Living, term-scoped bibliographies — one subject at a time, read closely and annotated. Each volume tracks a question I'm working through; as the research moves, new volumes open and the finished ones stay as references anyone can use.
The clinical, mechanistic, and historical literature on lysergic acid diethylamide as it relates to post-traumatic stress — from the 1950s psychotherapy era through today's renaissance, with an eye to where the evidence is genuinely thin.
The next question, opening after the dissertation: sub-perceptual dosing and the long work of coming home — where the daily-life evidence sits, and where it doesn't yet exist.
The transpersonal thread — measured mystical-type experience, meaning-making, and their relationship to healing after trauma.
Each entry is a real, sourced paper — citation, DOI, and my own read of where it sits. Cornerstone works are annotated in depth; context and historical entries are shorter but complete. Coverage comes first and depth follows: a bibliography is only useful if it's whole. New publications are surfaced weekly and added once verified. Where the evidence is absent or weak, I say so — that's often the most useful thing a bibliography can tell you.