In my new podcast with Dr. Matt Johnson, I ask him about a remarkable new study examining psilocybin therapy for cocaine addiction:

(Study link)

The study, led by Dr. Peter Hendricks & designed by Matt himself, randomized people with cocaine use disorder to either psilocybin or an active placebo, both in the context of psychotherapy. When I asked Matt about the results, he said the effects were “really, really big.”

At six months, the psilocybin group was biologically confirmed to be abstinent from cocaine at extraordinarily high rates — close to 100% in the graph we discussed.

That number is almost hard to believe. It’s a small study, and we need larger replications, but if these findings hold up, this could represent a major breakthrough in addiction treatment.

What makes this study especially fascinating is the population.

This wasn’t a group of upper-middle-class wellness seekers who had read books on shamanism, meditation, or psychedelic spirituality. Matt emphasized that many of the participants were poor, Black, from the Deep South, and making less than $20,000 a year. Many were from the Bible Belt. They were not coming in with the typical positive associations toward psychedelics that you often see in highly educated, white, progressive, psychedelic-curious populations.

And yet, according to Matt, the results were striking.

He also mentioned something that doesn’t show up neatly in the published paper: many participants reportedly had powerful Jesus experiences.

Not New Age “universe” experiences. Not shamanic archetypes.

Jesus.

Matt said Peter Hendricks had described participants having experiences where Jesus “spoke to their heart.” These were often Baptist Christians whose spiritual framework was not psychedelic culture but Christianity. And during these psilocybin sessions, the healing content emerged through that religious language and symbolic world.

That’s one of the most fascinating parts of this whole conversation.

Psychedelics are often framed through a very specific cultural lens: Burning Man, yoga, Eastern spirituality, ayahuasca retreats, shamanism, or secular neuroscience. But this study suggests that the psychedelic experience may express itself through the deepest symbolic and religious architecture of the person undergoing it.

For a secular Westerner, that might be “ego dissolution” or “the interconnected universe.”

For a devout Christian in the Bible Belt, it might be Jesus speaking to the heart.

And clinically, the question is not whether the experience fits neatly into one worldview. The question is whether it helps people change — whether it helps them break destructive patterns, find hope, reconnect with meaning, and stop using a drug that has devastated their lives.

Matt’s broader point is that psilocybin does not seem to work by targeting one specific drug receptor system involved in one specific addiction. It’s not “anti-cocaine medication” in the narrow sense. Instead, the working hypothesis is that psilocybin may work on the psychology of addiction itself.

The compulsive loop. The emotional pain. The loss of agency. The identity of being trapped. The inability to imagine a different life.

That’s why we’re seeing promising signals not only in cocaine addiction, but also in smoking & alcohol use disorder (for most of our recent conversation we focused on Matt’s new study examining psilocybin therapy for smoking addiction).

This is not a magic cure. It requires preparation, support, integration, and serious clinical safeguards. Some people have difficult experiences. Larger studies are needed.

But the implications are enormous.

If psilocybin therapy can help people with severe cocaine addiction — including poor, marginalized people with little prior interest in psychedelics — achieve sustained abstinence, then we may be looking at one of the most important frontiers in addiction treatment.

And the Jesus experiences add another layer: maybe psychedelic therapy doesn’t replace religion or spirituality. Maybe, in some cases, it activates the deepest spiritual language people already carry — and helps them use it to heal.

Watch the full conversation where we discuss this new study (starting at 1 hr 9 min):

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Bret Weinstein joins the podcast to discuss dating, mating, sex, relationships, marriage, pornography, OnlyFans, dating apps and the collapse of courtship among Gen Z. The conversation also covers sexual signals, promiscuity, long-term commitment, the rise of the “sex recession”, and new concerns around declining dating among young people. We also discuss Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, The Weeknd, Zayn Malik and Gigi Hadid while examining how pop culture, social media and technology shape relationships today.

Chapters:

0:00 - Intro
3:11 - Gen Z’s Dating and Sexual Culture Crisis
6:12 - ‘Dating’ Is an Artificial Modern Construct
12:44 - Why Sex Education Fails Young People
20:15 - How Birth Control Changed Attitudes to Sex
27:10 - When Sex Had Higher Stakes
37:55 - The Evolutionary Case Against Hookup Culture
47:42 - Is Casual Sex Ever Beneficial?
1:04:38 - The Case for Finding the Right Partner Early
1:19:50 - The Weeknd’s “Lonely Star” Through an Evolutionary Lens
1:34:20 - Brett on Valentine’s Day

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

In this recent clip from my debate with former Bush/Obama drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet, he argued that comedian-podcasters like Joe Rogan ought not to decide national drug policy.

I took the opposing stance and argued various high-profile individuals have been pushing this for decades & this new executive order is quite conservative in that it only accelerates research and FDA approvals rather than outright decriminalizing these substances.

Watch the full clip here now

Full episode here:

In this new episode, I ask Johns Hopkins psychiatry professor Dr. Matt Johnson about his new study examining psilocybin for smoking addiction — and the results are remarkable.

(Link to study published in JAMA)

The study compared one psilocybin session against a standard course of nicotine patch, with both groups also receiving the same cognitive behavioral therapy protocol for quitting smoking. At the six-month mark, 52% of people in the psilocybin group were no longer smoking, compared to 25% in the nicotine patch group. And this wasn’t just based on people saying they quit — the outcomes were biologically confirmed.

