Doc 0000151800

The page displays a prominent graphic of a bank vault door on the left, rendered in shades of gray and blue, suggesting security and restricted access. To the right of the vault, the title "THE BLACK VAULT" is written in a stylized, jagged font with a blue glow effect. Below this title, white text on a black background describes the origin of the document as a declassified government record from The Black Vault's MKULTRA/Mind Control Collection, totaling over 20,000 pages. The text concludes with a URL, presented in yellow, which is the only colored textual element on the page. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, official stamps, forms, diagrams, tables, or visible evidence of experimental procedures, equipment, or facilities. The page is entirely text and graphic, with no redactions or obscured content. '.) ) From the Xational Institute of )[ental Hcnlt h Addiction P.t'Search f'N1tt'r U.S. Public Health Scn·il'e Hospital Lexington, Kentucky, U.H .•- \. Cross Tolernnel' hetwct•n )lesealine niHl LSD-25 With a Compari~on of tltc :\lt·~e:\lin~ aml I,SD H~artions By A. U. Wnt.nMII • .J n •• IL\ nms r~ut-:LL and I·:. J. :\Itxr:n . ~;" With 2 Figul.'l.~ in the TL"xt ., ( Rec:eiml Snt·rmbtr S. 191i]) •. Utho~gh some differe1~ces haYc'becn reported. the reactions produced in ni<m by the cliethyla_mide of l)::;ergie acid (LSD-::!;3) and mescaline seem ,·ery similar. Both cll·ugs cause autonomic stimulation manifested / by increa::;ed pupillary size, increase in pul::;e rate and blood pt·essure, and elevation of Lody temperature (BALESTRIERI and FoxT.-\~ARr; BucHA· N.-L"f; Hocu ei al.; IsBELL ef ctl., l9;i6; SToCKI~Gs; STOLL). Both create anxiety, difficulty in concentration and thinking, flight of ideas, fluc tuations in mood, pcrccptu<\l distortion in all sensot·y modalities, true and pseudo-hallucinations usually of vi::;ual nature. aml depersonali zation (.-\BR.UISO~ et al.; BERI:XGER; Bt"CH.L'<A~; Gt"TT::'ti.L'< and :\L-\C· u.Y; HocH et al.; IsBELL et al., Hli3G; :\{AYER-GI~oss; RI:XKEL et al.; STOCKI:XGS; STOLL). Some authors ha..-e referred to the mental state induced by either agents as "experimental schizophrcni<\" (Rt:xKEL et al.; STOCKI~GS). The clinical resemblance of the syndromes caused by mescaline and LSD-25 suggest that the:-e drugs, d~spite differences in chemical stntc· ture, either share a common mechanism of action or act on final common pathway. This hypothe:>is is str~ngthencd by reports of cross tolerance between the two drugs (BALESTRIERI, 1057, 1060; BAL!':Snq:ERI and Fo~TA~.utr). The purposes of this p<l per a1·c: ( 1) to present a quantitative compari- son of the effects of LSD-::!3 and mescaline in the same subjects: u.ml (2) to show, in confirmation of BALESTRIERI (1037 und 191)0) antl BALE· STRIERI and FoNTA~ARI, that direct tolcmncc d~\·elops to mescaline. and tha.t Rubjects tolerant to mescaline arc cross tull•rant to l.SD ,wd vice versa. ~Iethods Experiments. Two expct'iments were performed. Experiment I was a comparison of the effects u.n<l a Lldcrmination o{ the cquh·alcnt do:;ngr~ of LSD, mescaline, and psilo<,in in 10 subject:-~. The data on psilo<·in will not be presented in this pn.per but will he rt-portod separate!\·.' Exp<'t·i· ment II wn::> a ~httlv uf eros." tok~rnn~ ht~tW<'<'Il LSD aml mv~"eniirw in 10 subjcc~. Experiment I Ezperimental clesiljn . . A "single-blind" cross-o\·cr dc~ign '''<13 em· ployed in this experiment (pnticntli dill not know the lh·ug'i thPy wcro receiving, presented in this pn.per but will he rt-portod separate!