A recent article on Kahpi.net:

Is Ayahuasca Made in the Laboratory or with Foreign Plants Just as Good? Enter Pharmahuasca.
What is pharmahuasca and could it be a decent substitute for the sacred Amazonian brew ayahuasca? Learn about the chemistry and debates over what makes ayahuasca, ayahuasca.

It sounds like it was written by someone with a lot of Nexus-style knowledge, but I don't quite understand the arguments that analogues / pharmahuasca is an alternative to flying to the Amazon or sitting in group ceremonies, because anyone can make their own real ayahuasca at home and it's easier than making those extracts; indeed, generally speaking, to make an extract, you have to make a crude tea first. Once you have it, you can drink it, or proceed with an extraction, which requires more advanced knowledge.

Personally, I understand the benefit of extracting P. harmala as a substitute for caapi, because caapi is expensive and its preparation is resource-intensive. But for oral DMT, simple chacruna or chali tea is much easier to make and superior in effects to MHRB or ACRB extracts; some of the leaf out there is in the same binary order of magnitude of potency as the rootbarks (e.g. 1% DMT in leaf compared to 2% in good barks), but crude leaf teas avoid bark extraction losses and their full-spectrum nature adds even more to their potency, which cancels out the potential benefits of the theoretical higher DMT content of the barks.

I can't speak to the purge vs no-purge thing, as I don't purge at all.


Anyone can make ayahuasca with love, it's all up to the individual. What the article doesn't mention is the intention of harm / sorcery, so common in Peru, but not in the West.
Knowledge, connection and power (whatever that may be referring to) can be gained by studying this work at home. Sure you don't have it at the beginning, but after a decade or two you it will be different.

Master Plant's permission? How do I know the Amazonian shaman has it and is not making it up to create a sense of superiority, mystery, power and gain some sort of monopoly?

It is like the argument of whether to use a shaman or use alone. For me i waited to drink with a shaman. One who was was well recommended. The same drink alone would have carried a very different experience with the same chemicals. Not really out of superstition but by his experience at creating a container that felt safe, the mastery of how music and ritual drives the experience and holding space in a loving gentle way. I was glad i waited. I feel like now i have a better path if i do choose to drink alone, aya, pharma or otherwise. Intention really drives the experience.

As a person who has consumed in different contexts such as with indigenous people, in Santo Daime cerimonies, in small groups as well as by myself, I find the article interesting but it is lacking in some important aspects.

In the text there are logical fallacies such as appeal to nature and appeal to tradition. Why is a "shaman" (an imported term) in the Amazon somehow magically given this status of Truth? Did the author consider one "shaman" may have completely contradicting ideas about what to do and not to do in one tribe vs another? So how to assess the legitimacy of a "shaman", how to know if their style will match with your needs, and what about the dangers and risks involved of putting yourself in the hands of a stranger under such a vulnerable state?

Also this whole thing about "master plant's permission"? Do master plants give permission and accept the ecological footprint of thousands of people flying over to South America and the impact of that tourism in the amazon local regions? There is absolutely no talk about the ecological costs in the text.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to go to South America if you're not from there, but I just want to show that things are a bit more complicated.

Also I find the description of harmine vs harmaline vs thh a bit subjective, would have liked the author to specify that's his opinion or link to some trip reports or whatever.

Then when the author talks about how going to the Amazon is a whole trip which already prepares the person spiritually, versus "ordering a chemical that is delivered to one's doorstep", that a false dichotomy, exaggerating and caricaturing the other alternative. To take pharmahuasca you don't necessarily order anything. What if you collected wild plants or grew yourself, made the extraction yourself, etc.. Isn't that even more preparation and connection to "The Spirits" than flying thousands of kms away paying for a fancy retreat somewhere where you spend a week or whatever (how much can you really get to know a culture like that? ) ? Also analogues aren't necessarily "purified chemicals".

