This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Lysergide does in the body
An unapproved psychedelic being studied for generalised anxiety.
LSD latches onto one particular serotonin receptor on nerve cells in the outer layer of the brain and switches it on. That receptor normally helps filter and organise incoming signals. With it over-stimulated, the filtering changes: sensory information arrives less sorted, and the sense of what is significant attaches to things it usually does not. Blocking that single receptor with another drug beforehand abolishes almost the entire experience, which is how the receptor was identified as the one that matters.
What happened in people
One dose reduced anxiety a month later at the two highest doses. Two lower doses did nothing.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Every person receiving the highest dose knew it, so expectations could influence the result.
Where it acts
Cortical layer V pyramidal neurons and thalamocortical circuits, via 5-HT2A receptors
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · 8NA5SWF92O · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C20H25N3O, weighing 323.4.
PubChem record · 5761 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 107 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Dose-response relationship for change in HAM-A total score at week 4, by MCP-Mod
Significant dose-response at 100 µg (LSMD -5.0, 95% CI -9.6 to -0.4) and 200 µg (LSMD -6.0, 95% CI -9.8 to -2.0); not significant at 25 µg or 50 µg
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Visual perceptual changes in 92.5% at 100 µg and 100% at 200 µg versus 10.3% on placebo — a functional unblinding rate the efficacy analysis cannot adjust for.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral solution or tablet, single supervised dose in a monitored session
Interval reported. 95% CI -9
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
STAI-Global anxiety score 16 weeks after the last treatment session
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Basel LSD-assisted therapy crossover (Holze et al. 2023)
How many people
42
Study design
Phase 2 randomised crossover
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
LSMD -16.2 (SE 5.8), 95% CI -27.8 to -4.5, d = -1.18, p = 0.007
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. One treatment-related serious adverse event (acute transient anxiety, 2%); transient mild acute untoward effects in 8 of 42 (19%). Carryover between periods forced the primary analysis onto the first period alone.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral solution or tablet, single supervised dose in a monitored session
Interval reported. 95% CI -27
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Lysergide
What a person takes: Oral solution or tablet, single supervised dose in a monitored session.
The measurement behind this step
In trials the drug is given once, in a session lasting most of a day, with two monitors present throughout and structured preparation and integration visits around it. The delivery system is as much the room and the monitors as it is the tablet, and no trial has tested the drug without them.
Getting in
Taken by mouth in microgram amounts
Active doses are measured in millionths of a gram — a hundredth of the mass of a typical painkiller tablet. Effects begin in about half an hour and last most of a day.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Oral administration of 25 to 200 µg freebase equivalent. Peak plasma concentration is in the low nanogram-per-millilitre range, reached at roughly 1.5 hours, with subjective effects lasting 8 to 12 hours in a dose-dependent way.
The molecule passes easily out of the blood into brain tissue and reaches the outer layers where most of the target receptors sit.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Lipophilic ergoline; distributes into the central nervous system and reaches 5-HT2A-dense regions including layer V of the neocortex, the claustrum and thalamic nuclei. Metabolised principally by CYP enzymes to 2-oxo-3-hydroxy-LSD, the analytical target in delayed urine sampling.
It locks into a serotonin receptor and switches it on. Because a lid of the receptor closes over the molecule, it stays bound for hours rather than minutes.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Agonist at 5-HT2A with nanomolar affinity; crystallographic work shows an extracellular loop closing over the bound ligand, which is the structural correlate of the unusually slow off-rate and the long duration. Also engages 5-HT1A, 5-HT2C and dopamine receptors, which contribute to the autonomic profile.
The receptor sits on cells that help decide which incoming signals matter. Over-stimulating it changes what the brain treats as significant.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Gq-coupled signalling in layer V pyramidal neurons increases glutamatergic drive and desynchronises thalamocortical gating. Preller et al. showed the LSD-induced attribution of personal relevance to neutral stimuli, and the accompanying connectivity changes, are abolished by ketanserin.
