I am of the same conviction, that plant effects are generally richer than the effects of their 'main' active ingredient. This doesn't only apply to psychoactive plants, i feel the same about nutrition and medicine. I'll choose oranges over vitamin C tablets any day of the week.
I think the pure compound mentality partly comes from over-application of pharmacological thinking. I understand that in order to get reproducible results, pure compounds or mixtures of known compound ratios are more reliable - even necessary for many studies. But neglecting the interactions of the various compounds in a specific plant source probably means missing something.
One thing i try to do is use different words for impurities depending on where they come from. A constituent that was extracted from the plant along with the 'main' compound is not the same to me as a contaminant that was added in the extraction process.
In the case of DMT extraction, i don't consider constituents like NMT or DMT n-Oxide necessarily undesired. Yes they will affect the quality of effects. Yes they will affect the potency of the extract. So, the extract shouldn't be called DMT, but <plant name> extract. I do consider residual lye, sodium carbonate, vinegar, fumaric, or d-limonene undesired. They may or may not affect the quality of effects, but they are contaminants in said extract.
Even when there are unwanted constituents, such as gramine in Phalaris, i'd prefer a way to remove the unwanted compound and keep all the others, over a way to isolate the most desired one and remove all the others.
I actually wanna try and make my mimosa extracts more full spectrum again. It was fun to achieve the white crystals, but i feel like my early brown crumbles were extra special