What makes this especially fascinating is that psilocybin doesn’t work like a nicotine replacement. It’s not acting directly on nicotine receptors. Instead, Matt explains that it appears to work on the psychology of addiction itself: the habits, emotional patterns, identity structures, and deeply ingrained loops that keep people stuck.

Some participants had direct insights into their smoking. Others barely thought about cigarettes during the session. Instead, they had vast, mind-expanding experiences about childhood, relationships, suffering, mortality, the nature of reality, or what it means to be human — and somehow, when they came back, smoking felt smaller.

Matt describes this as a powerful perspective-shifting effect. People zoom out from the narrow tunnel of craving and see their addiction from a radically different vantage point. One participant realized he could quit smoking as easily as “flicking away a bug” — a stunning moment of agency where he saw that he could actually change something about himself.

We also get into why addiction is rarely just about the substance. Smoking can become a way to regulate emotions, cope with stress, bond socially, manage trauma, or feel a sense of control. As Matt puts it, substances often “work” in the short term — they give people a predictable way to alter their state. The problem is that over time, this can crowd out healthier ways of dealing with pain, stress, and emotional dysregulation.

That’s where psilocybin may be uniquely powerful. It can temporarily loosen rigid patterns, open people to new insights, and help them relate to themselves and their addiction differently. Combined with therapy, that altered state may help people move from “I’m a smoker who can’t quit” to “I’m a non-smoker who has agency.”

Matt is careful not to oversell it. Nicotine replacement, CBT, and other addiction treatments already help many people. Psilocybin is not a magic cure, and some people in the study did not quit. But the findings are deeply promising — especially because this was only one psilocybin session.

This is a fascinating conversation about addiction, agency, identity change, mystical experience, and why psychedelics may become one of the most important frontiers in addiction treatment.

Watch the full episode here:

Time-stamps:

0:00 - Intro
2:30 - Marty Makary Resigning & Flavored Vapes
10:40 - Vaping Greatest Risks
14:15 - UK’s Controversial Tobacco and Vapes Bill
19:20 - Matt’s Psilocybin vs Nicotine Patches for Stopping Smoking
43:14 How do Psilocybin act on smokers?
58:15 What else gave people stronger outcomes?
1:00:39 The Roll of CBT
1:05:07 Psilocybin safety profile
1:09:55 - Psilocybin for treating Cocaine Use Disorder

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

The UK just passed a landmark tobacco bill that would permanently ban the legal sale of tobacco products to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009 — an effort to create a “smoke-free generation.”

But is prohibition actually the best way to reduce smoking?

In this clip, I ask Dr. Matt Johnson — Johns Hopkins psychiatry professor and one of the world’s leading addiction researchers — what he makes of the UK’s new generational smoking ban. Matt is not a narrow scientist who can only speak on pharmacology — he has studied and written about drug policies for decades.

His answer is nuanced. Matt is clear that cigarettes are extraordinarily harmful and remain one of the leading preventable causes of death in the world. But he’s skeptical that outright bans are the right solution.

His concern: when you ban a product that many people still want, demand doesn’t magically disappear. It often moves underground. That can fuel black markets, empower criminal networks, reduce product safety, and create new harms — the same basic lesson from alcohol prohibition.

Matt argues for a more balanced approach: public education, age restrictions, harm reduction, and sensible limits on smoking in public spaces — without pretending the government can simply legislate addiction out of existence.

This is a fascinating conversation about cigarettes, addiction, prohibition, personal freedom, and where public health policy can go too far.

Watch this clip here:

Watch the full new episode discussing Matt’s new study testing psilocybin therapy for smoking addiction:

Something that challenges the status quo and exposes politicized “consensus” in science. And we wanted to fight back against the censorship industrial complex. The Illusion of Consensus became the central hub for consistent conversations with brave scientists who were censored, attacked, and demonized during Covid. We had on dissident experts — in the true sense of the word — across disciplines such as Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Mattias Desmet, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg and others.

Since Jay is no longer on the podcast (no doing bigger things at the NIH), The Illusion of Consensus has expanded and grown beyond just conversations about societal problems; I’ve endeavoured to provide you with science-based tools to reclaim your health and consciousness. I’ve had on the leading experts on sleep science, mindfulness, addiction, dating & relationships, vaccines, and psychedelic therapy for mental illness. Still, I’ve managed to do all this while continuing to challenge powerful figures like Republican Senator Ron Johnson on the Iran war and Mark Cuban on Covid vaccine mandates and DEI initiatives.

In the coming months, I’m excited to interview leading officials in the Trump administration — and those who have left it — to provide the public with an in-depth look into how power in DC works.

The Illusion of Consensus isn’t just commentary — it’s a powerful force in the discourse that reveals and shapes truth, science, and institutional power.

To continue providing illuminating conversations AND debates to hash out contentious issues, I need your help!

This Substack runs only through reader and listener paid subscriptions. Since Jay left for NIH, the economics of this project have changed dramatically. I am now at only 600 paid subscribers, down from 1,400 during the height of this project in 2023. I would love to get back to at least 1,000 paid subscribers to continue doing this full-time.

If you value the content I create here on a consistent basis, please consider becoming a paid member:

Subscribe now

Only for today and tomorrow, I am offering a limited 20% discount on annual paid memberships:

Get 20% off forever

You’ll get early access to podcast episodes, the ability to ask questions to my future podcast guests, and monthly Q+As.

