Latest news with #JohnsHopkinsUniversitySchoolofMedicine
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Allosteric Bioscience, Inc. Licenses Sarcopenia (Muscle Loss) Prevention/Treatment Technology from Johns Hopkins University
NEW YORK, March 06, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Allosteric Bioscience, Inc. (ABI), has announced today that it has licensed technology from Johns Hopkins University for the treatment or prevention of sarcopenia which is a serious medical condition involving the loss of muscle mass, quality, and strength and is a significant part of the natural aging process. Sarcopenia can result in reduced quality of life due to falls, bone fractures, and disability. Because approximately 20% of the global population of 8.2 billion people are over 60, there is a global need for improving the aging process, especially preventing the loss of muscle mass and function. The licensed technology was developed by Barbara Slusher, PhD, and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Dr. Slusher is a professor of neurology (primary), pharmacology and molecular sciences, psychiatry, neuroscience, medicine and oncology and the Director of Johns Hopkins Drug Discovery. Dr. Slusher has published over 300 scientific articles and reviews and is the inventor of over 100 patents and patent applications. Prior to joining Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, she spent 18 years in the pharmaceutical industry, including several years at the level of senior vice president of research and translational development, and contributed to the development of multiple FDA-approved drugs. She is the co-founder of several companies and is on the advisory board of multiple pharmaceutical companies. The licensed technology covers the use of inhibitors of an enzyme termed GCPII (glutamate carboxypeptidase II) for the treatment of sarcopenia. The levels of GCPII increase with aging and its overactivation can cause loss of muscle mass and function. Initial studies of the licensed technology in an animal model show that treatment of mice with the licensed technology results in the preservation of muscle mass and function and inhibition of muscle wasting. Prevention of muscle loss could play a significant role in improving and optimizing aging and longevity. Sarcopenia is also a major side effect of weight loss drugs and the licensed technology has the potential of being used with these drugs to prevent this serious side effect. The global market for anti-aging products is estimated to increase from $73 billion in 2024 to $140 billion by 2034 and the anti-obesity drug market size is estimated to rise from $16 billion in 2024 to $105 billion by 2030. "The licensed technology has the potential for significantly improving the aging process and enhancing the utility of weight-reducing treatments which address the global crisis of obesity," said Dr. Arthur P. Bollon, President and Co-Founder of Allosteric Bioscience, Inc. "We are very excited to be working with Dr. Barbara Slusher and her team on this critical program." "At Johns Hopkins Drug Discovery, our mission is to discover innovative drugs with significant medical benefits and to collaborate with commercial partners to bring promising therapeutics to patients," said Dr. Slusher. "We are thrilled to join forces with Allosteric on this groundbreaking sarcopenia project." Allosteric Bioscience, Inc. is a biomedical company focused on optimizing the aging process and extending longevity. The company has a unique strategy for delineating the critical molecular components of the aging/longevity complex and creating and utilizing modulators that can regulate this aging/longevity process. ABI is utilizing quantum computing and advanced AI coupled with biomedical sciences such as genetics, systems biology, and genomics for making modulators of the aging/longevity complex. ABI is also actively involved in licensing created modulators which can complement its internal program for regulating critical aging and longevity targets and processes to optimize both lifespan and health-span. Forward Looking Statement The information contained in this communication is for information purposes only and may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, but not limited to, statements as to future operating results and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. We use words such as "expects", "anticipates", "believes", "estimates", the negative of these terms and similar expressions to identify forward looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by those projected in the forward-looking statements for any reason. This is neither a solicitation of investment nor an offer to sell and/or buy securities. References herein to "the Company," "we", "our," "us" and similar words or phrases are references to Allosteric Bioscience, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. View source version on Contacts For further information about ABI please visit its website at or contact Dr. Arthur Bollon, President and Co-Founder, arthurb@ phone 469-585-7613 or Bruce Meyers, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, bmeyers@ phone 646-391-7957. Sign in to access your portfolio
Vox
03-03-2025
- Health
- Vox
Can you still get measles even if you've been vaccinated?
