,' Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said of Democrats. '… The Democrats see it as a way to derail the agenda that we're putting through.' Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2-ranked Republican in the Senate, said Republicans were determined to hold votes on the 12 spending bills. He said that Schumer 'had unilaterally shut down the appropriations process' in previous years by not holding such votes, moving instead to negotiate directly with GOP leadership in the House and then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration on an all-encompassing spending package. 'If Democrats walk away from this process again, simply to protect wasteful Washington spending,' Barrasso said, 'they will be the ones sabotaging the Senate and shutting down the government.'
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Cutting animal testing will jeopardize human health
The Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health held a joint workshop July 7 on reducing animal testing in research, strikingly announcing that 'NIH will no longer seek proposals exclusively for animal models.' This change follows the FDA's plan to phase out the requirement for animal testing of drugs, which marked the beginning of an overall shift away from animal research to what the new leadership refers to as 'more effective, human-relevant methods.' What this means is the FDA intends to allow new drugs to be trialed in people without prior animal tests, and that the NIH will restrict funding for the very kind of research that has led to transformative medical discoveries. As a biomedical researcher using mouse models and other tools to better understand and treat human disease, I am deeply concerned. Eliminating animal testing will make our drug supply less safe and set us back decades in making groundbreaking biomedical discoveries. Let's look first at drug regulation. Identifying potential new therapies first depends heavily on knowledge gained from preclinical studies in animals. These studies form the basis of biological discovery, including assessing a drug's relevance, safety and potential efficacy before it's ever given to humans. Without this critical step, discovering new drugs will be far more difficult to begin with and their effects far less predictable. Only after these initial studies do drugs move into clinical testing — involving progressively larger human cohorts across three phases before approval. Animal models are a crucial component of biomedical research because they allow us to test unpredictable biological effects between different organs and systems within a living body. For example, a cancer drug might successfully kill tumor cells in a dish, but in a whole organism, it could cause unexpected heart damage or trigger a harmful immune response affecting other organs. An animal test is the closest possible test of the utility and safety of any drug before it's given to humans. If drug developers are allowed to skip this step, it will mean that, in the near future, the first living body a new drug is ever tested in will be a human body. Researchers also use animals to understand diseases and develop completely new therapies. Laboratory mice, the most commonly used animal model, have been likened to the Rosetta Stone of immunology. Much of what we now know about the immune system has been deciphered through them. Think of immunotherapies for cancer, immunosuppressive drugs for autoimmune conditions, or treatments for allergies and infectious diseases. None of these life-saving medicines would exist today without decades of foundational research in animal models. Nearly half of NIH-funded grants involve animal use. So why would the world's largest public funder of biomedical research decide to make such drastic changes? The argument is that new human-based approaches can serve as a better alternative. These include lab-grown human models, computational tools and other approaches. And these can certainly complement animal models, as my colleagues and I have long worked toward. But it is premature to treat them as viable replacements. One of the main criticisms of animal research is that the findings don't always translate directly to humans. That is true, but there's little evidence that the proposed alternatives yield more reliable or predictive results. Instead of abandoning animal research, we should focus on improving existing models to better reflect human biology. And it's true that some mice need improving. For example, in 2006, a new drug that acts on immune cells passed through animal testing and reached the human clinical trial phase, yet it left six healthy volunteers in a critical condition. Researchers later realized that laboratory mice had less activated immune systems compared with adult humans, because the abnormally hygienic environment of the lab prevented proper immune growth. (Germs are actually essential in teaching the immune system how to protect us.) Researchers confirmed that adding mice from a pet-store (living under less sterile and more natural conditions with diverse germs) to the same cages as laboratory mice helped the latter's immune systems more closely resemble those of humans. When researchers tested the same drug from the 2006 trial in mice with more natural immune systems, they found that the mice experienced similar inflammatory complications. More recently, researchers using such mice were also able to better understand the causes of side effects from cancer immunotherapies. And work has been under way using these improved mice for many other studies that can advance human health. This discovery helped launch a whole new field, in which researchers like myself are working to improve mouse models and accelerate biomedical discoveries. After the announcement, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called it a 'groundbreaking move' that is 'a crucial first step to modernizing science and sparing millions of animals from miserable lives and deaths in laboratories.' But it's possible to care for animals ethically without eliminating their scientific use. Indeed, the NIH has had animal welfare policies dating back to the beginning of the 1900s. And for at least a decade, all grant proposals have had to include consideration of alternative approaches, scientific justification of animal use and detailed protocols to minimize their distress. Institutions' protocols are also regularly reviewed for accreditation. We still need animal testing to find new treatments. Take the story of one-week-old baby KJ that was in the news in May. KJ was born with a severe genetic disorder that kills nearly half of affected babies in early life. But, through extensive medical efforts, which included the use of a mouse model modified with the diseased gene portion specific to KJ, a customized therapy was developed and successfully administered within eight months. The list of biomedical successes that used animal models spans centuries — from first defining the functions of the brain and heart, to the discovery of insulin, to the development of 'miracle' cancer drugs. Human health is a shared priority, and now more than ever, it demands meaningful collaboration between scientists and physicians, policymakers and the public to protect the research systems that have enabled medicine's greatest breakthroughs. To borrow the recent words of Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian, 'Now is the time for all of us to speak up — because protecting American science means protecting our future shared prosperity.' The FDA and NIH are welcoming public feedback on this and likely future workshops, and I urge everyone to make their voices heard. Anis Barmada is a biomedical researcher at Yale School of Medicine, P.D. Soros Fellow, and Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. His research combines animal models with human-based and computational tools to better understand and treat human disease.
