Hofmann vs. Paracelsus: Do Psychedelics Defy the Basics of Toxicology?-A Systematic Review of the Main Ergolamines, Simple Tryptamines, and Phenylethylamines
A PRISMA-guided systematic review of ergolamines, simple tryptamines and phenylethylamines (33 studies from 3,032 records) finds that classic psychedelics are active at very low doses, non‑addictive and generally only harmful at extremely high doses, with no established lethal dose for LSD or psilocybin. MDMA appears to carry the greatest apparent toxicity—likely confounded by recreational misuse—and the authors emphasise that risk is strongly modulated by set and setting.
Authors
- Henríquez-Hernández, L. A.
- Rojas-Hernández, J.
- Quintana-Hernández, D. J.
Published
Abstract
Psychedelics are experiencing a strong renaissance and will soon be incorporated into clinical practice. However, there is uncertainty about how much harm they can cause at what doses. This review aimed to collect information on the health-hazardous doses of psychedelic substances, to be aware of the risks to which patients may be subjected. We focused on ergolamines, simple tryptamines, and phenylethylamines. We reviewed articles published in major medical and scientific databases. Studies reporting toxic or lethal doses in humans and animals were included. We followed PRISMA criteria for revisions. We identified 3032 manuscripts for inclusion. Of these, 33 were ultimately useful and gave relevant information about effects associated with high psychedelics doses. Despite having different molecular structures and different mechanisms of action, psychedelics are effective at very low doses, are not addictive, and are harmful at extremely high doses. For LSD and psilocybin, no dose has been established above which the lives of users are endangered. In contrast, MDMA appears to be the most dangerous substance, although reports are biased by recreational missuses. It seems that it is not only the dose that makes the poison. In the case of psychedelics, the set and setting make the poison.
Research Summary of 'Hofmann vs. Paracelsus: Do Psychedelics Defy the Basics of Toxicology?-A Systematic Review of the Main Ergolamines, Simple Tryptamines, and Phenylethylamines'
Introduction
Henríquez-Hernández and colleagues situate their work in the context of a renewed scientific and clinical interest in psychedelics amid rising mental-health needs. They note longstanding uncertainty about how toxic these compounds are at high doses and question whether classical toxicology—captured by Paracelsus' maxim that “the dose makes the poison”—applies to psychedelics. The Introduction emphasises gaps in basic pharmacology and toxicology knowledge (mechanisms of action, metabolic pathways, and pharmacogenetic influences) that are important for safe therapeutic use and forensic interpretation. The stated aim of the review is to identify and synthesise evidence on toxic and lethal doses for three groups of psychedelics—ergolamines (e.g. LSD), simple tryptamines (e.g. psilocybin), and phenylethylamines (e.g. mescaline and MDMA)—so as to clarify safety margins and the circumstances in which harm occurs. The authors frame this as a systematic attempt to determine whether these substances conform to classical dose–toxicity relationships and to highlight areas where further basic research is required.
Expert Research Summaries
Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.
Full Text PDF
Full Paper PDF
Pro members can view the original manuscript directly in the browser.
Study Details
- Study Typemeta
- Journal
- Compounds
- Topics
- APA Citation
Henríquez-Hernández, L., Rojas-Hernández, J., Quintana-Hernández, D., & Borkel, L. (2023). Hofmann vs. Paracelsus: Do Psychedelics Defy the Basics of Toxicology?-A Systematic Review of the Main Ergolamines, Simple Tryptamines, and Phenylethylamines. Toxics, 11(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020148
References (13)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Nichols, D. E., Grob, C. S. · Forensic Science International (2018)
Liechti, M. E. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2017)
Dolder, P. C., Schmid, Y., Haschke, M. et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2015)
Dolder, P. C., Schmid, Y., Steuer, A. E. et al. · Clinical Pharmacokinetics (2017)
Haden, M., Woods, B. · Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2020)
Holze, F., Caluori, T. V., Vizeli, P. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2021)
Holze, F., Vizeli, P., Ley, L. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Passie, T., Benzenhöfer, U. · Drug Testing and Analysis (2017)
Greer, G. R. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (1986)
Neil, J. C., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Show all 13 referencesShow fewer
Halpern, J. H., Sherwood, A. R., Hudson, J. I. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2005)
Van Amsterdam, J., Opperhuizen, A., Van Den Brink, W. · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (2011)
Rootman, J. M., Kiraga, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Cited By (4)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Saha, D., Singh, A., Vaidya, V. A. et al. · ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2024)
Borkel, L. F., Rojas-Hernández, J., Henríquez-Hernández, L. A. et al. · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2023)
Card, K. G., Grewal, A., Closson, K. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2023)
Turkia, M. · Psyarxiv (2023)
Your Personal Research Library
Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.