Nearly 150 people have been infected with measles in Texas and New Mexico, and last week, Texas health officials confirmed the first death in the ongoing outbreak: an unvaccinated child. While almost all of the infected are believed to be unvaccinated, five of them told the Texas health department they have received at least one measles shot. The United States declared measles eradicated in 2000 because the disease was no longer spreading locally (most cases in the following years were linked to travel to countries where the virus was still prevalent) But in recent years, outbreaks of the measles have been growing as more people across the country opt not to vaccinate. The recent reports of cases even among vaccinated people have added another layer of anxiety to the crisis. More than 90 percent of Americans got their measles shot as a kid. Exactly how reliable is that protection, given this news? First of all, there is no need to panic. It is not clear whether the five people who contracted measles were vaccinated as children. The Texas health department told me they were investigating, but they 'wouldn't classify' these as breakthrough infections. Lara Anton, a department spokesperson, told me unvaccinated people who have been exposed to measles are given a vaccine within 72 hours if possible because it could reduce the severity of their symptoms. 'We are looking into how many of these cases received a dose of MMR after they were exposed to the virus,' Anton said. To be clear, breakthrough cases can happen. But the risk today remains very low — only about three in 100 people who receive two vaccine doses get sick when exposed. As Aaron Milstone, an infectious disease pediatrician at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, put it to me, you don't really have anything to worry about right now if you don't live in west Texas or eastern New Mexico. 'We don't want everyone to go out and think, I need to get boosted ,' Milstone said. But if you do live in those areas or you're not sure of your vaccine status or you simply want to be proactive about your health, there are some things you can easily do to check on your measles immunity. Here's what you should know. Our measles protection strategy has evolved over the decades. People born before 1957, shortly before the first measles vaccine was introduced, are generally thought to have natural immunity because they were usually exposed to the virus as children. Those born before 1989 likely received at least one dose, which was the guidance during that period. After 1989, the recommendation increased to two doses, one around your first birthday and another around age 5. That change was made because a small percentage of people did not respond to only one measles shot. But 'almost everybody' responded to two doses, Milstone said. As measles outbreaks become more common and more vaccinated people become exposed naturally for the first time in a long time, some small number of them may get sick, Milstone said. And, for a long time after that, measles vaccination rates were very high, above the 95 percent threshold experts say is necessary to keep the disease at bay. As a result, measles wasn't spreading widely within the US and most years saw zero or at most a handful of deaths caused by the virus. But measles vaccination rates have been declining. There had always been small insular communities that abstained from vaccinations; the current Texas outbreak has reportedly been primarily concentrated in a Mennonite community. But vaccine hesitancy has become more mainstream, particularly as it's been embraced by some Republican leaders; several GOP-led states have acted to allow more vaccine exemptions in recent years. The share of Republican voters who think routine childhood vaccinations should be required to attend public school has dramatically fallen off since the pandemic. In the 2019–2020 school year, 20 states were still above the 95 percent vaccination rate threshold and just three had dropped below 90 percent. But for the 2023–2024 school year, only 11 states had more than 95 percent of schoolchildren vaccinated against the disease and 14 states had fallen under 90 percent. It's no surprise then that we're seeing more measles outbreaks. The Texas outbreak alone already accounts for more than half of the total number of US measles cases in 2024, which was itself one of the most active years in recent memory. It is possible that measles immunity in some people can wane over time. As measles outbreaks become more common and more vaccinated people become exposed naturally for the first time in a long time, some small number of them may get sick, Milstone said. As Milstone told me, this remains a hypothetical risk for the vast majority of Americans, unless you are near an active outbreak. For now, the outbreak spreading at the Texas-New Mexico border is pretty contained. Even so, we are now living in a world where you are more likely to see a measles outbreak in your community. Other people may simply want to be assuaged or to exercise some agency about their own health — especially if, for example, they are at higher risk from viral infections because they are immunocompromised or have chronic health conditions. Here's what you can do. First, check your vaccination records if you can find them. If you did receive two doses, you almost certainly had an immune response. If you received one dose, you probably did too, but it is a bit more likely that measles immunity never took, Milstone said. For those in this