\·.' Exp<'t·i· ment II wn::> a ~httlv uf eros." tok~rnn~ ht~tW<'<'Il LSD aml mv~"eniirw in 10 subjcc~. Experiment I Ezperimental clesiljn . . A "single-blind" cross-o\·cr dc~ign '''<13 em· ployed in this experiment (pnticntli dill not know the lh·ug'i thPy wcro receiving, but observers did known). Each :subject l'C('ch·cu, in mndo. mizcd order at wecldy int(.n-vnll'l, two cloSC':s o£ LSD and mt';o;<:·alinc. Placebos were not inclmlcd sinro <'Xpt't'it.'ucc (Ism·:LL P.! al., l !);ill, I flU 1} has :sho'~ that former morphine addicts clo not rca<'t uwrkt•<lly to :r placebos. For comparison, placebo clata from <mother cxrwtirm•nt · -(IsnELL et al.,.J 959) arc pt-escnted. / Sub-jects. The subj~<:ts who volunteered fot' this experiment we're former opiate addicts who were serving scntcnec:s fot· violation of Fuitt'1l States narcotic laws. Theit· ages varied between :?5 to 3.i yt-a~, all m~re physically healthy males, and none presented any e•tidl•n('(' of tht• major psychoses. AU had psychiatric diagnoses of charac-ter ol· p<.•r:-:om\lity disorders and all had recch·cd LSD in previou:s exp<•rimt-nt~. Ge-nt·ral conditio11s. The subject:~ entercd a ~p<.'cial wal'll tlt-vott-d tn clinical reseat·ch the night befut'C the dn.y on which t<'st. drug wn.:; ad- . ministered and remained until the following morning. Oh:ol't'\'ations were performed by specially trnined aides with long <'Xpet'icnce in dl'tcct ing behavioral changes due to th·ugs. The pntit•nt" Wt't"c told nothing about the 11<\ture of the drugs they Wt'l'O to receh·c ot· the pnrpo=-e:-~ of tlw experiments. Dru.gs and doses. LSD tartrate anJ mcscn.Iine hydrochloride were administered intrami.tsculn.rly in doses of 0.75 mcgikg arul 1.5 mrg;kg (LSD), and 2.5 mgjkg and 5.0 mg/kg (mescaline). Tho drugo oct oncen trations employed for LSD aiul mescaline were 30 meg,lml and I mg/ml respectively, in distilled water. Prim· to admiuistr-.1tion C'a<'h tlosc wn= diluted to a constant 5 m1 volume ,.,.ith sterile pyrogen.frce phy:-iologicnl salino solution. The follm...-ing detailed ob~<>rvations were made nt hourly intervals after 10 minutes rc:st. in bc<l. twi<'c before, aml eight time,s after administrr1tion of drtig:'!: rectal tctuperatun.', pub<' rntt:'. systolic blood pret~sUt'C, pupillary ~izC', and thr~hohl for elicitation of th<' kneejerk. The methods used WC're those previously describc<l by IsHELT el al. {1956, 1!101). In addition the subjects (with the help of an aide) completed ll, special quc:-~tiounairc at hourly intCl'YU.lS from i.:m a.!!l to 3.30 p.m. At these same time~ g:t~ncru.l note:< on bduwior wcnJ wriltt • Clinical grades of The document is a scanned page from a scientific paper. It's primarily text, with the title "Cross Tolerance between Mescaline and LSD-25" and names of authors and affiliations visible. There are some handwritten annotations at the top: "# 235" and "235" in black ink. In the bottom right corner, there's a handwritten number "B-374." The page appears to be from a journal or publication, indicated by the header "Psychopharmacologia 3, 1–14 (1962)". There are no photographs, diagrams, forms, or visual evidence of experimental procedures. The overall condition suggests it's an older scanned document with some minor imperfections. The image is a scanned document page, appearing to be a scientific paper. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, stamps, forms, or diagrams. There are a few small, dark smudges, possibly from the original document's condition, and a small redaction mark near the top right corner of the text block. The content is primarily dense text, describing an experiment involving LSD and mescaline. The visual aspect is limited to the typed text, which details experimental design, subjects, conditions, drugs, doses, and data analysis, without any accompanying visual aids. The methods used WC're those previously describc<l by IsHELT el al. {1956, 1!101). In addition the subjects (with the help of an aide) completed ll, special quc:-~tiounairc at hourly intCl'YU.lS from i.:m a.!!l to 3.30 p.m. At these same time~ g:t~ncru.l note:< on bduwior wcnJ wriltt • Clinical grades of tho intensity of the rcadion W'CI't' axsigncd a(·<·ot·din to tho system of·IsnEI.L et al. ( l Dtiu). A.11aly8is of clata. The chn.ng~s in rcctal tcmpcrn.ture, pubo pupillary size, blood prcs~uro n.nd t.hr<';-;hold for elicitation of the k:wC' e/) in-a ! ...... _) \ 3 jerk were ca!culatcd by subtracting the a.Yernge of the two pre-drug observations from the Yalues obtained a.t the various hours after the dn1g. The areas under the time-action curves for each of the a.bon~ measurements composed of th~ figures were calculated by the m!;thod ,·of WINTER and FLATAKER, thus com·erting all the data on a. particular drug, a. particular men;::;urement, and. a. pnrticular dny to one figure termed "degree-hours" (temperature), ••rate hours" (pulse rate), etc. "Positive" answers on the questionnaire were scored by counting all :;., positive responses that were not scored positively before the drugs were · given. ~Iea.ns.and standard errors of the means were calculated accord ing to standard statistical techniques (ED\Y.\.RDS). Callculations of the relatiYe potency of LSD and mescaline were performed on each of these pa.rn.meters, using a :q1ethod (G.\DDtni) for four-point assays. In orde~ to obtain time-action cuD·es, changes in temperaturt>, pulse rate, systolic blood pres~ure, pupillary size, and threshold for the kneejerk were tabulated and averag<'d for each ol>serYation time aftet· ~ the drugs. The number of posith·e responses on the questionnaire were also averaged at each observation time. In addition to pro•-iding data on the time-action course, these tabula.tions identified the time at which the greatest (peak) responses occurred. } .. dditional calculations of re lative potency (G.\DDtni) were made using these peak Yalues. In order to compare the patterns of subjective response the 5i ques tions were classified into nine cn.tegodes1 The questionnaires '"·ere then • scored by counting the number of patients responding po~ith·ely to a given question, after which the scores for all the questions constituting .the particular category were summed. Experiment II Ezperi.mental design. A "cross-over" design using each patient a;,s 'his own control was employed i11 this experiment and is summarized in Table 1. The design was similar to that used in testing cross-tolerance This page contains solely text, arranged in paragraphs and a footnote. There are no images, handwritten annotations, official stamps, forms, diagrams, or tables. There is no visual evidence of experimental procedures, equipment, or facilities. The page appears to be a standard typed research document. question, after which the scores for all the questions constituting .the particular category were summed. Experiment II Ezperi.mental design. A "cross-over" design using each patient a;,s 'his own control was employed i11 this experiment and is summarized in Table 1. The design was similar to that used in testing cross-tolerance between LSD and psilocybin (IsBELL et al., 1961). Subjects. The same 10 subjects were employed who were used in E:cperin:1ent I. General conditions. Subjects were housed in the same special research ward mentioned in Experiment I. Temperature, respiro.toL'Y ~ate, and blood pressure were measured three times daily after the patients had rested quietly in bed during days on which special mC<l.SUrement,s were Tho nine categories are shown in Table.') ::md are the same thnt' were used in 1 comp::uing LSD and psilocybin (IsBt:LL l!JG!J). As prcYiousl,\· explained. a. large number of other catcgorie:~ could be ·dcdscd and m<my question::~ could be classiiicd in various categories. The dnssification therefore iii complett'ly arbitrary. l"* ·. .. w .... .