One more point is that the author seems to ignore the possibility people grow caapi/chacruna outside of South America, totally possible in places like Florida in USA, in many regions in Africa and Asia. And even if they don't grow, they can order it online and drink legitimate ayahuasca but without being in the Amazon (though this will raise other questions mentioned above such as sustainability/ecological costs, etc)

I agree with the ending that intention is a very important aspect.

Asking for a plants permission and giving thank expands to general herbalism and is often mentioned in books.

I'm not sure how/if it it works, but to this day I still ask for permission and give thanks even when I pick a few basil leaves from the garden

I like doing it. Not sure if the plant understands at all, but it feels "good" somehow.

The plants understand....

The essential message that "spirit is superior to dry chemistry" is very true imv.

Though it is not that one cannot deepen in the spiritual aspect of teacher plants without going to SA.
Perhaps sometimes for a kickstarter. But come on, how many of us are meant to spend our lives flying around the world... One basic essential message for me is to root in one's local land.

For me that means: the spirit of the user is superior to whatever he's using.

Can't help but sniffing aya elitism in that article.

Imho pharma is just another tool in the toolbox, not something like a screwdriver that desperately tries to mimic a hammer and failing therein. It's a darn good and ragingly effective screwdriver, the best for that job!! There will always be people saying that screwdrivers are not really like hammers wacking nails down. Well, congratulations with that notice.

That site has some really big names associated with it. Haven't read the article linked, or anything else there-just peeked at it to see what it is- but judging by some of the comments here on it's content, I am curious if more of the information there, which is presented as "teachings" for those wanting knowledge of Aya, is as off-base with a new-age spiritualist bent? It would be a little disappointing considering the caliber of personalities on the home page lending their credibility to the site's teaching capacity.

I don't think it matters if something is made in a lab.
In my view LSD is one of the best psychedelics out there, for instance.
I find LSD to be totally on par with ayahuasca, shrooms or cacti.

I agree with the silly error about pharma at home OR brew in the jungle. This set me off while reading the article.

I've done multiple ceremonies with the Huni Kuin tribe. Talked to a tribal chief who gave an aya ceremony head of several villages and the elderly shaman passing on knowledge to the next generation. Asked his opinion about home aya usage with friends. His answer: if the intention is right, then it's a nice and special way to experience aya. Contradictory to many western aya-goers participating in these ceramonies who seem to fear home use.

I succeeded in making what I believe to be a full spectrum caapi extract using ethanol pulls (not lab tested). Dark red shatter hash consistency. Really nice. This can be encapsulated.

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=917946#post917946

Two reasons I made this:
1) I don't like the taste of Caapi brew
2) I don't like the effect of Harmala isolates (Harmaline /Harmine)
Note: by Harmala I mean Harmala Alkaloids.

Isolates feel different than brew for me. I used such extracts multiple times and they always have the same effect (also in combo with Shrooms): high speedy forceful energy near the end of the duration. Like a super strong anti-depressive. During the experience I feel off balance and semi out of control in terms of concentration and focus. With brew my body and mind feel more heavy, grounded, and I feel healthier afterwards than prior. With isolates I need to recover. I purge from everything. aya, rue, isolates. Purging feels good.

You could argue placebo, but the difference makes sense from a full spectrum synergy perspective. Similar to cannabis where isolated THC (like Marinol® - while we're talking pharma) not only gives a less pleasant feeling than the entourage effect of CBD and all the other cannabinoids, terpines, etc, but is probably even harmful. I regard "reductionism" a pitt-fall of western male-orientated society. This is also present in medicine and science.

A not understood difference of caapi brew vs harmala extract is:

If Caapi contains +-2% Harmala, 50g of Vine contains +-1000mg of Harmala. Meaning, one small dose of Caapi brew contains 5 large doses of Pharmauasca! How can this be? The alkaloid content of Caapi varies so much that it’s impossible to say what’s going on. Some speculate that Caapi brew has something in it that slows or regulates the absorption of Harmala.