group, considering a measles booster is reasonable. Either way, the next step if you want to investigate further would be to talk to your doctor (as always, with anything regarding your health). They can administer a 'titer test' that measures the measles antibodies in your body. If they're still present — great, you're protected. If they're not, you can talk to your doctor about getting an additional measles shot. This is a new era for public health. Milstone said he and his fellow infectious disease doctors could not believe it when they heard the news of a child's death from measles in the United States. It remains entirely preventable by getting vaccinated. And if you are not sure about your immunization, you can take these simple steps to figure out your status. With the death of a school-aged child last week, the stakes are unfortunately all too clear. 'You hope people don't have to die for others to take this seriously,' Milstone said. See More: Health Public Health Science Science of Everyday Life
USA Today
12-02-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Everything you need to know about macular degeneration
Hear this story Many of us are painfully aware of our body's increasing number of shortcomings as we get older. Sagging skin, hearing loss, receding hairlines and tending to use the bathroom more frequently than we used to. But one of the most dreaded adverse outcomes is that of diminishing eyesight. Reduced vision, also known as vision impairment, is so common that research shows that nearly 30% of U.S. adults 71 and older have it. While many factors can contribute to it occurring, the leading cause of vision loss in older adults is age-related macular degeneration, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Here's what macular degeneration is, what causes it and how you can expect it to be treated if it affects you or a loved one. What is macular degeneration? What is AMD, wet AMD? Macular degeneration, also known as age-related macular degeneration or AMD, is an incurable eye disease that damages the middle part of the retina that's known as the macula, "which is responsible for our central, detailed vision," explains Laura Di Meglio, OD, an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. When this area of the eye is damaged, it leads to a gradual loss of sharp central vision, seeing dark spots, distorted or wavy vision and difficulty seeing colors. In these ways, "AMD can severely impact quality of life by making it harder to see fine details even though it doesn't cause total blindness," says Inna Lazar, a Connecticut-based optometrist and founder of Greenwich Eye Care. Some such adverse impacts include difficulty driving or with close-up activities like reading, writing, cooking, sewing or fixing things around the house. People with AMD can even have problems recognizing faces, Lazar says. Symptoms vary though as there are two types of AMD: dry AMD and wet AMD. "Dry AMD is very common with about 80% of people with AMD having this form," says Dr. Purnima Patel, an ophthalmologist at ORA Vision in Georgia and spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology. It is characterized by the macular gradually getting thinner with age. "Wet AMD is less common, but affects sight much quicker," says Patel. It occurs when abnormal blood vessels grow in the back of the eye and damage the macula. In case you missed:Here's why it's so important to catch and treat glaucoma early What causes macular degeneration? More than 20 million Americans have AMD, per the American Macular Degeneration Foundation, but your risk of developing it significantly increases with age. Aging is the single biggest contributor of AMD, in part, because cell regeneration slows down as we get older, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with diminished eyesight. Several other factors are also thought to contribute to the development of AMD. These include a family history of the condition, your race (Caucasians have been shown to be at higher risk, Patel says), and environmental factors such as "smoking, excessive UV exposure, poor diet, high blood pressure and obesity, all of which can damage the delicate blood vessels that nourish the macula," says Lazar. Elsewhere in eye issues:Kids' eyesight is getting worse. Special contact lenses may be the answer. How is macular degeneration prevented and treated? No matter which associated risk factors you may be facing, there are ways of preventing or at least diminishing the worst outcomes of the condition. These include "making healthy lifestyle and dietary choices like eating leafy greens and omega-3s, quitting smoking, staying active and keeping your blood pressure in check," says Lazar. Once AMD has been diagnosed, a handful of treatment options are available depending on which type of AMD you're dealing with. "To treat wet AMD, ophthalmologists usually use medications called anti-VEGF drugs," says Patel. She explains that anti-VEGF drugs are delivered through a very thin needle and can help stop the leaking of the vessels. "This can slow or stop worsening of the vision and can often even improve vision," she explains. It's best to consult with your eye care professionals about the best courses of action, especially if you notice symptoms worsening. "It is important for patients with macular degeneration to routinely check their vision in each eye," adds Di Meglio, "and to notify their eye care provider if they notice any changes as quick treatment can help prevent further irreversible damage."
