4-HO-5Meo-DMT Martin Ball

[Davino]

Side note:
I'm happy that finally there is a high quality discussion going on in the forum. There are strong arguments on both sides, I'm very interested to know where all this will lead.

[Girzo]

I care about science and the existnece of such compound. I care about proving that this method of feeding shrooms tryptamines can indeed. produce such compounds.

I don't demand more reports of users of these shrooms. I demand reports with better methodology, at least looking for a report of someone experienced I could trust. Proof of better quality.

Seriousness is needed. The church organization is not serious. "We believe" ...

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Girzo said:

I care about science and the existnece of such compound. I care about proving that this method of feeding shrooms tryptamines can indeed. produce such compounds.

I don't demand more reports of users of these shrooms. I demand reports with better methodology, at least looking for a report of someone experienced I could trust. Proof of better quality.

Seriousness is needed. The church organization is not serious. "We believe" ...

You just not make random accusations on us users without proper evidence to back up your claims. 

It is unethical behavior. 

 

[Girzo]

6 hours ago, Benton said:

But still nobody experiences a tolerance.

It's very hard to prove tolerance build-up or lack thereof. To my knowledge, there doesn't exist a proper, scientifically proven graph of tolerance from psilocybin. There obviously is some tolerance, but who knows the details. It can't be simply extrapolated from the results of research on LSD tolerance, because it's proven that LSD has a unique mechanism of action, not surprising given it's ultra potency and long duration of action.

Be honest, how thorough-fully have you tested the tolerance effect to normal psilocybin mushrooms? Your own experience, not stuff from internet. Were your tests of mushroom tolerance diligent and repeated? Do you have write-ups? You can't judge this stuff from memory. It's a serious scientific matter. Serious information on psilocybin tolerance would be valuable, companies are not doing such tests, because no-one is trying to do mushroom therapy day after day. THIS POINT CANNOT BE IGNORED. Scientists know this, because they experience everyday in their work how their minds and memory deludes them when doing novel research. It's very hard to counter brain's tendency to distort reality to fit into a narrative.

It would also help to test everything on the same batch of mushrooms, with the same potency. Or even better, test in on a pure synthetically made compound. Because dosage most probably affects strength of the tolerance effect.

Which leads us to another point. How the hell does the church guarantees what's inside if no-one knows how to test for the compound. One batch of their product could have 0.5% alkaloid content and another batch 2%. But this generously assumes the possibility of them succeeding in creating 4-HO-5-MeO-DMT mushrooms.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Girzo]

8 hours ago, Enlightement said:

How can I be a marketing rep if I haven't even tried these myself? You might even engineer some conspiracy theory at this point, you seem to be good at it anyway. 

This forum thread already ranks higher in Google than church's website for the keyword "4-HO-5-MeO-DMT". And for "psilomethoxin" keywords there are other sources that critique them. I really think it warrants an action from the church and I am extremely skeptical of anyone posting here who I don't recognize. I am also having fun, so sorry for having it at your cost. 

8 hours ago, Enlightement said:

I go by Martin's word. He knows his shit better than you or anyone. 

Better than Andrew Gallimore, the leading DMT researcher, actual neuroscientist? This is the guy who develops the protocol to administer DMT for 10 hours continously. His recommendation is at the end of this Twitter thread is to avoid this product and organization. 

And here he discusses the arXiv paper, this guy really knows his stuff:

Oh and I have just seen Psymposia released something on the topic, might be a good read, I haven't started reading it yet:

https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/church-of-psilomethoxin-part-1-sacramental-skepticism-is-the-church-in-denial-church-of-the-sacred-synthesis/

[Girzo]

@Benton Can you give a short write-up of your tolerance tests? It's an immensely interesting topic. Dosage and time in-between dosing for both tests of psilocybin and church mushrooms will do.

Edit: Hah, I have just noticed, they aren't the psilomethoxin church anymore, they are the "church of sacred synthesis" now.  https://thesacredsynthesis.com/ 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Buck Edwards]

@Girzo

I don't need a neuroscientist for dmt. Who even does that? That's silly to me. 

That's why Martin Ball. He actually gets it. 

You're too worried about technicals. 

This is like doing sound testing to see if natural sounds were used instead of enjoying the song. 

Why is an actual "experience" irrelevant to you? 

[Girzo]

1 minute ago, Enlightement said:

Why is an actual "experience" irrelevant to you? 

Because in this case "experience" is easily twisted by placebo and methodological inaccuracies.

Science is experimental, but random experiences don't constitute science.

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Because in this case "experience" is easily twisted by placebo and methodological inaccuracies.

Science is experimental, but random experiences don't constitute science.

You do realize that even true chemicals can give a placebo, right? 

That is... Even if these were scientifically tested and proven to be what they are supposed to be, there's still a possibility of placebo!! 

