Buddy, you're doing something called Source Bombing. I've read through 3 of these links and they directly contradict what you argued. I'm not going to waste my free time reading through the rest if you aren't going to bother reading at least one of them yourself.
With regards to Ketamine.
> There you go (for instance): "Cohen suggests a low rate of prolonged psychotic reactions in LSD users (1.8 per 1000) [19]"
That is a description of one of the many studies included in this meta-analysis. This is from the same article.
> Taken together, the effective risk of psychedelic-induced psychosis or worsening of pre-existing psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia -as well as in the early stages of the psychosis spectrum- remains incompletely understood
Also
> Overall quality of studies was low and only few studies (n = 9) could be included in the meta-analysis, hence the presented findings should be interpreted with caution.
> Buddy, you're doing something called Source Bombing.
You're doing something called "Moving the goalposts" by first asking for sources and then complaining because those sources don't support the very narrow construal you seem to be applying to my argument.
Those sources are scientific studies, which by the very nature of the scientific processes of course are open-ended.
With regards to Ketamine.
> There you go (for instance): "Cohen suggests a low rate of prolonged psychotic reactions in LSD users (1.8 per 1000) [19]"
That is a description of one of the many studies included in this meta-analysis. This is from the same article.
> Taken together, the effective risk of psychedelic-induced psychosis or worsening of pre-existing psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia -as well as in the early stages of the psychosis spectrum- remains incompletely understood
Also
> Overall quality of studies was low and only few studies (n = 9) could be included in the meta-analysis, hence the presented findings should be interpreted with caution.