Future guests of the show include Geoffrey Miller, Dave Smith, Ben Shapiro, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Jay Bhattacharya, Calley Means, Rob Henderson, and more!

If you join now, you can access my brand-new 2-hour conversation with Bret Weinstein unpacking dating & mating through an evolutionary lens:

You’ll also get the full archive of episodes, including these high-profile conversations:

Alternatively, for those who’d like to make a bigger contribution to my work, you can support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation (you will automatically be added as a paid member to unlock exclusive content).

Anyone who donates $100 or more will get a personal email note from me & anyone who donates $250 or more will get a personal 5-10 minute phone call from me.

Thanks to all of you for continuing to read and watch my work.

The Illusion of Consensus is not just a podcast. It is one of the few independent platforms willing to challenge institutional narratives, host forbidden conversations, and force a more honest public reckoning with science, health, power, and freedom.

Happy 3 years!

Subscribe now

Get 20% off forever

Share

Leave a comment

Time-stamps:

00:00 - Introduction: The future of media, and the importance of understanding human mating strategies
02:01 - Social medi…

Read more

Legendary Johns Hopkins psychiatry professor Matt Johnson returns to the podcast to discuss his new peer-reviewed study on psilocybin therapy for treating smoking addiction. He explains why one psilocybin session paired with CBT showed higher six month smoking abstinence rates than nicotine patch treatment with CBT, and what that could mean for tobacco use disorder. The discussion also covers vaping, nicotine harm reduction, the UK’s new smoking ban, addiction treatment, mystical experiences, emotional breakthrough, neuroplasticity, agency and why psychedelics may help people change entrenched behaviour. We discuss both the promise and the risks of psychedelic therapy, including bad experiences, vulnerable patients, clinical safeguards and the future of FDA approved addiction treatments.

Time-stamps:

0:00 - Intro
2:30 - Marty Makary Resigning & Flavored Vapes
10:40 - Vaping Greatest Risks
14:15 - UK’s Controversial Tobacco and Vapes Bill
19:20 - Matt’s Psilocybin vs Nicotine Patches for Stopping Smoking
43:14 How do Psilocybin act on smokers?
58:15 What else gave people stronger outcomes?
1:00:39 The Roll of CBT
1:05:07 When Psilocybin goes wrong
1:09:55 - Psilocybin for treating Cocaine Use Disorder

Link to Matt’s study in JAMA:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846155

Watch/Listen Now:

YouTube

Apple

Spotify

(Available on all other podcast platforms as well)

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Here’s the full video of my 3-hour podcast with Mark Cuban — my most prominent debate yet! Enjoy.

Time-stamps:

0:00 - Intro

02:29 — The Clash Begins

04:04 — Mark Cuban Defines DEI His Way

05:52 — “That’s Not What DEI Means!”

08:29 — Are Racial Quotas Real?

12:47 — Corporate Virtue Signalling Exposed

21:13 — Should Race Ever Matter in Hiring?

29:34 — Diversity vs. Meritocracy

48:04 — Do Companies Really Even Follow DEI?

57:42 — Does DEI Actually Work?

01:21:31 — Race-Based Goals vs Pure Merit-Based Hiring

01:36:45 — Final Thoughts and Common Ground

01:38:39 — Arora challenges Cuban on campus censorship

01:41:24 — Cuban on discrimination from both political sides

01:42:59 — Why Cuban required Mavericks staff vaccinations

01:43:57 — Arora disputes community benefit of mandates

01:52:57 — Cuban’s “herd immunity in three months” argument

02:05:02 — FDA internal disagreements over vaccine approval

02:05:31 — White House pressure and military mandates

02:25:00 — Comparing Covid and vaccine-induced myocarditis

02:36:23 — Infection fatality rate and serious adverse events

When President Trump signed an executive order accelerating federal action on psychedelic therapies, the response from many advocates was celebratory. For veterans, addiction patients, and people with treatment-resistant depression, the order looked like long-overdue recognition that America’s mental health crisis demands new tools.

But not everyone was convinced.

On my podcast, I debated the order with Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy advisor in the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations, and Dr. Matt Johnson, a psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins and one of the world’s leading psychedelic researchers. Sabet is one of the most articulate critics of drug liberalization in America, and his critique deserves to be taken seriously. His core concern is not that psychedelic compounds have no medical potential. In fact, he repeatedly acknowledged that they may. His concern is that America may be “putting the cart before the horse”: allowing hype, politics, celebrity influence, Silicon Valley investment, and desperation to outrun the science.

The executive order, signed on April 18, directs the FDA to prioritize certain psychedelic drugs with Breakthrough Therapy designation, helps create a pathway for eligible patients to access investigational psychedelics under Right to Try, and calls for support for research, including ibogaine compounds. The FDA soon announced National Priority Vouchers for three psychedelic-related programs, a mechanism intended to speed review timelines while maintaining safety and efficacy standards.

Sabet’s argument is the best version of the skeptical case: psychedelics may help some people, but the culture around them is moving too quickly, too emotionally, and too commercially. But after pressing each of his objections one by one, I came away believing that the executive order is far more modest — and far more defensible — than its critics suggest.

1. “The psilocybin depression studies are weaker than advocates admit”

Sabet’s first major argument was that the evidence base for psychedelics, especially psilocybin for depression, has been oversold (he wrote about this in Unherd). He pointed to methodological weaknesses, potential conflicts of interest, small sample sizes, weak control groups, and a broader tendency in psychedelic culture to inflate early findings into grand claims.