The effect of rue is very different from aya. This is due to different Harmala ratios and misc compounds. Aya is interpreted as a female presence. They call her Mother Ayahuasca. I call rue Syrian Uncle. An uncle is more free and lets his nephew's children play around. They may climb a small tree a fall from a branch. But that's OK as long as it's not too dangerous and they learn. From this analogy: Rue doesn't "control" the DMT effects as much as aya. Less guiding, less protective, but intelligent and caring in it's own way. Personalty I prefer aya, mainly due to nicer body load and mental effect. Buying rue "cause it does the same thing and is cheap" is a bit simplistic imho.

I am against using Harmala isolates orally, but don't mind popping full-spectrum caapi capsules with DMT. I am pro authentic aya ceremonies, but also like home use. I wouldn't pay a western aya healer or travel to some random aya place in South America. I'd never take a synthetic MAOI drug in combo with DMT.

Have a good one,
some one

İ'm completely on board with Some One - I passionately believe that full spectrum extracts (or eating the whole plant if possible) is far superior to isolating certain alkaloids within a plant. İt's not just about the alkaloids, the whole package is one and full of purposeful components.

Mangos and watermelons both contain sugar, another sexy active molecule for humans. Would anybody prefer to isolate the sugar from these and just ingest that, and see both fruits as the same thing? This is no different from psychedelic plants imv, and we are blind to obsess over one or certain molecules - thc, psilocybin, dmt, harmine, THH, etc, and disregard the rest of the medicine plants which is necessary to complete the wholesome, healthy spirit. İt's a relic of the unbalanced, rationally/analytically dominated mindset of modern Western culture, failing to see the unity in Creation.

As I said, I also believe that intention is the key which determines whether working with these plants is good or bad, at home or with a traditional healer, so working by yourself is possible and even special in it's own way.

The topic of rue however needs more clarifying in the global psyche. I have been studying rue for over 10 years now, with over 1000 experiences with rue and tryptamine containing plants. I have learned some things, and there is an infinite amount of knowledge more to be acquired. Syrian Rue has different strains with different energies. Some are masculine, some are feminine. Also, I have been led to believe that the actual spirit of rue in full power is not experienced with seeds that are over a month or two past harvesting. Trust me, when it is in full power, it is in absolute control in the medicine, including over the dmt effects. I am in my process of discovering how to capture and preserve the full spirit of rue in a medicine.

I'm personally quite tired of hearing about how shamans are some master of ayahuasca. I definitely get that certain individuals who have worked with ayahuasca for a while are of course good resources to have around for someone who wants to approach having experiences with ayahuasca, or having someone help prepare it, but I think there's glaring concerns that are never addressed with "shamanism" or for profit ayahuasca enterprises. The ayahuasca (pharmahuasca/whatever) is omnipotent, not the person who gives it to you. That person is called a drug dealer. Thinking that you have super powers is a symptom of psychosis, at which point it is time to slow down and take a look around. In terms of interviewing someone I've never met who wants to partake, gaining an understanding of their situation and stepping out of my perspective and into their own, and then making recommendations and preparing a safe, appropriate place to have an ayahuasca experience, I'm really not sure what a shaman thinks they are capable of that I am not. They think they have the right to say what is right and what is wrong, what is the appropriate way to have the experience and what is "disrespectful" based on a title they give to themselves. If you ask me, the molecules are what does the work. Remember the fact that you have ripped the plant from nature, boiled it into a tea or extracted it's insides, effectively killing it in this process, and then consuming it. I'm pretty sure if someone forcibly removed you from your environment, boiled you alive, and then ate you, that you would find that act pretty disrespectful. So we've already crossed that line to begin with. Maybe just take an objective step back and acknowledge that while these plants hold they keys to the most powerful experiences that humans can have, at the same time, they. are. just. plants.

