Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since we don't have reliable screening for basic mental illnesses, I find it implausible that we have "reliable" screening for these kinds of vulnerabilities. I must be missing something; any thoughts?
> I must be missing something; any thoughts? Since the beginning of the era of modern psychedelic research, no one has developed any serious longterm mental illness as the result of taking psychedelics in a research setting. And this is out of thousands of people. I think part of the reason is that it's actually a lot easier to determine if someone is predisposed to mental illness than it actually is to determine if…
Look in the references: "Four additional studies found post-LSD psychotics with prior psychosis but also patients in whom the drug precipitated psychosis without a prodrome ... One group reported cases of psychosis following a single dose, suggesting a peculiar vulnerability to the drug in certain individuals. A review of this problem concluded that prior illness was evident in many, but not all, psychoses following LSD "
Your general gist seems to be correct (that it's a rather low risk for people without history), but "no one" seems to be incorrect. Which makes sense - LSD's a powerful medication. And for comparison, this happens with stuff they give to kids, like Ritalin and speed.