This is not a frivolous objection. In fact, Matt and I largely agreed with part of it. Psychedelic advocates have often exaggerated the research. There is a real problem of “miracle cure” rhetoric — the idea that someone takes psilocybin once, sees God, and their depression is gone forever. That is not how serious psychedelic therapy works. In my own experience, the medicine is only one part of the process. Preparation, therapy, integration, and continued psychological work matter enormously.

Matt also conceded that some of the depression research has been inflated by trial-design problems. In particular, he explained that large effect sizes in some psychedelic depression studies may partly reflect weak improvement in control groups, not necessarily miraculous improvement in psychedelic groups. Functional unblinding is also a major challenge: participants often know whether they received a psychedelic, making placebo-controlled trials difficult.

But this critique does not defeat the case for the executive order. It strengthens it.

The order does not declare psilocybin approved. It does not legalize psychedelics for general public use. It does not remove FDA review. It accelerates evaluation of compounds that have already shown enough promise to warrant serious study. As Matt put it, the EO is not “the end of prohibition”; it is a set of mechanisms to move research and review forward so that, if FDA approval comes, bureaucracy does not create unnecessary bottlenecks.

Even if psilocybin ultimately proves comparable in average effect size to SSRIs, that could still matter enormously. A treatment with a radically different mechanism may help a different subset of patients — especially those who have cycled through multiple conventional antidepressants without relief. The key argument is not that psilocybin is a magic bullet. It is that serious mental illness is heterogeneous, existing tools are inadequate for many people, and novel mechanisms deserve rigorous evaluation.

The proper response to weak or incomplete studies is not to freeze the field. It is to do better studies.

2. “Ibogaine is dangerous”

Sabet’s strongest substantive concern was around ibogaine’s risks. Unlike classic psychedelics such as psilocybin, ibogaine has a more serious cardiac risk profile. It can prolong the QT interval, raising concerns about potentially dangerous heart rhythms. Sabet warned that federal enthusiasm could understate these risks and give the impression that ibogaine is already proven safe and effective.

This is the objection that deserves the most caution. Ibogaine is not a casual wellness drug. It should not be treated like a retreat-center sacrament or a lifestyle intervention. It is a powerful psychoactive substance with real medical risks.

But Matt’s response was crucial: the risk profile depends heavily on context, screening, and dosing model. Many drugs that affect cardiac markers would be unacceptable as daily medications. But ibogaine, if used at all, would likely be administered a very limited number of times under intensive medical supervision. Patients can be screened beforehand; they can be monitored with EKGs in real time; physicians can have rescue medications available; and higher-risk patients can be excluded.

That does not eliminate the risk. But it changes the policy question.

The real question is not: “Is ibogaine perfectly safe?” It obviously is not. The question is: “For patients with severe addiction, suicidality, PTSD, or treatment-resistant conditions, should carefully monitored clinical research and limited access pathways be available?”

Sabet himself did not fully reject Right to Try. He said that for desperate patients who have tried other options, he would not necessarily stand in the way. His concern was that the public rhetoric around ibogaine may be too celebratory.

That is a fair warning. But it is not an argument against the executive order. It is an argument for strict protocols, careful monitoring, transparent adverse-event reporting, and sober public messaging.

3. “Joe Rogan should not be setting drug policy”

Sabet also objected to the politics of the order. Joe Rogan reportedly played a role in pushing the issue onto Trump’s radar, and Sabet argued that drug policy should be determined by science, not podcasters, popularity, or political access.

On one level, I understand this concern. In an ideal world, medical policy would emerge from careful scientific review, not celebrity advocacy or Oval Office access. But that ideal world does not exist. Policy is always shaped by advocates, donors, patients, researchers, media figures, bureaucrats, and political coalitions.

The relevant question is not whether Rogan had influence. The question is whether the policy he influenced is scientifically reckless.

And on the substance, the order does not approve ibogaine because Joe Rogan likes it. It does not legalize psilocybin because podcasters talk about it. It directs agencies to accelerate research, review, and access pathways for compounds still subject to FDA evaluation. The White House order explicitly centers FDA review, Breakthrough Therapy designations, Right to Try pathways, and rescheduling only after successful clinical development. (The White House)

Matt’s point here was pragmatic: Rogan may have helped put the issue on the president’s radar, but what followed was not FDA approval by podcast. It was an administrative push to evaluate promising therapies more quickly.

I also pointed out that Rogan was not the sole force behind this. Advocates, veterans, researchers, and figures in the MAHA orbit had been pushing psychedelic research and access long before the Oval Office photo-op. Even Sabet conceded Rogan was not the only influence, though he thought Rogan may have been the tipping point.

Science still has to do the work. The data still have to be reviewed. The FDA still has to decide.

4. “This could become another marijuana or ketamine disaster”

Sabet’s broader fear is historical. America has a bad track record with drugs, medicine, and profit. Cannabis was sold as medical before the evidence justified many of the claims. Ketamine clinics exploded in a way that sometimes blurred therapy, consumer wellness, and profit-seeking. Matthew Perry’s death has become a symbol of how even medically useful drugs can be abused in poorly controlled systems.

This was probably Sabet’s most emotionally powerful argument: even if Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, and serious researchers intend to be responsible, systems can be captured. Give industry an inch, and it may take a mile.

