Blob,
The Johns Hopkins News and Information Service is no better than the Toronto Star when it comes to peer review. The reference you should give is right at the bottom of the JHNIS webpage:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press...Psilocybin.pdf

And, Grant, I take your point about ancient anecdotes and DBTs. But was this really a DBT? Selection of the participants was biased - they were "adults reporting regular participation in religious or spiritual activities".

Moreover, and maybe I allow a litle paranoia to enter here, although the paper itself does not state this, the JHNIS does; the study was funded by grants from the NIDAS (National Instituite on Drig Abuse?) and "the Council on Spiritual Practices". One of the authors is a member of that council. It is normal to state funding sources and any conflict of interest that might be seen to influence researchers.

I know, I know. This is boring, but this site should not descend into speculation and tittle tattle. Let's keep it scientific! And that means evidence based and peer reviewed, where at all possible.

John