I get it..
some people have a misunderstanding of how science/chemistry works, lack a vernacular framework to describe the causes of certain sensations, so they attribute it to vague "full spectrum" natural ballyhoo. The causes of the effects aren't as mysterious as some might suggest, they're fairly well mapped out. What isn't clear is why..the genetic implications, structure/function relationships, etc.

the alkaloids, terpenoids, etc. all have been studied. you can take the pepsi challenge, but wouldn't be able to tell the difference between synthetic or natural. It's "literally" all in your head.

Vague "full spectrum" natural ballyhoo..

To be clear you aren't saying that the difference in effect between consuming caapi tea and an isolated harmaline + harmine + THH extract is placebo right? That's like saying vodka has the same effect as wine. While even red and white wine have a different effect.

What VibeSurfer and I are saying is that male-orientated Western science is over-focused on the main active compounds and "forgets" to study the interaction of misc. compounds combined with the main active ones. Hence Western pharma uses pure THC while the by now very well known entourage effect works (and feels) much better. Every cannabis strain has it's own effect. We probably haven't even mapped all Cannabinoids, let alone are able to predict the effect of the uncountable ratio's of the more than 200 different Terpines present. Instead we make unhealthy pure THC into a medicine. Or Harmaline into pharmahuasca.

I'd be happy to take a pepsi challenge for pure vodka vs red wine, pure THC vs full spectrum cannabis and pure harmaline vs full spectrum caapi ballyhoo any day.

In theory if you could measure all compounds in Caapi and create a synthetic replica, it could be hard to impossible to tell the difference between this and a full-spectrum plant extract containing exactly the same elements. However synthesizing every compound is a hell of a job. There is actually little point in doing this vs extracting from nature. Also, this holistic approach is all too often missing in Western science. That's my point and what the opening post is about.

Only when we get quantum machines working could we maybe start to calculate the extremely complicated effects of compound combinations and synergies on neurological effects and health. Currently we're just a bunch a straight legged apes. Let's not get ahead of ourselves thinking we can understand everything with our limited brains and measuring toys - we can't.

Some one's post nails it.

An illustrative example is the discovery that vitamin supplements are harmful to human health (they've been found to shorten lifespan). We may replicate the most prevalent nutrients in an apple, but if we limit it to, say, the top 30, there is no reason to believe it will be a healthy mix to consume. The full spectrum apple contains over 600 that we know of and it's not practical to synthesize them all... other than by growing an apple tree.

And the complexity of interactions is exponential in the number of compounds. In the territory of 600 in the exponent, good luck studying that using currently available technology.

you guys are assuming those hundreds of compounds are centrally active. they're likely not, or have negligible effect.
chalk most of it up to placebo effect.
it's akin to the whole fallacy that peppermint oil converts LSA to LSH (which is of course, chemically baseless), so people attribute
their experience to a conversion that does not happen. that's not to say some other mode of action isn't occurring, but it's more than likely LSA + placebo. but the burden of proof lies on those making the claims, which is often nothing more that handwaving and anecdotal speculation. that's how misinformation is spread. for instance, there are a lot of yellow crystal pics on the dmt subreddit, and people call it "full spectrum", "contains lipids", etc (I've analyzed so-called "full spectrum" dmt before, it comes out as one big 189 m/z peak) I have tryptamine xtals that look exactly the same. They are unaware that the color doesn't come from impurities, it comes from autooxidation of pyrrole. But, they assume it is "full spectrum", and gives a different effect.

Notice me saying in my initial post in this topic that I don't mind DMT isolate in my pharmahuasca, meaning I'm not inclined to favor holistic plants from an emotional bias all too fast. An of course not all of the hundreds of compounds present in plants are equally active.