Matt did not dismiss this. In fact, he agreed that bad actors will exist. If psychedelics are approved, some people will use them irresponsibly, some clinicians may act recklessly, and some entrepreneurs will try to exploit the field. He specifically warned about the risk of doctors becoming “gurus,” abusing spiritual authority, sleeping with patients, or fleecing vulnerable people.

But again, the answer is not paralysis. The answer is regulation.

This is where psychedelics may have an advantage over cannabis and off-label ketamine. FDA-approved psychedelics would almost certainly come with REMS — Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies — requiring administration in controlled clinical settings, screening, supervision, preparation, and post-session monitoring. Matt emphasized that these guardrails could prevent the “send it home” model that has plagued parts of the ketamine industry.

That is the key distinction. The executive order does not call for dispensary psychedelics. It does not call for at-home ibogaine. It does not call for casual recreational access. Properly implemented, it points toward a medical model: controlled, supervised, clinically evaluated, and restricted to serious conditions.

Critics are right to fear a psychedelic gold rush. But that is precisely why federal agencies should shape the field before underground markets, retreat centers, and loosely regulated clinics do.

5. “The field is full of hype, conflicts, and true believers”

Sabet repeatedly warned that psychedelic research is surrounded by conflicts of interest, Silicon Valley money, ideological zeal, and people who treat these drugs almost religiously. He worried that harms are being minimized and benefits exaggerated.

This is true enough to matter. Psychedelic culture has always attracted utopianism. Some advocates talk as if these compounds will heal trauma, end addiction, create enlightenment, transform politics, and usher in a new era of human consciousness.

Matt was blunt about this: he has met many people who have used psychedelics, but he has “never met an enlightened person.” He also rejected grand claims that psychedelics will produce a new age of universal healing or “net zero trauma.”

That kind of realism is exactly what the field needs. But it is also why Sabet’s critique misses its target. The best defenders of the executive order are not saying psychedelics will save humanity. They are saying that for certain conditions — depression, addiction, PTSD, end-of-life distress — there is enough signal to justify more rigorous trials, faster review, and carefully controlled access for desperate patients.

In fact, more federal research may reduce the influence of true believers. Matt argued that one benefit of facilitating research is that it brings more scientists into the field, including researchers without ideological or financial conflicts. More funding, more scrutiny, and more institutional involvement can widen the field beyond the early adopters and evangelists.

If Sabet is worried about psychedelic science being dominated by enthusiasts, the solution is not less science. It is more science.

The real disagreement

By the end of the conversation, the disagreement became clearer.

Sabet was not mainly objecting to the literal text of the executive order. He acknowledged that some parts — more research, limited Right to Try access, and careful study — are defensible. His deeper concern was cultural and institutional: that America’s addiction-for-profit machinery will transform promising medicines into another loosely regulated commercial drug market.

That concern should be taken seriously. Psychedelic advocates should not sneer at it. The movement has overpromised before. Bad actors exist. Vulnerable patients can be harmed. And ibogaine, in particular, requires intense caution.

But Sabet’s critique ultimately proves too much. If the standard is that a field must be free of hype, conflicts, imperfect studies, political advocacy, and commercial interests before the government can accelerate research, then almost no area of medicine would qualify. Oncology, obesity drugs, Alzheimer’s research, psychiatry — all are shaped by money, politics, urgency, patient desperation, and imperfect evidence.

The relevant standard is not purity. It is whether the government is preserving rigorous review while removing unnecessary barriers.

On that standard, the executive order is defensible. It does not declare psychedelics safe and effective by fiat. It does not bypass the FDA. It does not open the floodgates to recreational use. It says, in effect: these compounds may matter; the mental health crisis is severe; the existing treatment landscape is inadequate; and the federal government should move faster to find out what works.

That is not reckless. It is overdue.

The challenge now is implementation. If the administration uses this order to pressure regulators into ignoring adverse events, critics like Sabet will be vindicated. If companies exploit the moment to build a psychedelic version of the worst ketamine clinics, the backlash will be deserved. If advocates keep speaking in miracle-cure language, they will undermine the very science they claim to support.

But if the result is better trials, more careful access, stricter safety protocols, faster FDA review, and more options for people who have exhausted conventional treatments, then the executive order will be remembered not as a capitulation to drug culture, but as a serious course correction in American mental health policy.

The strongest case against the order is that we are moving too fast.

The stronger answer is that, for millions of suffering patients, we have been moving too slowly — and that urgency and rigor do not have to be enemies.

I Need Your Support!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully citizen-funded publication. Trips to Washington, D.C to cover important stories don’t happen without your support! If you value the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

This week Mark Cuban is in the centre of political news as he’s partnered with President Trump to try and lower drug prices. I know, this is an alliance I never saw coming given Cuban’s support for Kamala Harris in 2024. Coincidentally, this marks around a year since I debated Mark on my podcast and my team and I were preparing for a re-release this week. I released the podcast in two segments since the debate was on both DEI & Covid mandates.

It’s my most contentious & high-profile podcast to date so I wanted to re-release it in its full version together as one seamless episode.