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The Most Controversial Paper in the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day
Rick Doblin had come to believe that psychedelic experiences are the "common core" of all religions, and he wanted to test this thesis. In February 1984, the 31-year-old college student living off a trust fund in Sarasota, Florida, typed out a letter to the United Nations, proposing a study that would double as a "training program for a variety of religious ministries." He needed only 50 volunteers, he said, plus a panel of scholars and religious mystics (including His Holiness the Dalai Lama) to judge the results. Doblin reached out to several politicians for help too. He even wrote a letter to Pope John Paul II. In the meantime, he took on what might have been an even more daunting task, though today it sounds almost mainstream: turning MDMA into medicine. Beginning in 2015, another psychedelic visionary, Roland Griffiths, initiated a research project nearly identical to what Doblin envisioned. A collaboration between the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, Griffiths' experiment gave psilocybin to two dozen "religious professionals"—Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim clergy—on two separate occasions. What happened is still mostly a mystery, as the paper has yet to be released. Just as the finishing touches were being finalized, Griffiths was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. At the same time, a controversy was growing in his lab that threatened to derail the psychedelic renaissance. The accusations centered on alleged misconduct involving the religious professionals study. Five months after Griffiths died peacefully at his home in October 2023, The New York Times published a bombshell exposé that called the study's integrity into question. The article drew on two ethics complaints filed by a former protégé, a psychologist named Matthew Johnson whom Griffiths had groomed to be his replacement. Griffiths, Johnson said, had been running his research lab less like a laboratory and more like a "'new-age' retreat center," recommending spiritual literature to volunteers and allowing politically aligned funders to work directly on studies. These funders were also paying for projects aimed at introducing various religious communities to hallucinogens. The line between research and advocacy, he argued, had disappeared. Johnson also accused Griffiths of infusing his research with his own spiritual beliefs and advancing a political agenda aimed at spreading the use of psychedelics. All this, Johnson said, created a "cult-like atmosphere." The release of the religious professionals study was put on a permanent hiatus. Since then, more information has emerged about Griffiths and the researchers around him, shedding light on an ambitious plan to revitalize Christianity by incorporating a psychedelic sacrament. Doblin, who is now the president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, thinks the unreleased study might be the most important research paper in psychedelic history. It will be a "terrible, terrible tragedy" if it is never released, he says. "I felt that it had the greatest political implications." He blames the delay in publication on fears "that it might spark a fundamentalist backlash against psychedelic research." But the paper itself, he adds, doesn't "speak to this whole issue of the common mystical core. They avoid the kind of political benefits that I think could come from this understanding that religions are like languages. We all speak different languages but they're coming from the same basic source." This idea—that there is one truth and one universal core to all religions—is the heart of Perennialism, a school of mysticism with a long history. Doblin is not the only person in the psychedelic world who is fascinated with this concept: It has turned up, well, perennially, in numerous scientific papers as well as a dubious but popular recent book called The Immortality Key. The idea's influence raises an important question about the renaissance of psychedelic studies: Are these researchers guided by science, religion, or some awkward combination? Roland Redmond Griffiths was the avatar of a new generation of straitlaced scientists said to be bringing fresh blood, rigorous standards, and a cautious approach to an area of research tarnished by political antics and reckless evangelism. The scion of the same blue-blood family that produced President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Griffiths was the psychedelic counterculture's dream spokesman: a clean-cut "scientist's scientist," so conservative that he once admonished the soft drink industry for "being in denial about the role of caffeine in their products." Griffiths' career path took a left-hand turn when he was introduced to meditation and psychedelics. Bored with his research on opioids and tobacco, he started meditating regularly in the early '90s with a girlfriend who was a part of the new age scene. ("She believed a bunch of stuff I didn't believe," he later told me.) After a weeklong retreat, he found himself intrigued by the revelatory insights occasioned by mystical states of consciousness. When he was recruited by a sect called the Council on Spiritual Practices—the group's members have included Jordan Peterson, Ralph