Anxiety scores fall, in trials, for weeks afterwards
In the trials, anxiety ratings a month or four months later are lower than after placebo. Nobody has isolated how a single day-long experience produces a change that outlasts the drug.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The measured endpoint is a rating scale — HAM-A at 4 weeks in the phase 2b, STAI-G at 16 weeks in the Basel crossover. The drug is undetectable long before either timepoint. Persistence is a real observation in search of a mechanism; candidate explanations involving 5-HT2A-driven structural plasticity are preclinical and not established in humans.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In trials: adults aged 18 to 74 with a primary diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder and a HAM-A of at least 20. Outside trials there is no lawful medical route to it in the United States.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
The 25 µg and 50 µg arms of the phase 2b both failed to separate from placebo, which is what makes the higher-dose result a dose-response rather than a class effect
Carryover in the Basel crossover forced abandonment of the planned within-subject analysis in favour of the first period alone
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Not available
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral solution or tablet, single supervised dose in a monitored session
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
In trials the drug is given once, in a session lasting most of a day, with two monitors present throughout and structured preparation and integration visits around it. The delivery system is as much the room and the monitors as it is the tablet, and no trial has tested the drug without them.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Acute effects last 8 to 12 hours and include marked perceptual change, transient anxiety, nausea, mydriasis, raised blood pressure and heart rate. In the phase 2b, nausea reached 60% at 200 µg and headache 27.5%. The published massive-overdose series recorded hyperthermia, coma, respiratory arrest and platelet dysfunction with full recovery in all eight patients. Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder is a recognised DSM-5 diagnosis following hallucinogen use; its incidence is not established. LSD is not associated with a physical withdrawal syndrome. Serotonergic and 5-HT2A-active co-medication, uncontrolled hypertension and personal or family history of psychosis are the standard trial exclusions.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral solution or tablet, single supervised dose in a monitored session
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
The delivery system is as much the room and the monitors as it is the tablet, and no trial has tested the drug without them.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
22310 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as botanical with nutrients, non-nutrient/non-botanical and other combinations.
Those labels carry all other, nutrient and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Lysergide studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the four-week anxiety separation is purely pharmacological, when 100% of the top-dose arm and 10% of placebo reported perceptual changes
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a 12-patient pilot with a four-patient comparator arm supports an effect-size estimate rather than feasibility
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That an acute-toxicity profile with no reported lethal dose in the overdose series means the drug carries no risk — the documented deaths are behavioural and cardiovascular, not overdose
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That positive phase 3 results would reschedule the drug; rescheduling is a separate HHS and DEA administrative process
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Lysergide are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Phase 2b in 198 adults: a real dose-response on HAM-A at four weeks
In plain words
In the largest modern LSD trial, one dose cut anxiety scores by five to six points more than placebo a month later — but only at the two highest doses. The two low doses did nothing.
What was measured
Change in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score at 4 weeks, MCP-Mod
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b at 22 US outpatient sites, August 2022 to August 2023. 198 adults with primary GAD and HAM-A at least 20 were randomised to a single freebase-equivalent dose of 25 µg (n=39), 50 µg (n=40), 100 µg (n=40), 200 µg (n=40) or placebo (n=39); 194 formed the full analysis set. The primary outcome was the dose-response relationship for HAM-A change at week 4 by MCP-Mod. Least-squares mean difference versus placebo was -5.0 points (95% CI -9.6 to -0.4) at 100 µg and -6.0 (95% CI -9.8 to -2.0) at 200 µg; 25 µg gave -1.2 (95% CI -6.0 to 3.5) and 50 µg gave -1.8 (95% CI -7.6 to 4.0), neither reaching significance. The pre-specified minimal clinically important difference was 2.5 points. Endpoint ratings were made by independent central raters blinded to protocol, allocation and visit date.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The blind did not hold, and the trial reported the numbers that prove it
In plain words
Everyone in the 200 microgram group noticed visual changes. One in ten of the placebo group did. Whatever else the trial measured, it did not measure a blinded comparison.
What was measured
That the four-week HAM-A separation is a pharmacological effect on anxiety rather than a pharmacological effect plus an expectancy effect that the design cannot separate from it
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Visual perceptual changes — illusion, pseudo-hallucination, visual hallucination — were recorded in 46.2% at 25 µg, 75.0% at 50 µg, 92.5% at 100 µg, 100% at 200 µg and 10.3% on placebo. Nausea ran 7.7 / 27.5 / 40.0 / 60.0 / 7.7 percent across the same arms. A participant experiencing a 12-hour perceptual event has been unblinded by the drug itself, and expectancy about that event is not separable from the pharmacological effect on a self- and clinician-rated anxiety scale. Central independent raters blinded to visit date reduce but do not remove the problem, because the participant supplies the ratings. This is a limitation of design, not a defect of conduct, and it applies to every psychedelic efficacy trial in this file.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Blocking one receptor abolishes the experience
In plain words
Give people a drug that plugs the 5-HT2A receptor before giving them LSD, and almost the entire LSD experience does not happen. That is how the receptor was pinned down.
What was measured
Subjective drug effect and personal-relevance attribution under LSD with and without ketanserin pretreatment
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Preller et al. ran a double-blind, randomised, counterbalanced, cross-over study in 24 healthy participants with three conditions: placebo, LSD 100 µg, and LSD 100 µg preceded by the selective 5-HT2A antagonist ketanserin. Ketanserin pretreatment normalised the LSD-induced attribution of personal relevance to previously meaningless stimuli and blocked the subjective drug effects, alongside the associated changes in cortical connectivity. The design is the reason 5-HT2A is described as necessary rather than merely correlated: the antagonist is the manipulation.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Crossover phase 2 in 42 patients: anxiety down 16 STAI points at 16 weeks
In plain words
A Swiss trial gave 200 microgram doses to people with severe anxiety and found their scores were still substantially lower four months later.