I agree with you regarding the error of extracting DMT crystals and calling yellow yield full-spectrum (filled with compounds contributing to the experience). I believe the yellow color to be non-active and not contributing to the effect. Yellow spice seems harder to vape on some accurate temperature controlled electronic devices, by trapping DMT in a higher boiling point while at the same time making spice better to vape on other devices by acting as a buffer to burn less of the sensitive DMT? If so could this attribute to the reported difference in effect with full-spectrum as an misinterpretation?

I'm sure if you'd "extract" DMT plants with water simmered down to a gel, you'd find many more compounds in the dark brown /red residue than in the yellow crystal extract you tested, which was probably isolated with naphtha or the like, am I right? I'm also sure if you'd drink this it would have some difference in effect compared to pure DMT. But as I've mentioned, I personally don't mind much for that and I am fine with pure DMT for the Light.

As for the Force, Rue /Caapi plants are however another story. To me there is very clear different in effect between orally consuming an isolated mix of harmaline + harmine + THH and full-spectrum plants. It actually took me a while to realize this. If you call that placebo you may, but I would argue that there's some ignorance in that - no offense. To objectively lab test the difference you should dissolve caapi in water and simmer down to a dark brown gel and test this yield. You'd find many compounds. Next is studying the synergetic effect. This is where it gets difficult.

Other than the actual effect which can be felt during the experience there are the unknown health effects with consuming isolated compounds vs holistic plants. I too would prefer apples over refined sugar + vitamin pills + raw fiber any day, good example. Also cannabis vs pure THC. Likewise my gut feeling says Harmala isolates feel less healthy than full spectrum Force plants.

There is no doubt that there are differences between full spectrum and pure isolated compounds, ime, particularly with the Rue seed compared to freebased Rue extract or freebased purified Harmala extract. As far as the DMT goes, i'm pretty sure the same applies, Mimosa definitely feels different than Acacia does to me, however, i have used pure 4-ACO-DMT as the Light instead of mushrooms or DMT and have found pure 4-ACO works just as good as mushrooms or DMT, so the difference when it comes to the Light isn't as important i feel, but i much prefer the Rue seed or freebased Rue full spectrum extract over purified Harmala (Harmine/Harmaline) extract, the differences are as clear as day. Rue seed feels quite full spectrum, the freebased Rue extract feels closer to the plant but lighter/cleaner than the plant, and the purified Harmala extract feels like isolated compounds.

I'm a big fan of synergy between compounds and plants, it's obvious synergy plays a pretty important role. Some may not notice it, some may not care, but regardless if some other compounds are active or not, they definitely seem to contribute to how things feel and the effects and benefits.

I should also mention that i took Rue and Mimosa/Acacia daily/near daily for 4 years, i've had a lot of practice and experience and experimentation, so i definitely can tell the difference. I also can definitely tell how different admixture plants synergize with and alter the main Huasca medicine, Lemon Balm is a particular favorite admixture plant of mine.

reconsidered..
I see what you're saying: so suppose there are a plethora of undocumented/unstudied compounds, which would normally be metabolized by the liver. The metabolism is inhibited by harmalas, giving a qualitatively different experience.

I prefer to drink freshly roasted coffee, pour-over brewed with clean filtered water and the optimal grind consistency. Or grinding this fine and putting it into the lever machine to extrude a shot of liquid gold. This type of coffee gets me high, and the positive stimulant effects are vastly superior compared to a stale, poorly extracted cup of coffee, or a caffeine pill containing the same or more amount of caffeine.

Now is this perceived increased potency of the coffee because it is 'full spectrum' some other components only present in fresh properly extracted coffee, that is synergizing with the caffeine to increase its potency?

No. It just tastes better. With the smells and taste, perhaps my brain is heightened with an exhilarating rush of sense perception and fired up in anticipation to receive a dose of xanthines. Activating the reward pathways and food satisfaction resulting in an overall pleasant experience.

Should I blame science for telling me that all I should be looking for in my stimulant coffee drink in caffeine? No. That's stupid. Science isn't forcing me to only look at one aspect. It is answering a completely different question.