In case you missed it last year or want to listen to it again in full, here you go:

Apple link

Spotify link

Time-stamps:

0:00 - Intro
02:29 — The Clash Begins
04:04 — Mark Cuban Defines DEI His Way
05:52 — “That’s Not What DEI Means!”
08:29 — Are Racial Quotas Real?
12:47 — Corporate Virtue Signalling Exposed
21:13 — Should Race Ever Matter in Hiring?
29:34 — Diversity vs. Meritocracy
48:04 — Do Companies Really Even Follow DEI?
57:42 — Does DEI Actually Work?
01:21:31 — Race-Based Goals vs Pure Merit-Based Hiring
01:36:45 — Final Thoughts and Common Ground
01:38:39 — Arora challenges Cuban on campus censorship
01:41:24 — Cuban on discrimination from both political sides
01:42:59 — Why Cuban required Mavericks staff vaccinations
01:43:57 — Arora disputes community benefit of mandates
01:52:57 — Cuban’s “herd immunity in three months” argument
02:05:02 — FDA internal disagreements over vaccine approval
02:05:31 — White House pressure and military mandates
02:25:00 — Comparing Covid and vaccine-induced myocarditis
02:36:23 — Infection fatality rate and serious adverse events

Watch the full video version of this debate on Trump’s psychedelic executive order.

Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, argues for caution around psychedelics, marijuana policy, commercial incentives, and overstated medical claims. Dr. Matt Johnson, a leading Johns Hopkins psychedelic researcher, speaks on the promise of psilocybin studies, addiction treatment, depression, safety protocols, and why accelerated research follows the evidence. The discussion also covers Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, ketamine clinics, MDMA, MAPS, cannabis rescheduling, veteran suicide, and the potential risks of turning experimental drugs into public policy too quickly.

Chapters:

0:00 - Intro

2:05 - Sabet’s Objection to Psychedelics

10:00 - Matt’s Disagreement with Sabet

13:15 - Psychedelic Research Quality

21:10 - Kevin’s Rebuttal

24:00 - Was Joe Rogan Wrong On Ibogaine’s Efficacy

32:50 - Ibogaine Safety Concerns

40:50 - Could The Executive Order Go Too Far

46:10 - Rescheduling and FDA Approval

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Spotify link

Apple link

(Available on all other platforms)

On today’s episode of the podcast, we have a vigorous debate on Trump’s new psychedelic executive order. Readers know my stance on this: I believe the advancement of psychedelic therapies will save lives and help people overcome depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, end-of-life distress, and a host of other conditions. I think Joe Rogan is a hero for getting the president to sign off on this. However, not everyone feels the same.

Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, argues for caution around psychedelics, marijuana policy, commercial incentives, and overstated medical claims. Dr. Matt Johnson, a leading Johns Hopkins psychedelic researcher, speaks on the promise of psilocybin studies, addiction treatment, depression, safety protocols, and why accelerated research follows the evidence. The discussion also covers Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, ketamine clinics, MDMA, MAPS, cannabis rescheduling, veteran suicide, and the potential risks of turning experimental drugs into public policy too quickly.

Chapters:

0:00 - Intro
2:05 - Sabet’s Objection to Psychedelics
10:00 - Matt’s Disagreement with Sabet
13:15 - Psychedelic Research Quality
21:10 - Kevin’s Rebuttal
24:00 - Was Joe Rogan Wrong On Ibogaine’s Efficacy
32:50 - Ibogaine Safety Concerns
40:50 - Could The Executive Order Go Too Far
46:10 - Rescheduling and FDA Approval

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

On April 18th, President Trump signed one of the most consequential federal actions on psychedelics in modern American history: an executive order to accelerate research, regulatory review, and access to psychedelic therapies for serious mental illness.

The order does not legalize psychedelics. It does not end prohibition. And it does not mean psilocybin, MDMA, ibogaine, or any other psychedelic therapy is suddenly available at your local clinic.

But it does something culturally and politically enormous: it signals that the federal government is no longer treating psychedelic medicine as a fringe curiosity or countercultural taboo. It is treating it as a legitimate frontier in mental health care.

The White House order directs the FDA to provide Commissioner’s National Priority Vouchers to appropriate psychedelic drugs that have received Breakthrough Therapy designation; instructs the FDA and DEA to establish a Right to Try pathway for eligible patients to access investigational psychedelic drugs, including ibogaine compounds; allocates at least $50 million through ARPA-H to support state-level psychedelic research programs; and directs federal agencies to prepare for faster rescheduling review once relevant products complete Phase 3 trials.

In plain English: the Trump administration is trying to speed up the pipeline, remove unnecessary bureaucratic drag, and prepare the federal government for the possibility that psychedelic therapies may soon receive FDA approval.

That is a massive shift.

When I spoke with Dr. Matt Johnson, one of the world’s leading psychedelic researchers and a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, he emphasized that the order is important not merely for its technical provisions, but for the signal it sends. As Matt put it, “probably the most important part of this executive order is the signal” that these pathways are going to be taken seriously and actually used.

For decades, psychedelic research was throttled by political stigma. The Nixon-era drug war did not merely criminalize a class of substances; it froze an entire field of psychiatric research that had shown promise before being buried under fear, ideology, and prohibition. That is why the scene in the Oval Office was so surreal: Joe Rogan, standing in the White House beside President Trump, RFK Jr., Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, Calley Means, Nora Volkow, veterans, researchers, and policymakers, talking openly about how psychedelics had been demonized for political reasons.

A Republican president presiding over the federal rehabilitation of psychedelics is a “Nixon goes to China” moment. A progressive administration could have advanced this cause, of course, but it would have been easier to dismiss as hippie-coded or predictably left-wing. When Trump does it, with veterans and conservative figures at the center of the story, the politics change.

