The point is they do something, but for that something to be most likely good/positive, you also need therapy, which if you want, you can interpret as a "trip sitter" or whatever the phrase is.
> but for that something to be most likely good/positive, you also need therapy
I hear ideas like this (and "In other words, you would need to use the drugs in combination with therapy to obtain good results") repeated all the time, but I'm curious where they come from.
If one spends any time whatsoever in enthusiast communities, the overwhelming sentiment is that these compounds are incredibly helpful even when used alone. This is not to say that individual results wouldn't be even better with therapy, or that there aren't some people who have negative experiences, but these being true also in no ways logically implies that significant benefits cannot be realized by independent usage.
The precise answer to these and other questions, at this current point in time, is: we don't know, with extremely high certainty. But this doesn't mean we don't know anything. Reality is independent of man's understanding (peer reviewed studies) of it - a tree falling in the forest does not require the presence of a scientist.
While it's always a good idea to exercise caution, I suspect advice like "do not use these substances except under professional guidance" is likely more harmful than helpful. It will be years if not decades before formal treatments are available, for many people that may be too late, not to mention the exorbitant price tags these treatments come at. I am more of the mind that people educate themselves on the topic, proceed with caution, work with those who have experience, and proceed slowly and with caution, starting with low dosages and working your way up over time. There is very little trustworthy evidence that I know of indicating there is any kind of substantial risk, and even then that has to be weighed against not just the benefits, but also the risk of doing nothing.
Of course, but be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that members in those communities are homogeneous. There's certainly no shortage of woo-woo style thinking, but there are also enthusiasts who think about it very seriously and analytically. These same people will also tell you that anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. These are the people who should be mainly listened to.
Regardless, I fail to see any evidence that supports the assertion that you also need therapy, that you cannot benefit substantially without it. Those who have literally no first hand experience with psychedelics are not exactly objective either, but it sure doesn't stop them from confidently passing out advice.
My emphasis is on the word "risk" (captured in the literal words "most likely"). It's risky to go without a guide, though it's not "needed" in the sense of a 100% failure rate.
Honestly, the fact that you assumed others were talking about "have a guide or 100% failure" is disingenuous on your part.
Y'all aren't disagreeing.