Hood, Willis Harman, Walter Houston Clark, and other psychologists interested in comparative mythology—Griffiths became the public face of an ambitious project to "make the mystical experience more available." After reading works on Jungian psychology, Christian mysticism, and Perennialism, Griffiths slowly began to abandon his earlier commitment to the beliefs of B.F. Skinner, a psychologist who taught that behavior could be altered only through modification of the external environment. He started exploring the internal transformations described in the world's esoteric literature, and the life-altering "conversion" experiences described in the New Testament and other holy books. These texts, along with the works of Harvard psychologist William James, suggested to Griffiths that an unknown biological energy—perhaps entering through the "subliminal trap door of the mind"—might be responsible for these experiences. If scientists could study them systematically in a lab, they might be able to isolate this force, analyze it, and harness its therapeutic benefits. What if science could cultivate trance states via psychoactive plants, sensory isolation, and music, reducing spiritual enlightenment to a systematic process easily accessible to all? A 2006 press release from Johns Hopkins' media team—headlined "Hopkins Scientists Show Hallucinogen In Mushrooms Creates Universal 'Mystical' Experience"—captured Griffiths' mood. Acknowledging what he called the "unusual nature" of his research, Griffiths preempted any suspicion that science might be probing into the sacred domain. "We're just measuring what can be observed," Griffiths said. "We're not entering into 'Does God exist or not exist.' This work can't and won't go there." A Q&A attached to the press release expanded on this concern, assuring the scientific community that this "God pill" was notgoing to replace religion. Doblin believes that the spiritual and medical aspects of psychedelics are so closely entangled that they're impossible to separate. Because Griffiths' primary finding was a link between religious experience and marked increases in well-being, the religious connotations of his work cannot be avoided. In fact, Doblin says, studies into the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics have all been "leading up towards" the religious leaders study. The psychedelic movement, he believes, is the vehicle for a "transformation in consciousness that humanity needs to make," one he compares to the "Copernican-Galileo revolution." While Griffiths and Doblin frequently argued over strategy, their core beliefs were similar. Both were convinced that psychedelics are critical to the survival of the human species, a tool that can be used to "awaken" humanity to impending ecological catastrophe or nuclear war. "It is a way to spiritualize people en masse, but starting with people in religious traditions," Doblin says. "This is why I felt that Roland's study—the religious leader study—had the most important political implications of all of the psychedelic research." The Perennialist ideas in Griffiths' research are drawn from Forgotten Truth, a book published in 1976. Written by a religious studies professor named Huston Smith, the author was a disciple of a little-known Swiss writer named Frithjof Schuon who, in the 1980s, led a Sufi order based in Bloomington, Indiana. Though Aldous Huxley was more widely read, Schuon crystallized an "intellectual version" of Perennialism that permeated the psychedelic literature, says Hugh Urban, a scholar of new religious movements at Ohio State University. "Forgotten Truth is where Smith articulates his version of Perennialism most clearly. And that book is just Schuon for the public." Blending the teachings of the Oglala Lakota medicine man Black Elk with Christian imagery and hardline Islamic mysticism, Schuon taught his followers that the further civilization drifted from the one eternal truth, the more intensely it would descend into chaos and disorder. The ultimate goal of history, he said, was the uncovering of the transcendent unity of all religions and a "New World Order" of which he was the prophet and avatar. Schuon's group attracted unwanted attention when the eccentric guru was accused of using his authority to satisfy his carnal desires, and it disbanded in 1991. "Schuon's basic philosophy," Urban says, "is that there's one truth, one universal core to all religions. And at the outer level, the exoteric, all religions are very different, but the closer you get to the inner core, the closer they come. So from his perspective, you could blend them together because the closer you get to this universal truth, the more similar they become." Urban thinks Perennialism appeals to psychedelic enthusiasts because it suggests that "one can tap into the same universal Truth known to the mystics of all ages simply by taking a drug and without the need for the trappings of institutional religion." Not everyone involved with the study subscribes to such beliefs. Johnson, the former protégé who filed the ethics complaints, thinks the findings have been exaggerated and taken out of context. "Some people want to see the results as validating the Perennial Philosophy," he says. "But it can't." "I really don't agree that the implications are especially profound," he adds. "Religious professionals who are willing to