Placebo does not always mean "false" chemicals or sugar. Am I right? 

Have you known that actual medications have also caused a placebo, especially when the dosage is not optimized for cure? 

I've experienced this with my "actual" medications. 

It's funny how placebo is being used as a false alarm indicator. 

[Girzo]

@Enlightement What are you talking about? Obviously everything can have a placebo effect. But if those mushrooms are normal mushrooms and the differences are due to placebo, then they are overpriced junk. You can have an infinite supply of normal shrooms basically for free if you grow them in a shoebox yourself.

[Girzo]

22 minutes ago, Benton said:

What it isn't for me is: Taking a tab of acid and proceeding to have a dmt trip.

What we are talking about here is qualitative research. For that we need to collect data. For example write-ups of the trip with all the set&setting and other important info. Sizeable amount of such reports. And then do a proper analysis of them. Code them, look for patterns, look for differences.

Erowid reports, or random comments like yours are of little value. They are of too poor quality to be studied qualitatively, and there's too few of them to be studied quantitatively. Research based on such data would be inconclusive. Back to ground zero.

If you want to be willy-nilly with methodology, then we can already say there's no psilomethoxin in the mushrooms based on the tests already done on the church's merchandise. I am not saying that's 100% sure because I want to be diligent. Your personal reports are not diligent research. They are obviously cool and good enough for you, but don't expect them to be a sufficient proof for others.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Buck Edwards]

@Benton

I can modify your body and treat it with something or  give you something that resists caffeine just before you sip the coffee and then give you coffee with caffeine and you will still feel energetic from it. The whole point of placebo is that it's all about your brain and nothing to do with the chemical you're taking. Your brain has already associated the word coffee with excitement and that's what it proceeds to make you feel with or without caffeine in your cup. Of course the actual caffeine will produce the desired result yet the veracity of your experience cannot be credible since you're proven to suffer placebo. When an object is prone to error, it cannot become the basis of an experiment. 

@Girzo I'm trying to challenge your claim on placebo. Placebo is a highly mental phenomena and it's use is debatable. The very act of testing an experience is redundant because experiences in and of themselves are highly subjective and vary from person to person. Obviously you can always have the  "average" experience as seen in clinical trials. Yet placebo is not a sure shot way to know the accuracy/inaccuracy of any given experience. Because you can't tell if it was a placebo or not. 

You said  - "But if those mushrooms are normal mushrooms and the differences are due to placebo, then they are overpriced junk." only if those are normal mushrooms. Have you been able to prove they're mushrooms? The flat out answer is no. You haven't tried nor have you sent them to a lab. Then why are you sure they are normal mushrooms. The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim. 

[Girzo]

1 minute ago, Enlightement said:

The burden of proof is on you when you make a claim. 

The burden of proof is on the hecking church and that's the whole point of this topic. 

3 minutes ago, Enlightement said:

Because you can't tell if it was a placebo or not. 

You can totally say something is a placebo. For example give people the same thing in a pill, and say one is psilomethoxin and one is psilocybin. Then analyze their reports. That's one way of doing it. There are many other methods. Scientist routinely test for placebo. Wishful thinking, delusion, whatever, that's just how the mind works. We often have to try to get around it, even though it's difficult.

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Girzo said:

The burden of proof is on the hecking church and that's the whole point of this topic. 

In a way, you're right, the church should ideally do so. Yet they don't. But it shouldn't be hard for you to do it if you care too much about the truth. 

It would be awesome if you actually proved it doesn't contain psilomethoxin instead of doing armchair speculation. In this sense you're no different than the church. It's he said she said with your rhetoric. 

If they say (since I didn't check their website and I don't bother to) it contains psilomethoxin and you say it doesn't, it really points to nothing other than jibber jabber. So the burden of proof lies on both parties - here it's you and the church. 

Why should I take your word for it when you don't even have a sample and a test report in your hand? 

If this was played out in court and I were the judge, you be asked to produce proof as plaintiff. 

2 minutes ago, Girzo said:

You can totally say something is a placebo. For example give people the same thing in a pill, and say one is psilomethoxin and one is psilocybin. Then analyze their reports. That's one way of doing it. There are many other methods. Scientist routinely test for placebo. Wishful thinking, delusion, whatever, that's just how the mind works. We often have to try to get around it, even though it's difficult.

There is a crucial problem here. Ideally in a clinical trial setting this is possible. You're holding vials with labels. If I remove those labels, your experiment is fucked up. 

Try to think of non scientific everyday settings. If someone is experiencing psilomethoxin when they are dosed with psilocybin, they don't know that it's normal mushroom. Neither do others around them. We're not always carrying testing kits around. 

So you can test a placebo in ideal conditions, that is a lab. But you can't test a placebo in everyday normal human living conditions because you don't know what something contains. 