That may be the secret sauce here: veterans.

As Matt Johnson argued in our conversation, the rise of psychedelic medicine inside Republican circles would likely not have happened without veterans — especially special operations veterans — sharing compelling stories about psychedelic therapies helping with PTSD, depression, addiction, traumatic brain injury, and suicidality. These are not Silicon Valley wellness enthusiasts trying to “optimize consciousness.” These are Navy SEALs and combat veterans saying, in effect: we are losing brothers every day, existing treatments are not enough, and these therapies may save lives.

That is hard for conservatives to ignore.

The executive order’s Right to Try provisions may be especially important in this regard. The order directs the FDA and DEA to establish a pathway for eligible patients to access investigational psychedelic drugs, including ibogaine compounds, under the Right to Try Act, while addressing the necessary Schedule I handling authorizations for physicians and researchers.

Matt’s view is that this should be developed into a serious experimental access program for veterans. Not a reckless free-for-all. Not “psychedelics at 7-Eleven.” But a medically supervised pathway where veterans who are at the end of their rope can choose, with informed consent, to try investigational therapies while researchers collect real-world data — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

His moral argument is simple: if we trusted these men and women at 18 to risk their lives and limbs in service of the country, we can trust them as adults to make an informed decision about experimental treatment when conventional care has failed.

That does not mean bypassing science. It means taking urgency seriously.

This distinction matters because critics are already trying to frame the EO as government-by-podcast: Joe Rogan texts Trump, Trump says yes, and suddenly psychedelics are fast-tracked. But that caricature misses the deeper story. Rogan may have helped put the issue on the president’s radar, but the policy rests on more than two decades of peer-reviewed research, FDA-recognized Breakthrough Therapy designations, veteran advocacy, clinical trials, and years of work by researchers like Matt Johnson and institutions like Johns Hopkins.

The FDA has already announced national priority vouchers for three psychedelic-related programs: psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression, psilocybin for major depressive disorder, and methylone for PTSD. The agency also allowed an early-phase clinical study of noribogaine hydrochloride to proceed after an IND submission, while emphasizing that this does not mean the drug has been approved or found safe and effective. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

That is the correct balance: urgency without pretending the science is finished.

The EO also addresses a crucial bottleneck that most people outside drug policy never think about: rescheduling. Even if the FDA approves a psychedelic therapy, the DEA still has to reschedule the substance before it can be prescribed and used in ordinary medical practice. That process can take months or longer. The White House fact sheet says the order directs the Attorney General to initiate reviews after successful completion of Phase 3 trials so rescheduling can happen as soon as possible upon FDA approval, where appropriate.

That may sound procedural, but it is potentially very significant. As Matt explained, FDA approval without DEA readiness could create an absurd limbo: a therapy is medically approved but still effectively blocked by controlled substances bureaucracy. The order tries to prevent that by telling agencies to prepare before the bottleneck hits.

Still, Matt was careful to emphasize what the order does not do.

It does not end federal prohibition. It does not decriminalize personal possession. It does not protect someone caught with mushrooms at a concert. It does not rewrite the Controlled Substances Act. That would require Congress.

This is where rhetoric matters. Some advocates have described the order as the end of psychedelic prohibition. Symbolically, I understand the sentiment. The president of the United States openly discussing psychedelics as a promising treatment for mental illness is a profound Overton window shift. But legally, prohibition remains intact. As Matt put it, “you wave your bag of mushrooms in front of the police station — you don’t want to do that.”

A better formulation is this: Trump’s EO may mark the beginning of the end of psychedelic prohibition.

That beginning is culturally powerful. At the White House event, Trump remarked that psychedelics used to be taboo, but now are not so taboo anymore. That may have been one of the most important lines of the whole event. When a sitting Republican president says, in effect, that it is now acceptable to talk about psychedelics, it gives permission to scientists, doctors, policymakers, donors, veterans, and even cautious political staffers to discuss the issue without fear of career destruction.

That changes everything.

The political coalition forming around this issue is also fascinating. Rogan played an obvious role. Calley Means appears to have been a key behind-the-scenes force. RFK Jr. has been openly supportive. Jay Bhattacharya, now at NIH, brings scientific seriousness and institutional credibility. Marty Makary at FDA brings a reform-oriented posture. Veterans like Marcus Capone and lawmakers like Morgan Luttrell give the movement moral force inside conservative politics.

And perhaps most surprisingly, right-of-center media figures who might once have been skeptical are now treating psychedelic medicine as a serious response to the mental health crisis. That does not mean all conservatives are on board. There will still be religious, cultural, and drug-war resistance. But the tone has shifted dramatically.

This is partly because the case for psychedelics is no longer being made primarily as a lifestyle argument. It is not “take mushrooms because they’re fun” or “legalize drugs because freedom.” It is: veterans are killing themselves, depression and addiction are devastating families, existing psychiatric treatments are insufficient for many patients, and early clinical research suggests these therapies may produce rapid and durable improvements for some people.

That is a much harder argument to dismiss.

Trump himself seemed to grasp the emotional and spiritual dimension of the issue. At one point, he mused that if these therapies work the way people say they do, maybe the world would have more love and gratitude. That may sound simplistic to some, but anyone who has experienced or studied psychedelic therapy understands the intuition. Many patients describe renewed appreciation for life, deeper self-compassion, emotional release, a greater sense of agency, and a reorientation toward love, gratitude, family, and meaning.

