You're posting articles about case studies Bastiaans and Fisher did in the 1960's. True science(tm) usually involves double-blind studies with a large number of participants. Like the hundreds of studies confirming that 5HT2A antagonism (i.e. the exact opposite of what LSD does) is still the most "gentle" way of treating mania and psychosis.
Yes, because that is how true science(tm) works. Alexander Fleming didn't need to know what DD transpeptidase was to discover that penicillin kills bacteria. Nor did Albert Hofmann know what a 5HT2A receptor was when he discovered LSD. You observe a phenomenon, you make a hypothesis, you conduct experiments, you gain new data, you improve/discard your hypothesis, you conduct more experiments...
Hahaha... I loved the "True science(tm)" poppycock! However, I am afraid you may need to check and update your concept of science and what constitute "scientific". The true science on the basis of current knowledge can extrapolate and envision future phenomena, not only in terms of gradual evolution, but also in terms of qualitative revolutions; true science
does NOT rely on direct observation of empirical reality. According to this paradigm the only true science is Mathematics and the derived from it Physics and Chemistry. The rest of human knowledge which heavily rely on direct observation of physical reality is not science even though many disciplines are grouped under the euphemistic umbrella of "natural sciences". Medicine is one of them: it heavily rely on Chemistry, a true science, and on a lot more empirical semi- or pseudo-sciences like biology and anatomy.
With the above conceptual frame in mind the work of Bastiaans, Fisher and the rest who used LSD for treatment of Schizophrenia is entirely within the bounds of the ethical medical practice at the time. They treated patients, many of them successfully; observed the results, and published detailed reports available for examination. That's what matters in medicine, not nonsensical non-consequential mumbo-jumbo articles like the one you linked from Nature, the type you apparently venerate.
Thankfully Bastiaans, Fisher and the rest worked in the 1960s when the social climate was more liberal, they could do their work and publish their findings. Today's climate in the Western countries is much more oppressive, and any findings that don't fit the current dogmas, or heavens forbid imply any controversy, are outrightly censured and simply not published. One is very likely to get sacked too and completely demonised in an orchestrated smear campaign as happened to an eminent British scientist who advised the British Government.
Btw, for your own information Albert Hofmann was a chemist, not a medical practitioner, and as such his work focus was in a completely different direction. It just happened that by accident one of his syntheses yielded a substance with unexpected physiological properties.