If you care about the truth, like technicals and all the jazz, then you should do rigorous tests with detailed laboratory reports and much more like samples with actual psilomethoxin and how it shows up in tests. 

All you're doing is speculating and that's why what you say cannot be taken too seriously as it lacks substance. It's banter. 

 

[Girzo]

26 minutes ago, Enlightement said:

It would be awesome if you actually proved it doesn't contain psilomethoxin instead of doing armchair speculation. In this sense you're no different than the church. It's he said she said with your rhetoric. 

This is not a speculation. All the church's in-house tests failed. All the independent researchers' tests have failed. I know of at least three, done using different methods. Everything is pointing to the fact it's bunk.

Here's David Nichols chiming in on this topic, the OG psychedelics chemist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Nichols), more important figure than Shulgin in my opinion:

Quote

The church has a completely nonsensical and nonscientific position. 

“If a reference standard was necessary to identify a new natural product, no new natural products would ever have been identified. That is simple logic that anyone can understand. You don’t need an already synthesized standard molecule before you can identify the presence of that molecule for the very first time in a natural product. Rather, the Williamson and Sherwood paper uses proper analytical methodology to show that there is nothing in their ‘psilomethoxin’ sample with the properties of the claimed compound.”

Organic compounds can be identified by specific analytical methods such as high-resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS), which will give the exact molecular weight of a compound out to four decimal places, allowing one to calculate the molecular formula of the compound. Ultra performance liquid chromatography was used to identify how many tryptamines were present in their standard sample. [Williamson and Sherwood] easily identified psilocybin, psilocin, and baeocystin. However, the exact molecular weight of psilomethoxin is 235.1441 and there was no additional HPLC peak corresponding to that exact molecular weight.”

Source: https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/the-church-of-psilomethoxin-part-2-unraveling-the-chemistry-of-canned-peas-with-david-nichols/

26 minutes ago, Enlightement said:

All you're doing is speculating and that's why what you say cannot be taken too seriously as it lacks substance. It's banter.

Obviously I don't really care about those silly mushrooms and silly drama. I am genuinely interested in chemistry and mycology, though. And I don't think there's a lack of substance in my posts in this topic, it's almost only substance, from day one. I don't need to be buying a scam product to tell you it's a scam. 

I might do a serious psilocybin tolerance study in the future. I think it's an important topic. Too much bullshit around it. Around dosing, too.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Buck Edwards]

@Girzo I only care about placing my belief into something either based on experience (which I believe is a bit mushy indeed) or based on verifiable credible proof. 

In your case, make yourself believable. 

I would expect this from you - a triple test. 

I need you to show me 3 samples. First sample should be sugar. Second sample should be actual psilomethoxin. Third sample should be the luxury mushroom from the church. 

Now you need to have something similar to a litmus test. It should be a clear cut indicator of the absence or presence of psilomethoxin. 

If the second sample gives the green signal and the other two samples don't, I will believe everything you say. 

Do you have such a report with you? 

If you can't produce what I demanded, I won't believe you. 

Till then no talk. 

[Girzo]

@Enlightement Yeah, it's better to stop talking because the issue is plus-minus settled and your proposed experiment design is not so good.

We can say that the mushrooms are probably bunk and wait until something new happens. Maybe someone will synth this compound, or the church will release their tek of growing mushrooms, or maybe they will get put in jail for distributing controlled substance in the US.

Till then, no talk.

Reply to the post below: Chillout man, you are making yourself look funny. I am saying probably, not to aggravate you folks anymore and finish this pointless discussion. I don't want to hear the "but it doesn't have tolerance, bro, it's different, trust me" anymore, not even once.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Buck Edwards]

@Girzo when it came to the actual nitty gritty, you backed off. Haha. Smart. 

My experiment design is cool. You simply don't have the means to do it. 

Now you say "the mushrooms are probably bunk," it's changed to probably after I challenged you hardcore. 

See this is the problem with online conspiracy theories, there isn't serious credibility to such claims. 

You can't call someone/something an outright scam if you can't prove it outright. 

Not so long ago you accused me of being a church marketer. 

I'm completely chill. I'm only saying that you have nothing to objectively prove your claims. It's farcical. 

I'm not wanting to be salty with you. I respect your opinion so far, yet I simply wish to keep the discussion good faith and as objective as possible.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Enlightement

[Girzo]

25 minutes ago, Enlightement said:

Not so long ago you accused me of being a church marketer. 

I still do think that, you, Benton and this kconsciousness guy give off a weird MLM-vibe.

Disclaimer: this one is purely my opinion, not based on evidence.   On the issue of psilomethoxin, there's enough evidence in this thread for anyone to make up their mind.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Girzo

[Buck Edwards]

This is getting a bit annoying. 

I'm having a neutral position on this matter until stronger credible proof is shown. 

You should seriously check your bias. It's pissing me off.