I have experienced versions of this myself in MDMA-assisted therapy. Sometimes the insight is not abstract or cosmic; it is painfully practical. You realize you are spending too much of your life in resentment, fear, ambition, Twitter, politics, or self-hatred. You see, with unusual clarity, that your inner life has been organized around wounds you no longer need to obey. That does not magically fix everything. But it can open a door.

The task now is to build a system that honors that possibility without surrendering to hype.

Psychedelics are powerful drugs. They can destabilize vulnerable people. They can be misused. They require screening, preparation, support, ethical safeguards, and serious clinical protocols. Matt Johnson was clear on this point: there is abuse potential, even if classic psychedelics do not appear to have the same addiction profile as alcohol, opioids, cocaine, tobacco, or cannabis. There are risks, especially for people predisposed to psychotic disorders. The answer is not panic or prohibition; it is intelligent regulation.

That is where the future battle lies.

The EO is a breakthrough, but it is not the endpoint. The next steps should be obvious: build a responsible Right to Try pathway for veterans and other high-need patients; fund rigorous clinical research; prepare the DEA for timely rescheduling after FDA approval; collect real-world evidence; protect patients from bad actors; and eventually overhaul the Controlled Substances Act so that psychedelic policy is based on relative risk, medical value, and public health rather than decades-old political panic.

For now, though, the significance of this moment should not be minimized. The federal government is finally beginning to reverse course on one of the great scientific casualties of the drug war.

A field once pushed underground is now being discussed in the Oval Office.

That does not mean prohibition is over. But it does mean the taboo is breaking. And once a taboo breaks, political change becomes possible.

I Need Your Support!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully citizen-funded publication. Trips to Washington, D.C to cover important stories don’t happen without your support! If you value the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Before the recent psychedelic executive order, there was a quieter effort happening behind the scenes.

In this clip, I talk with Dr. Matt Johnson about a policy reform proposal we wrote ahead of the 2024 election—laying out a roadmap for how a future administration could expand access to psychedelic therapies, accelerate FDA approvals, and prioritize treatment for veterans struggling with PTSD, addiction, and depression.

We originally wrote the proposal without knowing who would win. Joe Rogan was kind enough to blast it on X for us at the time, attracting over 1.5 million views. After the election, we updated it directly for the incoming Trump administration—addressing key figures like RFK Jr., JD Vance, and others shaping health policy. We even met with Calley Means — a pivotal figure in this all behind-the-scenes — after the election and he was in full support of our vision.

The goal was simple: take what had been decades of promising research and translate it into real-world access.

As Matt explains in this conversation, meaningful change doesn’t happen from research alone—it requires people across science, media, and government playing their roles.

Now, with a historic executive order in place, it raises an interesting question:

How much of this moment was the result of long-term groundwork—and how much came down to the right ideas reaching the right people at the right time?

Watch the full clip now.

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

In this 5-minute clip, Tracey breaks down the controversy of Dave Smith’s comments on the Jeffrey Epstein story and examines how rhetoric, accountability, and influence intersect in today’s podcast ecosystem. He then alleges Dave Smith said it would be justifiable if people felt called to kill him for his Epstein coverage.

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the original, fearless journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

In this fiery 12-minute clip, Michael Tracey and Curt Mills debate Trump, Netanyahu, and the Iran conflict alongside the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. This in-depth discussion explores US foreign policy, intelligence links, and how media narratives shape public understanding of global power.

I Need Your Support!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully citizen-funded publication. Trips to Washington, D.C to cover important stories don’t happen without your support! If you value the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Watch this new clip wherein Michael Tracey — who has been especially visible in the media discourse due to his conflict with Jim Acosta — reacts to Sam Harris’ insinuation in a recent podcast with Coleman Hughes that Michael’s Epstein Coverage may be motivated by ulterior motives.

I Need Your Support!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully citizen-funded publication. Trips to Washington, D.C to cover important stories don’t happen without your support! If you value the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Psychedelic Research and Policy

06:42 Perspectives o…

Read more

World-renowned psychedelic researcher Dr. Matt Johnson joins the Illusion of Consensus podcast to break down this past weekend’s Trump admin psychedelic executive order and what it means for FDA approvals, rescheduling, and veteran access to therapies. As a leading Johns Hopkins University psychiatry professor, Dr Matt Johnson shares insights from decades of research into psilocybin, addiction treatment, depression, and end-of-life care. The discussion covers the political shift driven by figures like Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alongside the growing bipartisan support for psychedelic science. Key topics include breakthrough therapy designations, right-to-try pathways, ibogaine research, and the real-world implications for mental health and veteran suicide prevention.

YouTube link

(Also available on Spotify, Apple)

Chapters:

[0:00] Intro
[2:30] Joe Rogan Bashing Nixon
[5:20] Rav and Matt’s Proposal
[9:40] Calley Means’ Pivotal Role
[13:40] Matt Johnson Reacts To The News
[18:36] The DEA Bottleneck Problem
[23:20] Real Risks of Psychedelics
[32:19] Right to Try for Veterans
[34:37] Jay Bhattacharya & Trump dialogue
[39:40] Jealousy for Rogan
[43:51] Do Psychedelics Improve Lives?
[49:55] Next Steps for Trump Admin
[53:42] End of Psychedelic Prohibition?

I Need Your Support!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully citizen-funded publication. Trips to Washington, D.C to cover important stories don’t happen without your support! If you value the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.