You don't need science to answer the the question: Does this work? Because all you have to do is do it. Does a rock fall when you drop it? Yes, it does. We can all agree on that. But if you want to ask the question: Why does the rock fall when you drop it? Now that is a entirely different question. The vikings knew that cod liver oil was keeping them alive, without knowing that it was due a steroid molecule called vitamin d. Why it worked wasn't as important, as long as they kept the practice.

So if I ask the question, why is coffee a stimulant? You could come up with a whole bunch of answers "The beans have spirit, the roasting smoke gives fire in the beans and the flavor gives energy" Any form of voodoo nonsense, anything that seems reasonable, but you have no clear way to tell which is true over the other.

The scientific method works, because it allows you to start to answer the Why? and the How? questions. Does this tell you the full story? No. Does it claim to? No. But it does offer you something that you could not have known without it, it distills out some partial truth that can be unequivocally agreed upon. It partially answers the why question. But does it fully answer the question? No! Of course not! Haven't you ever had a child play with you keep asking you Why? at the end of every answer? The question can go on ad infinitum!



It doesn't 'forget' to study anything. You simply need to ask the right question. When you ask the question why does coffee act as a stimulant? When you boil it down into its parts, and you find that it contains caffeine, and caffeine is the only molecule that provides a measurable stimulant effect on the CNS, then it starts to answer the why question. It turns out, the best answer to that why question is about caffeine. Now you can keep asking Why? down that road: Why does caffeine act like a stimulant? and you use the same method, boil it down to: because caffeine acts as an adenosine receptor antagonist, why does an adenosine receptor antagonist act like a stimulant? Etc. etc. etc.

If you ask a completely different question: Why do I feel better when I drink fresh coffee instead of stale coffee? Now that is a completely different question and it isn't answered by the question: Why is coffee a stimulant? If you want to know the answer this Why question, you have to follow the same method! And it might turn out there isn't an easy answer to this Why question, because suddenly now we are asking a much more complicated question, it now has less to do with what is in the coffee and more to do with what is happening inside the human body/brain, and this is not so easy to measure, and so cannot be answered so effectively. But nevertheless, you must follow the same method if you ever want to even START to answer the Why? question. Otherwise, you are back to chasing ghosts. Without measurement this is no way to tell the difference between "The caffeine isn't as strong because after time the spirits escape the coffee when it isn't fresh" and "taste and aroma release reward monoamines so the experience isn't as stimulating and pleasurable when the taste is rancid, even if it contains more caffeine"

Without the scientific method you can't test the validity of any answer to the Why? question. One might seem ridiculous and one might seem more plausible than the other, but without measurement, you cannot say which is true! If you cannot test the hypothesis, then you cannot reach a meaningful conclusion that it is true.

The problem arises when you try to conflate the answers of one question with a completely different question, without following the scientific method.

When you ask the question, why do I feel different after drinking Caapi vs drinking other harmalas?



You can speculate, but finding simple answers the question are increasingly difficult because now you are involving consciousness, notoriously difficult to find a simple unequivocal answer that everyone can agree to, because notoriously, difficult to measure. A prime example of our limitation is what is seen with quantum mechanics, the act of measurement can even change the observed result.
You can give explanations and speculate to why: I.e. this one has such and such spirit and this one has such and such magic and this one has such and such force. But you can't arrive at the same type of partial truth that you got to using the method used to inform you that harmine is an MAOI inhibitor, and DMT is a 5ht2a agonist. You can't go rationally from A + B = C, and then make an irrational leap that C must equal D. If you want to get to some unequivocal truth, you have to get there step by step. And for most things in the universe, the systems are far too complicated to be reached this way. But it doesn't mean that just because you know C, that jumping back to chasing ghosts is a better method to try to answer the why question, because we know that it just isn't. Lots of people including scientists fall into this trap, because in less extreme examples, it is less obvious. Especially when it comes to politics and ideology