What was measured
STAI-Global score 16 weeks after the last treatment session
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Investigator-initiated two-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period random-order crossover trial, two sessions of oral LSD 200 µg or placebo per period, in 42 patients with anxiety with or without a life-threatening illness. Primary endpoint was the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory global score 16 weeks after the last session. Between-subjects first-period analysis is the one reported, because of carryover: least-squares mean change-from-baseline difference -16.2 (SE 5.8), 95% CI -27.8 to -4.5, d = -1.18, p = 0.007. HAM-D-21 fell by -7.0 (95% CI -10.8 to -3.2, d = -1.1, p = 0.0004) and BDI by -6.1 (95% CI -11.4 to -0.9, d = -0.72, p = 0.02). Eight patients (19%) had transient mild acute untoward effects; one treatment-related serious adverse event, an episode of acute transient anxiety (2%).
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Massive accidental overdose: eight people, all survived
In plain words
Eight people snorted pure LSD powder by mistake and were treated within fifteen minutes. They had coma, dangerous fever, respiratory arrest and bleeding — and every one of them recovered.
What was measured
Serum and gastric LSD tartrate concentration with clinical outcome, n=8
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Klock, Boerner and Becker described eight patients seen within 15 minutes of intranasal self-administration of large amounts of pure LSD tartrate powder. Presentation was emesis and collapse with sympathetic overactivity, hyperthermia, coma and respiratory arrest; mild generalised bleeding occurred in several and platelet dysfunction was demonstrable in all. Serum LSD tartrate ranged 2.1 to 26 ng/mL and gastric content 1,000 to 7,000 µg per 100 mL — roughly three orders of magnitude above a recreational dose. All recovered with supportive care. The case series is the reason the pharmacology literature describes LSD as having a very high therapeutic index for acute lethality; it says nothing about behavioural risk during intoxication, which is where the documented deaths come from.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Marketed 1947, banned 1970, in phase 3 in 2026 — the same molecule throughout
In plain words
Sandoz sold LSD to psychiatrists as Delysid for nineteen years. The US then put it in the strictest schedule, defined as having no accepted medical use. It is now in phase 3 trials for anxiety.
What was measured
Regulatory classification versus current clinical trial phase for the same molecule
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Sandoz distributed LSD as Delysid from 1947 and withdrew it in 1966. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed lysergic acid diethylamide in Schedule I, a category defined by high abuse potential, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision — the finding that makes prescription impossible regardless of trial results. As of 2026 the same molecule is in three active phase 3 programmes registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Panorama NCT06809595, n=245, GAD; Voyage NCT06741228, n=214, GAD; Emerge NCT06941844, n=149, MDD). Schedule I status is not a scientific verdict that has been overturned; it is an administrative finding that has not yet been revisited, and rescheduling requires a separate HHS and DEA process that a positive phase 3 does not automatically trigger.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A 12-patient pilot is quoted as evidence far beyond what 12 patients can carry
In plain words
The 2014 study that restarted LSD research had twelve people in it, four of whom knew they were on the low dose. It is a pilot, and it is often cited as if it were a result.
What was measured
That a 12-patient pilot with a 4-patient comparator arm supports an effect-size estimate, rather than only the feasibility and acute-safety conclusion its authors drew
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Gasser et al. randomised 12 patients with anxiety associated with life-threatening disease to LSD 200 µg (n=8) or an active placebo of LSD 20 µg (n=4), the latter with open-label crossover to 200 µg after unmasking. At two months STAI trait anxiety showed a positive trend (p=0.033, d=1.1) and state anxiety fell significantly (p=0.021, d=1.2), sustained at 12 months. No serious treatment-related adverse events. With four participants in the comparator arm, and that arm unmasked and crossed over, the trial establishes feasibility and acute safety in a monitored setting. It does not establish an effect size, and the effect sizes it reports have wide, unstated uncertainty.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A 5-HT2A agonist with an unusually clean acute toxicology record, a real dose-response signal in a 198-patient phase 2b anxiety trial, and a blinding problem so complete that 100% of the top-dose arm knew what they had been given.
Recorded evidence blocks (2)
Q1
At the median, Lysergide's trials enrolled 181.5 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
181.5
Largest enrolment
245
Registered trials counted
6
Q2
Who carried Lysergide to phase 3?
Definium Therapeutics US, Inc., 6 studies: the lead sponsor the registry names most often for Lysergide; highest registry phase 3, 4 of 6 studies at it. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 3 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.