~ ! i ·1{-· d_ 4 Table 1. Summary of erperimenlal dr.ai!]n, E.rpuinumt II ., .. Period X o t u m da b r e s r ~nbjc D c r t~ m : x ~ • and : :: '' u " hj " ~ " ~· " t .. y: n-~nmrk..i 1. 1st control 7-21 ~sD~ La, )[esc. 5.0, To obtain ba~1l dahl. aiesc.~ 5.0 LSD 1.5 Order of test.-; ran· domi:zed. )Iinimum •. of 5 da,·s be-t wl't'n LSD and me;~culine 2. ht ch.roni~ admini· 14 LSD :\!e;~c. To den•lop tolernnct.' st.ra tton ,_.. , , increasing increasing to 1.5 to 5.0 3. lst test of tolerance 2 LSD 1.5, )lese. 5.0, Test of tolerance and artd .. cross-tolernnce :\Iesc. 5.0 LSDL'l cross tolerance 4. 'Yithdrnwal period 14: none none To lose toler-..tnce 5. 2nd control 10-24 · :\Iesc. 5.0, LSD 1.5, To replicate control LSD 1.5 )!esc. 5.0 d~1ta and test loss of tolerance ~· 6. 2nd chronic admini- 14 liesc. LSD "Cross-o~er" to de\·d· stration increasing increasing op tolerance to 5.0 to 1.5 7. 2nd test of tolerance 2 :\Iesc. 5.0, LSD 1..5, Test of toleranC1!' atul and cross-tolerance LSD 1.5 )!esc. 5.0 cross-tolerance 1 Subjects "X" received LSD chronicall~·. first . • 2 Subjects "Y" recei..-ed mescaline ehronically, first. a LSD = diethylamide of lysergic acid; )lese. = mescaline. The order of administration of the drug in The document contains a table titled "Summary of experimental design, Experiment II" which outlines various experimental periods, drug dosages, and remarks. The table is structured with columns for "Period," "Number of days," "Drugs and doses" (split into "Subjects X" and "Subjects Y"), and "Remarks." Below the table are footnotes defining abbreviations and explaining the drug administration. The main body of the text discusses drug administration protocols and the rationale for not using placebos in the study. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, stamps, forms, diagrams, or redactions visible. 2 :\Iesc. 5.0, LSD 1..5, Test of toleranC1!' atul and cross-tolerance LSD 1.5 )!esc. 5.0 cross-tolerance 1 Subjects "X" received LSD chronicall~·. first . • 2 Subjects "Y" recei..-ed mescaline ehronically, first. a LSD = diethylamide of lysergic acid; )lese. = mescaline. The order of administration of the drug in each period is indicated br the order in \t"hich the-y appear in the section of table for that period. Figures after symbols for drug:> indi cate the dose in meg/kg for LSD and mgfkg for mescaline. not being made. All measurements were made by the same aides as in Experiment I. Drugs and doses. LSD a.nd mescaline were administered intramuscu larly at 8 a.m. (during the control period and on test days) or at 6 a.m. (during the periods of chronic intoxication). 'So placebos were employed in this study because of the negligible subjectiYc response of our sub· jects; because placebos have no real "~ralue in assessing tolerance and cross tolerance, and because the addition of placebo trials would have prolonged the e:-..-periment unnecessarily. In the first and second control periods the patients received LSD 1.5 mcg,'kg, nud mescaline 5.0 mg, kg in randomized order before chronic administration of the drugs wa:s begun. Detailed observations were mad~ on the:'e test days. These control experiments were conducted at inten·als of at least fiYe tlays in order to prevent development of tolerance during fhc control period. During the first and second periods of chronic administration. the patients received intramuscularly 0.:)0 mcg 1 kg of LSD or 1 mg1kg of - . ' ' . •'sifH· 'ziri ... ). 5 mescaline on the first day. Thc::sc doses were increased by 0.30 mcg:kg .