Microdosing Research Review 2025: What the RCTs Actually Show
About This Video
A research review specifically focused on randomized controlled trial data on microdosing — the most methodologically rigorous tier of evidence, which is still limited but growing. Reviews the Imperial College London 2022 RCT (expectation vs. placebo design, psychological flexibility as primary outcome), the University of Toronto RCT (emotional blunting as primary outcome), and what these studies tell us about whether microdosing effects are pharmacological or expectancy-driven.
Honest about the limitations: most microdosing research is observational or survey-based, expectancy effects are large and difficult to control, and blinding participants in a microdose study (even with active placebo) is methodologically challenging. The conclusion is nuanced: there is real signal in the controlled data, but it's smaller than the self-report data suggests, and the mechanisms are unclear.
Includes a section on protocol comparison — Fadiman vs. Stamets Stack vs. intuitive dosing — and what limited data exists on comparative efficacy.
Key Takeaways
- Most microdosing research is observational — only a handful of randomized controlled trials exist as of 2025.
- The Imperial College 2022 RCT found psychological flexibility improved similarly in microdose and placebo groups — suggesting significant expectancy effect.
- The University of Toronto RCT found real benefit for emotional blunting, a common SSRI side effect, in the microdose group.
- Expectancy is a confound: people who believe they're microdosing often report benefit even on placebo — and vice versa.
- The Stamets Stack (psilocybin + lion's mane + niacin) has not been tested as a combination in any published RCT.
Dive Deeper
Continue exploring this topic on ShroomTube: