In a naturalistic cohort of 772 survivors of the October 7 Supernova festival attack, participants who were under the influence of MDMA during the trauma reported lower psychological distress, fewer PTSD symptoms, greater social interaction and better sleep in the one to four months post-attack compared with those who were sober, whereas cannabis and/or alcohol use was associated with worse outcomes. These novel findings suggest a putative protective role for MDMA during the peritraumatic period and warrant mechanistic and longitudinal investigation.
Traumatic events play a causal role in the etiology of stress-related psychopathologies such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recent research highlighted the therapeutic potential of psychoactive substances in alleviating trauma symptoms among chronic stress-related patients. This study is the first to investigate the impact of psychoactive substances consumed during actual trauma exposure. Our cohort includes 772 adult survivors (487 males, Mean±SD Age: 26.96±6.55) of the high-casualty attack that occurred at the Supernova festival in Israel on October 7th, 2023. Survivors completed the study during the peritraumatic period of one to four months following the attack. Primary outcomes include the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), and a self-reported rating of feeling overwhelmed. Secondary outcomes include subjective experiences during the attack and reports on social interactions and sleep quality. All survivors reported being in direct danger of death during the attack. Approximately two-thirds of the sampled survivors were under the influence of psychoactive substances at the time of the attack, including LSD, MDMA, Ketamine, Cannabis, and Alcohol, creating a tragic and unique natural experiment to study the impact of psychoactive compounds on trauma processing. Analysis revealed that participants that were under the influence of MDMA during the attack (n=99) reported feeling less overwhelmed, having more social interactions, improved sleep quality, and reduced psychological distress compared to those not under the influence of any substance during the attack (n=216). In contrast, those consuming Cannabis and/or Alcohol during the attack (n=68) showed higher psychological distress, more PTSD symptoms, and worse sleep quality compared to those not under the influence of any substance during the attack. Together, these novel findings suggest that trauma exposure under the influence of MDMA is associated with reduced psychological distress and higher sociality, possibly mediated through MDMA’s known effects of reducing negative emotions and elevating prosociality, while Cannabis and/or Alcohol consumption produces deleterious effects. Further research is needed to explore the cognitive and physiological mechanisms linking psychoactive substances to trauma recovery and establish the putative protective role of MDMA.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2021)
Krediet, E., Bostoen, T., Breeksema, J. J. et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Mitchell, J., Ot’alora G, M., van der Kolk, B. et al. · Nature Medicine (2023)
Bershad, A. K., Miller, M. A., Baggot, M. J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Netzer and colleagues frame the study within the well‑established observation that exposure to traumatic events (TEs) can precipitate disorders such as PTSD and depression, and that individuals vary markedly in their acute physiological, cognitive and emotional responses to trauma. Recent work has highlighted the therapeutic promise of psychoactive compounds, particularly MDMA‑assisted psychotherapy for chronic PTSD; however, almost nothing is known about outcomes when severe trauma is experienced while a person is acutely under the influence of psychoactive substances. The investigators capitalised on a tragic natural experiment: the October 7th 2023 terror attack at the Supernova music festival in Israel, where many attendees were under the influence of psychoactive drugs when the mass trauma unfolded. The study set out to examine how substance use at the time of the attack related to subjective experiences during the TE, peritraumatic processing in the following weeks, and early clinical state (mental distress and PTSD symptom severity) assessed four to twelve weeks post‑event. The focus was especially on MDMA because of its known prosocial and fear‑reducing properties and its therapeutic relevance for PTSD.
This was an observational, cross‑sectional analysis nested within an ongoing longitudinal study of survivors from the Supernova attack. The sample comprised 657 adult survivors (406 males; mean age 27.03 ± 6.65) recruited via a survivor support NGO, social media groups and word‑of‑mouth. Data were collected through an anonymous online Qualtrics survey between 26 and 88 days after the event (2 November 2023 to 3 January 2024). Informed consent and institutional ethics approval were obtained. Participants provided demographics and indicated objective exposure metrics (threat to life, personal injuries, harm to loved ones). They reported substances used during the TE (type, quantity, timing relative to the attack, perceived intensity) and rated subjective experiences during the event (feelings of control, isolation, and whether the substance was helpful). Peritraumatic processing measures included perceived social support, social interactions, guilt and sleep quality since the TE; ratings used 0–100 scales with higher scores indicating more extreme manifestations. Current clinical state was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), the PCL‑5 for PTSD symptom severity, and a single 0–100 item on being overwhelmed. Additional questions probed prior trauma, psychiatric/neurological diagnoses, medications, return to work and prior substance experience. Participants were classified into substance groups based on the substance they reported being under at the time of the attack: Hallucinogenic (e.g. psilocybin, LSD), MDMA (MDMA/Ecstasy), Stimulants (cocaine/amphetamines), Light substances (cannabis and/or alcohol), Other (e.g. ketamine, PCP) and No‑Use. The relatively small and heterogeneous Other group (2.6% of sample) was excluded from main analyses; the investigators also stated that analysis of the Hallucinogenic group was beyond the current manuscript's scope. Statistical analyses comprised one‑way ANOVAs to test group differences in substance effects during the TE, peritraumatic processing and current clinical state, with planned one‑tailed t‑test contrasts focused on MDMA versus other groups. Proportion differences were tested with partial chi‑square tests. Multiple comparisons were controlled using False Discovery Rate (FDR). The team also calculated Relative Risk (RR) to compare the probability of attaining predefined favourable outcomes in the MDMA group versus No‑Use, and performed exploratory correlational analyses reporting correlations with p<0.05 and |r|>0.3. The extracted text does not detail certain procedural specifics (for example, thresholds used to define favourable outcomes), nor are full model specifications provided.
Exposure and sample characteristics: All 657 respondents reported direct exposure to life‑threatening events during the attack (100%), 83% witnessed dead or injured individuals, 79% reported loved ones were murdered and 68% reported loved ones were injured; thus all met DSM‑5 Criterion A for PTSD. Substance use during the event: Sixty‑eight percent (n=448) reported consuming at least one substance during the festival. MDMA was the single most commonly reported substance (26.8%), followed by Hallucinogenics (22.9%), light substances (9.0%), stimulants (6.9%) and other substances (2.6%). The No‑Use group comprised 31.8% of participants. Polysubstance use was common, typically involving cannabis or alcohol alongside MDMA or hallucinogens. Most consumption occurred within three hours prior to the attack (74.2%), and participants generally reported being strongly under the influence at the time. Group comparability and demographics: The investigators report a statistically significant difference in sex distribution across substance groups (chi‑square p = 0.03), but no post‑hoc pairwise differences survived correction, and there were no between‑group differences in time from the TE to survey completion (F(3,485)=1.41, p=0.24). Perceived effects during the TE: A statistically significant group difference emerged in ratings of whether the substance assisted during the TE (F(2,277)=4.19, p=0.016, partial η2=0.03). Participants in the MDMA group rated the substance as more helpful (68.12 ± 31.43) than those in the Light group (58.64 ± 32.96); this contrast remained significant after adjustment (p_adj = 0.015). No significant group differences were observed for self‑reported feelings of control or isolation during the TE. Peritraumatic processing and clinical state: Although parts of the results section in the extracted text are truncated, the manuscript reports that MDMA use was associated with improved peritraumatic processing measures compared with other groups. Specifically, survivors who consumed MDMA reported greater perceived social support, more social interactions, and better subjective sleep quality during the one to three months after the event. Clinically, the MDMA group showed lower ratings of being overwhelmed, reduced mental distress and lower PTSD symptom severity in the peritraumatic period compared to participants who did not use MDMA. The authors note that MDMA users showed increased social interactions and support not only versus cannabis/alcohol users but also versus the No‑Use group. Relative risk and correlations: The team defined favourable outcomes by thresholds on the measured scales and found that MDMA users had the highest probability of favourable outcomes; subsequent RR computations comparing MDMA to other groups reportedly favoured MDMA. Exact RR values and thresholds are not provided in the extracted text. Exploratory correlational analyses are reported as statistically significant with |r|>0.3 and p<0.05 prior to multiple‑comparison adjustment, but the extraction does not include the full correlation matrix or specific coefficients. Clinical severity: The mean PCL‑5 score across the sample was 40.88 ± 15.42, which the authors state is above common clinical cutoffs for probable PTSD, indicating substantial symptom burden in the cohort. The extracted results are incomplete in places (figures, some tables and parts of the peritraumatic processing statistics are not fully present), so precise numerical comparisons for several outcomes cannot be reported from the provided text.
Netzer and colleagues interpret their findings as initial evidence that MDMA consumed at the time of an extreme traumatic event may be associated with protective effects during the peritraumatic period. Survivors who reported MDMA use described the substance as having assisted them during the TE and, importantly, exhibited better peritraumatic social processing (more social interactions and greater perceived support), superior subjective sleep quality and lower early clinical symptomatology (less overwhelm, lower mental distress and reduced PCL‑5 scores) one to three months afterwards compared with other substance groups and with those who did not use substances. The authors relate these observations to known pharmacological and behavioural effects of MDMA — notably its prosocial and fear‑reducing properties — and to findings from MDMA‑assisted psychotherapy for PTSD, where enhanced social engagement and reduced threat responses are proposed mediators of therapeutic benefit. Improved sleep is also highlighted as a potential mechanistic contributor, given sleep disturbance’s recognised role in consolidating traumatic memories and its causal links to post‑traumatic psychopathology. The investigators are cautious about causal inference, emphasising the limitations inherent to natural experiments: absence of randomisation and control over confounders, survivor bias (deaths and missing data from non‑survivors), and potential selection bias if those with severe symptoms were less likely to participate. They also note that the present data pertain only to the peritraumatic period, and that PTSD symptom trajectories may evolve over time; the results therefore do not represent the final clinical outcome. The authors acknowledge that some analytic details and full numerical results (for example RR values and some peritraumatic statistics) are not fully presented in the extracted text. Finally, they frame this report as a first set of findings from an ongoing longitudinal effort designed to elucidate cognitive, physiological and neural mechanisms that might underlie the putative protective effects of MDMA, and suggest these observations warrant further investigation rather than definitive clinical conclusions.
A traumatic event (TE) is defined as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. TEs are known to cause acute physiological, cognitive, and emotional responses, and to play a critical causal role in the etiology of psychopathologies such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Psychophysiological research revealed pronounced heterogeneity in the processing of TEs and their impact on individuals' overall functioning and mental health. While most individuals show formidable mental resilience even after encountering dramatic TEs, others may develop chronic and debilitating psychopathologies. Trauma-related psychopathologies are notoriously difficult to treat and pharmacotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic interventions have shown limited efficacy thus far. Recent research has focused on how psychoactive substances such as psychedelics and empathogens may assist in the treatment of PTSD and depression. Among these psychoactive compounds, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) assisted psychotherapy has received substantial attention due to its impressive efficacy in the treatment of chronic PTSD, granting it a "breakthrough therapy" status by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MDMA is a monoamine releaser that induces the release of presynaptic serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] as well as dopamine and norepinephrine. Though the exact mechanisms through which its psychopharmacological effects yield increased therapeutic effectiveness are not entirely clear, it was suggested that MDMA facilitates the treatment of PTSD by reducing sensations of fear and threat and inducing prosocial feelings. On October 7 th 2023, the Supernova music festival was one of the main targets of a surprise large-scale terror attack launched on Israel. Out of 3,500 festival attendees, over 360 participants were slaughtered, and dozens were kidnapped to Gaza as hostages. The survivors, fleeing the festival grounds, experienced and witnessed acute, life-threatening traumatic events for an extended duration (footage of the attack can be viewed here). Critically, many festival attendees were under the influence of mindaltering psychoactive substances during the attack. This is an unprecedented event, in which horrific mass trauma was experienced while in altered states of consciousness. As far as we know, there is no previous knowledge of the immediate or long-term consequences of trauma that is experienced under psychedelics. Studying the survivors of this tragic natural experiment could provide novel insights on how trauma is acutely experienced under psychedelics, and how this may impact the processing of trauma in the peritraumatic period and determine clinical outcomes. Here we report first results from an ongoing, large-scale, longitudinal study examining the impact of psychoactive substances on the experience and processing of traumatic events. We investigated a large cohort (n=657) of survivors of the Supernova music festival, assessing their experiences during the trauma itself as well as their processing of the traumatic events during the peritraumatic period four to twelve weeks following the event. Moreover, we collected data regarding mental distress and PTSD symptom severity during the peritraumatic period, as putative predictors of subsequent trauma psychopathology trajectories.
The study cohort consisted of six hundred fifty-seven (n=657) adults (406 males, Mean±SD Age: 27.03 ± 6.65), who survived the October 7 th , 2023, attack at the Supernova music festival. These individuals were identified and recruited through a combination of methods, including a collaboration with "Safeheart" a nonprofit organization (NGO) supporting survivors, word-of-mouth among friends who survived the attack together, and via survivor support groups on social media platforms. Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants. All procedures were performed in compliance with the institutional guidelines of the University of Haifa and have been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (approval no. 374/23). Data collection: Participant responses were collected from November 2 nd , 2023, to January 3 rd , 2024, a period extending from 26 to 88 days following the TE. This timeframe was selected to capture the acute and immediate reactions of survivors, thereby providing a snapshot of their initial state. Collecting data in this time window was critical in ensuring the analyses of peritraumatic processes, providing a comprehensive understanding of the survivors' psychological states in the aftermath of the traumatic experience. During this period, eligible participants were contacted via telephone, text message, email, or social media platforms, based on contact information provided by the participants during the initial recruitment stage. The survey instrument was hosted on the Qualtrics platform, a secure online system that allows for anonymous and confidential submission of responses. Survey Design: Several constructs pertinent to the TE and its subsequent processing were collected. These constructs were categorized into three distinct time frames: constructs related to the subjective experiences during the TE itself, constructs relevant to trauma processing in the peritraumatic period following the TE, and current clinical state (Fig.). Participants first provided basic demographic details, including age and sex. They then were queried about their level of exposure to the threat of death, personal injuries sustained, and harm to loved ones. Next, participants were inquired regarding substance use during TE, including the type and quantity of substances used, timing of consumption relative to the TE, and the perceived intensity of the substance's effects at the onset of the attack. Constructs related to the subjective experiences during the TE included feelings of control and isolation, as well as the potential helpfulness of substances taken. Post-event measures relevant to peritraumatic processing encompassed social support, social interactions, guilt feelings, and sleep quality since the TE and up to date. Participants rated these constructs on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the most extreme manifestation of the construct (e.g., optimal sleep quality or extreme guilt). Finally, established psychometric instruments were utilized to measure current clinical state. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6)and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)assessed current levels of mental distress and PTSD symptom severity, respectively. Participants also rated their current level of being overwhelmed (on a scale from 0 to 100). Additional data were collected to control for potential confounding variables. Questions targeted the receipt of psychological aid pre-and post-TE, prior trauma experiences, existing psychiatric or neurological diagnoses, chronic medication usage, return to work status post-TE, and prior experience with psychoactive substances. Supplementary Tableprovides a detailed account of these questionnaires. Analytical Approach: Participants were categorized into substance groups based on the substance that they reported being under its influence during the attack: Hallucinogenic (e.g., psilocybin and LSD), MDMA (i.e., MDMA and Ecstasy), Stimulants (e.g., cocaine and amphetamines), light substances (Light, i.e., cannabis and/or alcohol), other substances (Other, e.g., Ketamine, PCP), and a No-Use group (participants not under the influence of any substance). As the phenomenological and pharmacological effects of the Other substances group are highly variable and given that the group was relatively small (2.6% of the entire sample), this group was excluded from the main analyses. Analyzing the peritraumatic processing of the Hallucinogenic group is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. One-way ANOVAs were implemented to assess putative differences between groups with respect to (A) the effects of substances during trauma exposure, (B) the effects of substances on peritraumatic processing, and (C) the effects of substances on current clinical state. We focused on the impact of MDMA given its putative efficacy in treatment of PTSD. Therefore, planned contrasts (one-tailed t-tests) were implemented to investigate if participants in the MDMA group had improved measures compared to the other substance groups. Partial Chi-square tests were implemented to test for differences in proportions between groups. Multiple comparisons were corrected using False Discovery Rate (FDR) (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Additionally, a Relative Risk (RR) assessment was employed to quantify the impact of substance use during the event on the probability of obtaining favorable outcomes. RR is a measure of the probability ratio of an outcome in the "treatment" group (i.e., MDMA) relative to a control group (i.e., No-Use). This metric thus elucidates the ratio between the probability of an individual in the MDMA group to show a positive outcome compared to that of an individual who did not use any substance during the TE. RR scores above 1 indicate better outcomes in the MDMA group and an RR of 1 suggests no difference between groups. Finally, an exploratory correlational analysis was conducted to elucidate the relationships between the study constructs. All correlations reported were statistically significant with p-values below 0.05 before adjusting for multiple comparisons and exceeded a threshold of r=0.3, either positively or negatively.
Trauma exposure across participants: Among the 657 survivors who completed the survey, the magnitude of exposure to trauma was universally high. Specifically, all participants (100%) reported direct exposure to a sequence of life-threatening events during the terror attack, underscoring the severe and immediate threat to their lives. Furthermore, a significant majority (83%) reported witnessing dead or injured individuals during the attack, 79% reported their loved ones were murdered and 68% reported that loved ones were injured. Critically, all participants met Criterion A for PTSD as in DSM-5. Substance use during trauma exposure: Sixty-eight percent (n=448) of survivors reported consuming at least one substance during the festival. MDMA was the most commonly used substance with 26.8% of individuals reporting consuming it during the party, followed by Hallucinogenic (22.9%), light substances (9.0%), stimulants (6.9%) and other substances (2.6%) (Fig.). Slightly less than a third of the study cohort (31.8%) reported no substance use (No-Use group). Multi-substance use was common, most typically with survivors reporting consumption of cannabis or alcohol in addition to Hallucinogenics or MDMA. For a detailed report of all substance combinations see Supplementary Methods. Most individuals (74.2%) consumed the substance within three hours prior to the attack (Fig.), presumably to obtain peak effects of the substances during sunrise. Accordingly, individuals across substance groups reported being strongly under the influence of the different substances when the different age demographics. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a significant difference in sex distribution between groups (𝜒 𝑝 2 = 8.96, 𝑝 = 0.03). However, no post-hoc comparisons were significant after correction for multiple comparisons implying that while sex may have played a role in the choice of substance, its impact was not substantial. No differences between groups were found in the time that passed from the TE until the survey completion date (𝐹(3,485) = 1.41, 𝑝 = 0.24, Fig.). Effects of substance during trauma exposure: Regarding the perceived influence of the substance during the TE (Fig.), we found a significant difference between groups (𝐹(2,277) = 4.19, 𝑝 = 0.016, 𝜂 𝑝 2 = 0.03). Specifically, individuals in the MDMA group felt that the substance provided more assistance during the TE (68.12 ± 31.43) compared to the Light group (58.64 ± 32.96) (𝑝 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 0.015). Contrary to expectations, no significant differences were found between groups in judgments regarding feelings of control (𝐹(3,485) = 0.57, 𝑝 = 0.63) or feelings of isolation ((3,485) = 0.22, 𝑝 = 0.88,) during the TE (Fig.). Effects of substance on peritraumatic processing: Regarding constructs related to the processing of trauma following the TE, several significant differences emerged between substance groups. The feeling of support from friends and family was overall high (Fig.) and differed significantly between groups (𝐹(
The probability of participants in each substance group to achieve a favorable outcome was operationally defined as the ratio of participants in each group depicting a score above the designated threshold for a positive outcome or below the threshold for clinical status. Analysis of the probabilities across these measures revealed that participants who were under the influence of MDMA at the time of the attack had the highest likelihood of obtaining favorable outcomes (Figure). Subsequent RR computations comparing the MDMA
The attack on Oct 7 th , 2023, targeting the Supernova music festival, allowed for the first time ever, to investigate the impact of different psychoactive substances consumed during extreme trauma on the subsequent processing of the trauma and its clinical consequences. Our results show a previously unreported effect by which survivors of a mass trauma event that experienced the trauma under the influence of MDMA exhibit enhanced coping across several clinical and subjective measures. Survivors who consumed MDMA reported that the substance assisted them during the TE compared to survivors who consumed alcohol and cannabis. Anecdotal reports from these survivors suggest that the substance may have endowed them with energy to run further and faster during the attack, in line with the known energizing effects of MDMA. These reports also suggest beneficial effects of MDMA during the trauma that were expressed by reduced sensations of fear and threat while the event unfolded. Whether or not directly connected to its immediate effects during the TE, MDMA was also associated with improved processing during the peritraumatic period. Survivors who consumed MDMA during the TE reported feeling more social support, more social interactions, and better sleep quality one to three months subsequent to the event. Interestingly, survivors from the MDMA group exhibited increased social interactions and enhanced feelings of social support not only compared to participants who consumed cannabis and alcohol, but also compared to participants who did not consume any substance during the event. These findings are in line with the welldocumented prosocial effects of MDMA in both animals and humans. Studies investigating MDMA-assisted psychotherapy suggested an important role for the prosocial effects of MDMA in its therapeutic efficacy. This in turn may relate to the improved clinical state that participants reported in the peritraumatic period, subsequent to their consumption of MDMA during the TE. Specifically, participants in the MDMA group exhibited reduced feelings of overwhelmingness as well as lower mental distress and less severe PTSD symptoms one to three months following the trauma, compared to participants who did not consume MDMA during the TE. Another construct that may have been impacted by MDMA is sleep. Survivors who consumed MDMA during the TE reported having better subjective sleep quality over the subsequent one to three months compared to all other groups. Sleep quality is known to be impaired in the aftermath of trauma and this impairment is considered to not only represent a symptom of trauma exposure, but to play a causal role in the formation of post-traumatic psychopathologies. Hence, improved sleep quality in the peritraumatic period may have contributed to the overall improved clinical state reported by participants in the MDMA group. Taken together, our results show that psychoactive compounds impact the acute experience of TE as well as their processing during the peritraumatic period. Survivors who experienced this extreme trauma while under the effects of MDMA showed improved trauma processing in the peritraumatic period and a better clinical state. This novel finding, showing a putative protective effect of MDMA, is in line with theoretical and empirical accounts of the therapeutic effect of MDMA for PTSD treatment. The current protocols for MDMA-assisted psychotherapy suggest that re-experiencing the traumatic events in a safe setting while experiencing the prosocial and fear-reducing effects of MDMA may enhance the benefits of psychotherapy for PTSD. Our results show that experiencing trauma under the influence of MDMA, in a horrific setting, may reduce harmful effects during the peritraumatic period. These preliminary results suggest that the better clinical presentation during the peritraumatic period may stem from enhanced social processing after the events. Participants in the MDMA group showed strikingly better social coping measures in the aftermath of the event which in turn were negatively correlated with their clinical ratings. Moreover, no differences in sociality ratings during the event were found, suggesting that this effect may have manifested more strongly after, rather than during the TE. Thus, while MDMA was felt to have assisted participants during the TE through increased levels of alertness and energy similarly to stimulants, the prosocial and fear-reducing aspects of MDMA may drive the improved clinical state of the survivors over time. While considering these novel insights it is important to acknowledge that, as in all natural experiments, we have no control over numerous additional factors that might have impacted participants' perception during the event and its subsequent processing. Moreover, current results pertain to the peritraumatic period. Hence, while PTSD symptom severity during the peritraumatic period is predictive of post-traumatic psychopathology, results do not reflect the full clinical picture that has yet to stabilize at this moment in time. Finally, we have to consider possible biases in the data. First, a clear survivor bias as we cannot collect data from the many people who did not survive the attack. Second, as in most studies, it is possible that survivors showing more severe symptoms are underrepresented in our sample. We note however that the mean PCL score in our sample across substance groups (40.88 ± 15.42) is well above the clinical cutoff suggesting that our cohort is experiencing substantial PTSD symptoms. In summary, this tragic natural experiment enabled us to provide the first-ever investigation of how different psychoactive substances impact the processing of trauma during the trauma as well as in the peritraumatic period. Our results show that participants who consumed MDMA during the TE exhibit better processing and improved clinical states compared to participants who consumed other substances or no substances at all during the TE. The current results are a first report from an ongoing longitudinal study that aims to elucidate the cognitive, physiological and neural mechanisms underlying the protective effects of MDMA. We hope that our results will not only enhance our understanding of trauma under psychedelics but will also help the survivors of this harrowing experience.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Jerome, L., Feduccia, A. A., Wang, J. B. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2020)
Mithoefer, A. T., Mithoefer, M. C., Feduccia, A. A. et al. · Lancet Psychiatry (2018)
Mithoefer, M. C., Feduccia, A. A., Jerome, L. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2019)
Holze, F., Vizeli, P., Müller, F. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Evens, R., Uyar, A., Gosslau, E. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2026)
Karp Barnir, E., Rubinstein, Z., Abend, R. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2025)
Ertl, N., Ashraf, I., Azizi, L. et al. · Biorxiv (2025)