• (LSD) or 1 mg:kg (mescaline) <lnily until the patients were rt'cciving ~5 meg/kg of LSD or 5.0 mg, kg of ml•scnline on the fifth day. These do~s were maintained through the 14th day aftt'r beginning chronic intoxication. On the H>th day the patil'nts were "challenged" with the dose of drug they had been recei...-ing (tt'st of "direct" tolerance). On. the 16th day they were '"challenged" with the test do:;e of.thc nlternntc drug (test of "cross" tolerance). On both of these days detailed measure- ments were made. The patients then,,..recei\·ed no medication for U days in order to lo~e tolerance: · Follo~ing this withdrawal period. '"second control" measurements were obtained after the :patients: had receh·ed in. randomized order mesc_$11irie 5.0 mg,'kg, nlternntc drug (test of "cross" tolerance). On both of these days detailed measure- ments were made. The patients then,,..recei\·ed no medication for U days in order to lo~e tolerance: · Follo~ing this withdrawal period. '"second control" measurements were obtained after the :patients: had receh·ed in. randomized order mesc_$11irie 5.0 mg,'kg, and LSD 1.5 ri1cg,kg, with at least five clays inter vening between administration of either dn1g. The patients then again received the drugs chronically; those patients who had receh·ed LSD in the first period of chronic administration were given mescaline according to the schedules described abo\·e and L'ice t•ersa. They were then "challenged" with LSD and mescaline in the same manner as previou~ly described. Obsen·ation.;, On test days all obsen·ations were performed in identical fashion to those described in E.\."Periment L Analysis of data. The areas under the time-action curYes were obtained for each subject and each test condition (including first and second controls and all "challenging" tests) iri the manner described in Experiment I. In addition, mean peak response Yalues were obtained (as in E.\.-periment I) for each para meter except "clinical grade," since the latter consisted of only a single figure. · The difference in the various an~a. measurements after. 1.5 mcgikg of LSD on the first and st>cond controls were evalllated by a t-test for paired observations (EDWARDS). Data on the two sets of controls after 5.0 mgjkg of mescaline \v·erc trt>ated similarly. Increase in blood pressure was significantly greatt'r after LSD. Tht>re were no significant differ ences oil other parameter;; (T<\blc 2). In addition, the differences hetwecn the two controls were c\'Uluated by a. non-parametric rnnk order test for paired observation;; (\YILCOXO~)- Since the significances of tho differ ences by this latter statistical tcdmiquc agreed well with those obtained by the t-tc:st on the time-action (area) figures, only the latter arc herein presented. · In order to test for equivalence of the doses of LSD an<l mescaline in E:xpcriment II. the a\·eragc peak values obtained on the two controls with 1.;) meg/kg of LSD were t'omparcd with the :wernge values obtained ·-~ .) .J *lbsie 6 Table ·2. Reproducibility of respo118es to LSD and mescali11e in first axd seco111!' con~· trol8 (N = 10) )leasuu · J.:)D·:!5 Temperature . . + 0.282 ± 0.372 0.516 ± 0.480 Pulse rate . . . + 14.95 ± 13.68 ~ 18.65 .._ H:.12 Blood pressure . + 33.35 ± The image appears to be a scanned page from a declassified document, likely a scientific report. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, or official stamps visible on this specific page. The content is entirely text-based, presented in a standard document format with paragraph structure and numbered lists. There is no visual evidence of experimental procedures, equipment, facilities, diagrams, tables, or any forms with filled-in fields. One small section of text towards the bottom right appears to be partially obscured or smudged, making it difficult to read. This page contains two tables of data related to the effects of LSD and mescaline. Table 2, titled "Reproducibility of responses to LSD and mescaline in first and second controls," presents numerical data for various physiological measures under different drug conditions. Table 3, titled "Equivalence of dosage of LSD and mescaline," presents similar data, focusing on mean differences in response. Both tables include detailed numerical values along with standard errors. There are also footnotes explaining the significance of plus and minus signs, and indications that certain results are statistically significant. The page has some minor smudges and small black marks, but no significant redactions or handwritten annotations are visible. There are no photographs, stamps, or diagrams present. Table ·2. Reproducibility of respo118es to LSD and mescali11e in first axd seco111!' con~· trol8 (N = 10) )leasuu · J.:)D·:!5 Temperature . . + 0.282 ± 0.372 0.516 ± 0.480 Pulse rate . . . + 14.95 ± 13.68 ~ 18.65 .._ H:.12 Blood pressure . + 33.35 ± 14.031 -10.30 :::: 9. 71 Pupillary change + 0.325 ± 1. i 5 0.263 :± 1.27 Knet-jerk . . • . . • . • - 6.24: ..!..12.95 + 2.75 ± 21.::>:! + Responses to questionnaire. 10.35 ;; 9.68 .- 4.60 ::: 8.56 + + ClinicaJ grade • • . • • . 0.150::: 0.211 0.100::::: 0.221 = ·Figures rep~~nt the mean differences the standard errol':l of the differences bet}\·een responses to LSD-25 (1.5 rocgjkg) and 1n~aline (5.0 mgfkg) in the first and-second controls. + Indicates an increased resuonse on the second control. ,'-Indicates a decreased response in the second control. 1 Indicates signifi~ance (P < 0.05). on the two controls with 5.0 mgjkg of mescaline (Table 3), using the t-test for paired data. Similar calculations were made using the area measurements. The differences in the response after chronic administration of both LSD and mescaline were evaluated by comparing the responses after first and second chronic admini· strations of LSD and/or mescaline . Table 3. Equit-ale11ce of dosaye of LSD aml mescaline, E:rpr€ iment II (Y = 10 with their respecti>e first and second controls using the t·test l!e:m Di!tcrence in l!easure respoll!e (ltLsn·Rliesc) for replicated data. (EDW..utDS). = Four different comparisons ''ere = Temperature - 0.0055 0.05 .. made: (1) response to LSD after Pulse rate . +2.80 1.85 Blood pressure . +4.15 ± 1.4-P chronic administration of LSD Pupillary change -0.212 ±0.171 ("direct" tolerance to LSD), (:!) Kneejerk ...• +1.94 ±2.10 response to mescaline after chronic Responses to questionnaire . +1.45 ±1.92 administration of LSD ("cross" Clinical grade . . -0.35 ±0.24 tolerance to mescaline}, (3) re Figures respresent mean differences sponse to mesca.line after chronic ± S:E. of differences bet\Yeen menn peak administration of mescaline control responses to LSD·25 (1.5 mcgfkg) ("direct" tolerance to mescn· and mescaline (5.0 rog/kg). + Indicates LSD·25 stronger in effect line), and (4) response to LSD than mescaline. after chronic administration of - Indicntes mescaline stronger in mescaline (" crosss" tolerance to effect than LSD·25. 1 Indicates significance (P < 0.02). LSD). The signs of the diffc. rences were so arranged that (5.0 rog/kg). + Indicates LSD·25 stronger in effect line), and (4) response to LSD than mescaline. after chronic administration of - Indicntes mescaline stronger in mescaline (" crosss" tolerance to effect than LSD·25. 1 Indicates significance (P < 0.02). LSD). The signs of the diffc. rences were so arranged that a. minus (-)sign indica.tcd a. decrease in the measurements n.ftcr chronic administration as compared 'nth control, and a. plus ( +) sign indicated an increase. -/ a) ! i}t'br ,., .