participate in a psychedelic study tend to respond like others. A solid and publishable finding, but nothing too surprising. I think there was too much of a push to frame this as a magnum opus and a breakthrough on the spiritual effects of psychedelics." Johnson has warned his colleagues of conflating religion and science. Like any other spiritual tradition where certain individuals—be it gurus, priests, or yogis—claim to have direct access to God, he argues, you are setting up a potentially dangerous situation: "Don't be surprised when you get the sexual abuse of minors or whoever else because of that sacred power." Griffiths, on the other hand, was convinced that he made a groundbreaking scientific discovery with enormous cultural implications. His involvement with activity outside the scope of his official research included a "Holy Meeting" at the Vatican where one of his associates—a lawyer named Brian Muraresku—presented Pope Francis with a manifesto for a psychedelic "New Reformation." The scientists conducting the religious professionals study discussed details of the meeting through text messages, which included a watermarked photograph of Muraresku—part of the inner circle of Hopkins researchers—preparing to hand the pope a copy of his 2020 book The Immortality Key, which argues that psychedelics might rescue a "dying faith" and save Western civilization. The book also claims that Christianity began as a spinoff of pagan mystery cults that used a hallucinogenic fungus in their most sacred ritual, which purportedly evolved into the Christian ceremony of communion. (Many people depicted in this supposedly "groundbreaking" book on psychedelics and religion are now speaking out against it. More on that here.) While it's not clear whether the pope has actually read Muraresku's book, the Vatican did recently host a conference featuring a talk on psychedelic science. In September, a controversy broke out when Pope Francis expressed an idea akin to Perennialism: "Every religion," he said, "is a way to arrive at God." Behind the scenes of the study, Muraresku was also involved with Ligare, a Christian missionary organization launched by a Hopkins clinical trial participant named Hunt Priest—a pastor and former Delta Airlines marketing executive—focused on introducing various Christian communities to psychedelics. Since the investigation, there has been a notable silence from Griffiths' inner circle, though Hopkins has cut several of his core team members loose. One of those who departed—Bill Richards—wrote the original protocol for the religious professionals' study and was Griffiths' right-hand man for many years. The 84-year-old psychologist claims to be unaware of what the investigation was really about. The paper, he insists, simply indicates that professional religious leaders can have religious experiences that are helpful to them. "What's the big deal about that? Why should that be controversial? I just don't understand it." People from different spiritual traditions around the world, he says, "all report this unitive mystical consciousness." "I'm convinced it's just part of our makeup, that within us is this great unity. And of course, within the unity is intuitive knowledge. And part of the unity of that knowledge is what the Hindus call the bejeweled Net of Indra, or the Unity of Mankind, or that everyone is ultimately connected to everyone else, which has profound implications for ethics and world peace, you know?" Griffiths' problems with his subordinates, according to Richards, mainly centered on issues of control. "As much as I love and appreciate Roland, I would say he did have his blind spots, and I think he had difficulty empowering others. He could be very devaluing of the clinical dimension and very preoccupied with the statistics. Those numbers made him excited." According to Richards, his friend would be there all by himself on Saturdays, completely absorbed in his work, an aloofness that caused problems in earlier marriages. "Roland was working hard to get the last studies published and so on, almost up until he entered a coma. He was preoccupied with the most pedantic little details of manuscripts." Though the two have been criticized for infusing scientific research with their own Perennialist beliefs, placing religious objects in the session rooms, and blessing participants with greetings of "namaste," Richards is unapologetic (people in India say namaste "on the street constantly," he objects) and stands behind the religious implications of his and Griffiths' work. "I think we are participating in an expansion of consciousness, a spiritual awakening, an evolution of what we call normal," he says. There is no way to separate psychedelic therapy from its spiritual nature nor from the reality of our interconnectedness, he argues. He also suggests that the Food and Drug Administration incorporate philosophers and scholars of comparative religion into their advisory panels. Richards also told me that Sacred Knowledge—his semi-autobiographical book, which doubles as a Perennialist manifesto—has now been translated into 10 languages. He also claimed that Muraresku had "smuggled 10 copies" of the book into the Vatican. Muraresku, who by Richards' account "just appeared in my backyard one day," is "a wonderful guy," Richards says. "He looks like this uptight conventional lawyer in the daytime