> n=1

> pay to publish journal

> no clear Alzheimers diagnosis ("[...] were considered clinically most compatible with advanced Alzheimer’s disease")

> administration of a heroic dose of street-quality drugs vs. a controlled sample

> no university or hospital affiliation?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, hence I remain skeptical

I think it’s funny to describe a drug as “street-quality” while using a slang term “heroic dose” in the same sentence.

It’s a single case study so obviously take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field. A field mind you, that has made a little to no progress in decades. Arguments could be made they’ve made some errors and went down the wrong path. It’s a field that could probably use some new ideas.

That's fair, but research into psychoactive substances remains difficult due to legal constraints; N=1 but it will have piqued interest by others, they may want to repeat the tests on a larger scale.

That, or individuals will science on the ones they care for. I for one would write something like that down if I were to start developing dementia/alzheimers.

Not only that but the author has appeared on Joe Rogan - that tells me all I need to know.

Good criticism but be aware that acreditated authors and institutions are a bunch of crooks on the whole who cook their results, do p-hacking to the death, badly document their protocols, don't release their datasets not their analysis, and have no problems getting paid by big pharma and not disclosing it fully. The field is more joke than science at this stage.