~· } 7 Since mescaline has a. longer duration of action than LSD the differences (except for "clinical grode ") ,..,.ere also CYaluatcd, using values obtained at the peak of both LSD and mescaline reactions rather than using the areas (integrated time action curves) as described above. ,, In addition, the differences were evaluated by "Wn.co:xo~'s non-para metric ra.nk order test for paired observations. The significance of the differences by these statistical techniques agreed well with those obtained by the t-test on the time-action (area) figures, so only the differences . obtained by the area. method are shown in this paper. If-; ~;' Results Exper.Unent I. The objeetiYe and subjectin changes induced by LSD and mescaline were very similar. As t'an be seen in Table 4-, both drugs .I • : Table· 4. Compari.so1~ of the total courie of the LSD a11d mescaline reactio113 Treatment lleaswe l'lac:ebo' LSD·:!S I mescaline ·o.ra• I 1.5• 2.51 I 5.0• Tempera- ture• + 2 .~ - =' 0.3 + 3.5 = ' 0 .4 4.3 -- 0.5 ' ' 3.4, -..!... 0.4 + 4.6 = ± 0 .4. P ra u t ls e e ' +37.8± 14.5 +50.2 !o'.2 56.6 -..:.. 7.7 +38.4 . - .!... 9.3 + 71.1 17.7 Blood pressure' + 15.6:±:13.5 +45.5 ::!:12.5 65'> ±10.1 -T-45.4 ::!:13.5 -T-76.6=12.4 P c u h p a il n la g r e y ' + 0.2± 1:4 ' s.o - 0.9 12.9 . - .!... 1.6 -r 10.4: - 1.6 +17.3::: 2.0 ' - KOccjerk:l -20.7± 11.1 -54.2 ::!:11.0 -54.0 - ..!... 9.6 65 .; - ) ::!:15.1 -70.1:±:16.9 ?. a :" n r s o w si e ti r v s e 5 0.1:::: 0.3 37.1 -' 4.7 72.8 :::11.1 35.8 - ...l. 5.9 67.2::!:12.1 Clihical gy~e• 0 ± 0 1.85::!: 0 ., 2.45= 0.21 1.65::: 0 .. 2- 2.1± 0.2 1 Data from 9 other subjects in another ezperiment The document page contains a table summarizing the total course of LSD and mescaline reactions. The table has columns for "Measure," "Placebo," and "Treatment" (with sub-columns for LSD-25 doses of 0.73, 1.5, 2.5, and mescaline doses of 5.0). It details changes in temperature, pulse rate, blood pressure, pupillary change, kneejerk, positive answers, and clinical grade. Footnotes below the table provide additional context regarding data sources, dosages, and statistical measures. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, or stamps visible on this page. n r s o w si e ti r v s e 5 0.1:::: 0.3 37.1 -' 4.7 72.8 :::11.1 35.8 - ...l. 5.9 67.2::!:12.1 Clihical gy~e• 0 ± 0 1.85::!: 0 ., 2.45= 0.21 1.65::: 0 .. 2- 2.1± 0.2 1 Data from 9 other subjects in another ezperiment (IsBE!.L 1959). 2 Dose in mcgikg. , Dose it\ mgfkg. 'Figures are means (9 subjects on placebo; 10 on LSD a.nd mescaline) ::: stan· da.rd erro'rs of areas under time-action cun·es ("degree-hours," "be::~t-hours," etc.). The signs indicate increases ( +) or dcereai!es (-) in the n1easurement from pre· drug controls. 5 Means :::: standard errors of number of questions seored positiYely in the 71/ hours niter the drug which \\'ere not scored posith·ely before the drug. 1 ' Means± standard errors of intensity of mental reaction ba~ed on a scale of ()..-4. caused increases over pre-dntg measurements in body temperature, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, and pupillary size, and both decreased the threshold for elicitation of the kneejcrk. The table also shows that -oe ~) ~· t t , ' . &itt-·~ 8 Table 5. Compariwn of pattern oj8ubjectit·e re8ptm8e on que-!lion11aire after me8tali1i'e and LSD-25 .• :\umber eot rt'~pon~ In cM<~.: .. r~· Total Category• : q N u u e m sd b o er M o • f re p , & op .j o a n ib l! l e e 3 placebo• o.;:. L S 1 D l .S : n ! t . e 'i . .< I :: ll : i . n .o e D A G i l e f t n e fi e r c a r u a ti l l o t y n i i n n . t m hi o n o k d i . n g • ' . 4 7 3 . 4 i 3 'O 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 4 3 1 1 0 4 3 19 : 6 J . ~6 4 9 Alteration in touch • 4 40 0 13 20 1.5 26 Alteration in heariiig 4 36 0 16 ~0 11 18 Visual distortion . . . 