and turns into Indiana Jones at night." Ralph Hood, a psychologist who belongs to the Council on Spiritual Practices, also thinks that the controversy has been oversimplified and misinterpreted by people with no personal experience with psychedelics. The world's preeminent scholar of Appalachian serpent handling sects, Hood created a measurement scale that was widely used in psychedelic research; he also helped launch the studies at Johns Hopkins. Hood, who at 82 is still teaching at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, has been criticized for importing Perennialism into psychedelic research. He denies that, and he also rejects the idea that Griffiths was infusing spiritual beliefs into his research. To the contrary, Hood says, the chief problem with psychedelic research is that the people studying mystical experiences "exclude the possibility that these are genuine spiritual phenomena." There is a problematic and unquestioned assumption built into science, Hood says: the idea that the experience of transcendent and alternate realities is either delusional or proof of mental illness. What if there is, beyond the capability of the human senses, an "invisible order" that science cannot penetrate? These discriminatory attitudes—an unwarranted bias against religion—preclude the possibility of real innovation, rendering psychedelic research a futile endeavor. Griffiths, following in the footsteps of William James, remained open to these possibilities, leading some to accuse him of dabbling in occultism. "William James fought back against the licensure of the professions. They're used to exclude, he said, not to include. So they give you a more restricted range of options, not the broader range that we need." To make psychedelics a mainstream medicine, Hood argues, regulators are seeking a safety that will miscategorize psychedelics as antidepressants and destroy innovation. "The culture is looking for a type of safety that is actually life threatening," he says, "because it doesn't allow you to do what's really important in the long run. So the safe option is very often the worst option….You're not going to fall off the bike if you refuse to ever ride one." The voices of the volunteers themselves, he adds, are being "effectively silenced" when they are told their experiences are not true. "It's extremely limiting and focused on one aspect of something and therefore falsifies the reality of phenomena." In the wake of the controversy surrounding the religious professionals study, some scientists are shying away from the mystical experience construct—part of an effort to purge their work of Perennialist influences and distance themselves from anything that feels new age. By backing away from the Jamesian tradition, Hood argues, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Hood is generally hopeful about the future of psychedelic research. "The danger," he says, "is it's going to be turned into a money-making machine, because the access to sacraments is going to be through prescription and then through pharmacies, and that's going to be a huge failure." I am skeptical that researchers will offer a purely scientific explanation for the mystical experience anytime soon, as current methods hardly begin to reveal the hidden mechanics behind the bizarre episodes that people like Hood and Griffiths study. For what it's worth, Griffiths felt the same way. "Reductionistic materialists would say, well, this ultimately boils down to brain network changes," Griffiths told me in 2023. "But the level of complexity there far outstrips anything that we can possibly measure. So we're at our infancy in terms of understanding the neuroscience. Our ability to measure what's going on in the brain is incredibly primitive….All we can do is start guessing at it, and then using different frames of reference to explain it." And what about Doblin, the man who dreamed four decades ago of something like Griffiths' study? That experiment, he says, is the very last thing that he and Griffiths discussed before the latter's death. By Doblin's account, Griffiths had had a change of heart about their strategic disagreements and recognized his approach as overly cautious. "He said, 'You were more right than I was about the importance of drug policy reform, and I was too conservative to object to these things,'" Doblin recounts. "I feel like he had come to see that it's about changing culture as well as doing the science. If you don't change the culture, then you can't even do the science." Ever the visionary, the 71-year-old Doblin is still looking for opportunities to merge religion and medicine. On a recent trip to Spain, an incense holder suspended from an enormous dome with ropes in the Cathedral of Santiago caught his eye. "And they could swing this incense holder to spread it throughout the church. But, I said, it was inactive wafers. So I think distributing these things through religion would be a really good idea if people were encouraged to really explore more, to tap into this Perennial philosophy." I asked him whether he would attempt to resurrect his U.N. proposal from 1984. He smiled and said no. "I think we're too wrapped up in trying to make MDMA into a medicine to see what that involves." The post The Most Controversial Paper in the History of Psychedelic Research May Never See the Light of Day appeared first on
