I agree. I was trying to avoid going into any of the personal issues in the post on purpose, and limiting my comments to the linked article. To me there is little doubt that the linked article is a hit piece, for already mentioned reasons. But that doesn't mean that the mod didn't make those comments here, and in that case it's unacceptable behavior.
To be fair, we're still waiting for citations on the baby killing and use of chemical and explosive weapons to commit violence. Varallo's linked article and the others I read didn't shed light on that. I think that's far more intriguing than old forum drama, but one cool aspect of internet forums is that they're in text and it's easy to just quote past interactions (something that's suspiciously absent here).
I really don't understand why this whole thread is so vague and unsubstantiated, aside from OP's desire to vent, which I'm not sure justifies making a post? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's quite a departure from the usual tone of this forum and variety is the spice of life. But it feels like OP has allowed this six-year-old interaction to fester and is now escalating things in head-scratching ways.
I love a good drama or thriller, I'm just not sure I understand the impetus for this particular drama. What are the benefits of posting wild unsubstantiated accusations (well beyond what the NYT claimed) about an inactive forum user you had friction with six years ago? To me, it seems that even if resolution was possible, it's not desired by OP (their stated desire seemed to be to maintain anger at this one particular individual while otherwise being able to surrender anger towards everyone else), so I have to admit that I really don't see/understand there to be a positive motive behind the post.
I’m sorry I was unclear what I meant was that the the article has already been discussed here on Nexus before. Even back then, none of the accusations mentioned in the article were really backed up by any kind of evidence, aside from the article simply stating that it’s the case. Now, of course, it’s a serious journalistic source, so that carries some weight, but still, there is very little else to go on.
I do think it’s important to say that I hear you. I can imagine that if something like this happens to you, it must be incredibly upsetting, and I can understand why you’d want to speak up about it. But at the same time, there’s so little concrete to go on. But then, even if just a small part of what’s written in that article turns out to be true, then that’s deeply disturbing, because that would mean a complete disregard for basic decency.
That moderator you mentioned, I haven’t seen him around here for quite a while. Still, I get why it would be good for him to respond at some point, especially since this issue keeps resurfacing. Then again, I wonder what he could even say at this point that would actually clear anything up, because if you look at the substance of the article and what happened, it really feels like people with very different ideas are clashing, and fighting those battles through ideology.
Personally, what bothers me most is that the outcome of the whole process seems to have been strongly influenced by factors that, in my opinion, shouldn’t play that big of a role. Because in the end, this is something the FDA decides on. They’re the ones who are supposed to base their decisions on the data. And sure, I get that there’s influence through the people who gather the data, I understand the whole broader context, but for me, that’s where the line should be drawn. That’s where it either works or doesn’t.
Finally I don’t think we’ll solve this here. But I do think it matters that you said it.
I find it very interesting that the NYT ran some major corrections to the article (at the bottom of the story) long after it was published. Someone on Reddit pointed out that the NYT basically admitted to fabricating timelines and quotes for the story months after publication. How did that happen? Why did it take so long to correct such significant errors especially when multiple people across social media claimed to be reaching out to the journalists around the time of publication? I doubt we'll ever know what went on here but it seems unusual.
I was also struck by a clip unearthed and published by the "Psychedelic Alpha" outlet which showed one of the NYT journalists vociferously advocating for MAPS via reading a prepared statement when she was supposed to ask a question of two people having a debate (it got so bad the moderator had to intervene, see 46:12):
I've read way too much about this on social media and there's so many weird things about the NYT article, many of which were loudly contested and ultimately appear at odds with reality but were never corrected. I won't clutter this thread with them but it certainly doesn't seem like standard journalism (or even the NYT 's standard psychedelic journalism).
Like I said earlier, I just don't see what this vent thread adds. There has been interesting stuff published by academics in recent months that, I think, bolsters the decision made by FDA, such as:
These strike me as food for thought and discussion, in stark contrast with what's being offered in this thread.
And let's not forget, Lykos could (have) publish(ed) the letter it received from FDA at any point in time. It would likely offer significant clarity. However, as Psychedelic Alpha also pointed out, Rick Doblin said that a Lykos board member said doing so would be "beyond reckless," suggesting that the complete response letter is either at odds with the public narrative or would reveal significant damaging information about the trials or their sponsor. Talk about food for thought, no?
Something that drew me to this forum is the usual level/tone of discussion, but I gotta say, this thread just ain't it.
