I agree my reply would be improved if reframed to be less cross-examining, particularly given I was responding to two different comments at once. That said, the substance I raised is around services that were shared, and something a business owner in the mental health field can be fairly expected to receive feedback on.

I have benefited from psychedelics. I have also spent a lot of time with many survivors of severe domestic abuse / IPV / coercive control. Inducing psychedelic states in a workplace context in general would give me pause, but particularly so since it is likely to involve this population. The lifetime prevalence for US women is about 25%[1], and 10% for men[2], so this is a live issue in a workplace of any size.

I disagree that it's reasonable to expect readers to fully assess these service offerings. Issues around informed consent when doing psychological/spiritual work are complex and benefit from many perspectives. This is one of the reasons mental health is a regulated industry, with strict rules around client relationships, and ongoing ethics classes required to maintain licensure. If this were a piece of software impacting human health and I saw such potential technical issues, I would raise those as well.

I don’t believe this person is a fraud, and did not intend to give the impression I did. They are navigating a difficult and undeveloped regulatory landscape. There may be some social nuance I am missing, and I'm hoping this context improves the discussion.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02664-7/full... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate...

Thanks for the reply. I completely agree this topic in which caution and rigour is necessary and I appreciate you expanding on your thoughts about that.

My main concern was the cross-examining style of your original comment and it seems like you accept that the comment could have been better in that regard. Many thanks.