10 40 0 10 39 12 23 ..E lementary" halluci- nations . 5 4:5 0 8 20 8 ~0 "True" hallucinations.: 41 40 0 2 6 1 3 Depersonalization . 13· 130 0 26 44 The page contains a table titled "Table 5. Comparison of pattern of subjective response on questionnaire after mescaline and LSD-25" which presents numerical data categorized by drug and response type. Below this is another table, "Table 6. Relative potencies of mescaline and LSD calculated from various measurements," also containing numerical data. Footnotes clarify specific terms and experimental details. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, or stamps visible on this page. The overall layout suggests a research document detailing experimental results. Alteration in heariiig 4 36 0 16 ~0 11 18 Visual distortion . . . 10 40 0 10 39 12 23 ..E lementary" halluci- nations . 5 4:5 0 8 20 8 ~0 "True" hallucinations.: 41 40 0 2 6 1 3 Depersonalization . 13· 130 0 26 44 23 34 1 Re£ers to type of question. e.g. • "feeling strange" (general); '"feet look old" (depersonalization);" am happy" (mood); .. things look small" (.,-isual distortion); "is difficult to concentrate" (thinking), etc. 2 Xumber of subj~ts times number of questions in category. s Based on responses of 10 different subjects in another e=cperiment. the changes in the various measures were far greater than those that occurred in a. different group of subjects after placebo. The magnitude of _these changes was aboutthe same after O.i5 meg, kg oiLSD and 2.5mg_ kg of mescaline, crafter 1.5 meg_ kg Table 6. Relatit·e potencie8 of me.scali11e and of LSD and 5.0 mg, kg of LSD calc·ulated from t'llrious mea8urements mescaline. Both drugs induced 95'::.1~~~i~dence anxiet~-. alterations in mood ______. .,.:. ____. .....______ {generally "euphoric"), diffi. ,_ .Areas culty in thinking and concen- Temperature . 3'->~'r.0 2666--3':'31 tr.a tion. senson.' perceptual Blood pressure . 3 2 0 3O92"t 2 1 2 7 7 ': 5 '9 - - 4 3 :0 2 0 7 0 4 distortion particularly nsual. Pupils2 ••• Total answers 3355 2487-5065 and both caused true- and Peak values pseudo-hallucinations. The Temperature . 32:30 3165- 3401 subjecth·e symptoms reported Blood pressure· 3344 1698- 7513 after mescaline were Yery Pupils • • • • 2970 2008- 4201 Answers • . • 4878 2832-10000 similar to those described in Clinical grnde . 3460 2194- 5450 the literature. Table 5 illu- :Ucg mescaline hcl strates the similarity of the ~ 'I c g LSD .;_J.•., ... ar t rate at equal effect patterns o f t h c sub J ' C C t'1 \e I Did not meet criterion for equi..-alcnce response after LSD and of. dosage. mesca 1m· e. LSD and mescaline tliff~red in time-action cou~c. In general the action of mescaline persisted longer than that of LSD ;vith peak dfcct being reached later and/or being longer sustained (Fig. 1 and 2). Thc:;e ! i·· ..... A~• \J,/ cur..-es show that pnpil1ary dilatation after both mescaline and LSD lasts much longer than do the subjccti..-e effects. They also ::~how thn.t the·: peak subjectiYe The document displays two line graphs illustrating the time course of biological and subjective responses to LSD and mescaline. The graphs include labeled axes such as "Increase in pupillary size," "Number of answers," and "hrs after drug," with different dosages of LSD and mescaline indicated on the curves. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, or official stamps visible on this page. The content is purely textual and graphical, with no visual evidence of experimental procedures or facilities. longer than that of LSD ;vith peak dfcct being reached later and/or being longer sustained (Fig. 1 and 2). Thc:;e ! i·· ..... A~• \J,/ cur..-es show that pnpil1ary dilatation after