I'm glad you reiterated this because over the course of discussing this I have, on a couple occasions, lost sight of the original idea behind this. I also have a better understanding why it's important to have a double blind aspect. I don't really care what the results show but I would hate to see results that are inconclusive. It would be frustrating for me and make me feel like I wasted a lot of my time.
Anyway hopefully that won't be the case.

What a great idea! Hope I didn't miss something. To be truly double-blind it is important that the experimenter NOT know which batch each participant is receiving at the time of testing. Ideally, they wouldn't even know at the time of evaluating the score cards - even more ideally - a completely uninvolved with the experiment researcher would score the cards. Once the cards are scored and the statistics are performed (or whatever) and results known to all (e.g. Group A received double-blind batch B from researcher Y and their card was scored by researcher Z and Group A had more visuals or ego-deaths or mystical experiences or . . . ) then researcher G comes in and tells everyone, "Well, Batch B was the white, recrystallized spice, 40 mgs, Batch C was the jungle spice 30 mgs, . . . or whatever . . . .

I cannot wait to read the results.

Would it be an interesting addition if when the test results are presented the key to which material is which isn't posted at first. Then we could make a poll and all the members of the board could then guess, based on the experiences and responses of the participants, which material is which.
At some point of course the person running the test, me in this case, would post the key displaying which material is which.

I'm not so sure how, if at all, this would benefit the experiment but I guess I'm thinking that there has to be some way we can take advantage of the Nexus itself, blind as the members here would be, to get more results or results of a different kind.

I bet even pure vs impure makes a noticeable difference in effects, just like it would with any drug. So the difference in effects could come down to simply a purity issue, jungle and yellow spice = less pure than white. It would be interesting to see if there are actual psychoactive differences as well.

I agree you should stick to low non-breakthrough doses as subjectivity increases with dose IME.

Differences in visuals, color/shade etc can be pretty subjective. As well as feelings, since they can change depending on mood. Come-up time, overall length and speed of experience I think are a little more objective, but with something like DMT there are so many variables to take into consideration.
A whole series of blind tests across multiple days might help control things like mood.
Maybe if all the dmt was added to the same type of herb, its adding another variable, but it would be the same variable across all 3 DMT types. This could minimize telling the difference from taste/harshness alone.

Anyway there's some idea's, I wish I could help out more but I only have access to one type right now.

PLEASE READ BEFORE ATTEMPTING EXPERIMENTS. YOUR DATA MAY BE SERIOUSLY CONFOUNDED OR UNABLE TO ANSWER YOUR DESIRED EXPERIMENTAL QUESTION.

I like the idea! But you guys need to consider some things before going forward or you might get seriously confounded data, or data unable to ask the question you want.

First off, you need a hypothesis. I presume you're looking for subjective differences between white/yellow/jungle DMT at equivalent intensity doses, because this is the research question that likely best teases apart the subjective differences between the forms, if any. Alternatively, you could standardize on weight (like Opiyum suggests), and you'd get differences in intensity and other subjective effects on a per weight basis. This is an equally valid experiment, but you can't infer anything particularly interesting about the types of DMT other than intensity per weight, because if there is a difference in intensity, the other subjective indicators will naturally vary (as I believe we can all agree that subjective indicators are subject to wild fluctuation with intensity).

So that leads to the issue of standardizing for intensity. If one dose is noticeably weaker, there will be an obvious difference between the two and your subjects may pick up on that rather than the difference between the DMT forms. If that's the case, any results could be alternatively interpreted as a difference in the amount of DMT actives between the changa mixes rather than something attributable to the mixes. For any conclusions to be sound, intensity must be held constant.

The only way around that seems to be a prior experiment with multiple participants and multiple strengths of changa for the white/yellow/jungle DMT - you can assess their average intensity rating of the white/yellow/jungle DMT at various dose concentrations. Using these numbers, you should arrive at some concentrations for each that keeps the intensity at least relatively constant (you can also choose the intensity at which to perform the following experiment). Try to have as many participants and as many different dose concentrations as possible, as the results of your experiment are very reliant on the numbers interpolated here.

Then you can perform an experiment determining the subjective differences at equal intensity doses. Track intensity as well in these experiments, to make sure your efforts at holding it constant were effective.

Summary - doing it this way answers the following questions:
1. What is the difference in intensity between equivalent doses of white, yellow, and jungle DMT?
2. What are the subjective differences between these types of DMT at an equivalent intensity dose?

Doing it as described currently only answers the first question. You can't answer both in one experiment, and you can't answer the second one without previously performing the first experiment.

Finally, if you do plan on multiple different groups of people performing this experiment, you probably have two options:

1. Every person standardizes intensity on their own and uses the above experiment plan. You wouldn't be able to pool any of the data (because of differences in prep, bark, etc.), but you could analyse the results of the parallel experiments. A good use of extra groups of people would be to perform the second experiment at different standardized intensities. This is definitely the more work-heavy option of the two, but also the more accurate one. A limitation is the size of the groups, leading to smaller samples sizes that are less likely to produce statistically significant data.

2. Use a standard (and popular) extraction protocol for all three types of DMT. Things must be done EXACTLY THE SAME. Ideally the same bark and extraction materials as well. A dedicated group (or several) could use their DMT types to find equivalent intensity recipes for each type (experiment 1). We'd then post them to the Nexus. We could then perform experiment 2 on a much larger amount of people (anyone group that performs the standardized extraction) in the hope that the differences between prep qualities would average out over the large sample size. You'd also have to be very careful that the scales for intensity and subjective effects are interpreted the same over different groups of people. I prefer this approach because while the data is slightly less quality (due to probable differences in extraction skill, bark quality, reporting etc.) you get a potentially much larger sample size which means a better chance of statistically significant effects. The best way to remove bias of environment would be to perform with blindfolds and silence (this wouldn't be necessary for approach 1, as each experimental group will have the same conditions within the course of their own experiments).

If anybody has any questions, send me a PM or post it here - I'll follow this thread. I'm also available for any statistical analysis you guys might want, I've taken enough courses on basic statistics and regression analysis that I should be able to tease some trends out of the data.

Re-X vs. non re-X would be in my opinion more appropriate than colors. As least for the conclusions since yellow ain't yellow and jungle isn't jungle.

Also where do we stand now ?

I can only speak for myself and right now I'm still in the process of getting all the materials together. Once that's done I will start scheduling appointments, so to speak, but I don't see this thing getting accomplished until sometime this summer. I expect that people, being as unpredictable as they are, and their schedules, crazy as they can be, are going to be the biggest hurdles.

What do you mean by jungle ain't jungle by the way?

I kinda like that idea.

I have been prparing for this. I am currently on a integration break of sorts, well sort of. I will be ready to go in a couple of weeks to a month.

Swim has three samples of spice that were all three done together. Simple STB Tek. Same batch of bark from the same vendor. All three were exposed to the same exact parameters with one exception. One was pulled with Xylene, one with naphtha and one was pulled with heptane.
all three batches used the same amount of bark, h2o, lye, and solvent. All three were slow evaped. SWIM has plenty of each sample to do this research. SWIM can re-x any one of the samples or a bit of each if it would help. There is a reddish orange waxy batch. a bright yellow powdery/grainy batch and a off white batch of crystal shards. When we start the research I would be happy to post a photo of the three side by side by side.

I would also be willing to do a more detailed report on all of the exacts on the extracts.

I am not a Lab Tech I am a Lab Rat! keep that in mind here. I am open to suggestions. Tell me what I need to do here to help get some useful data.

I am very confident I will get consistent dosing.

keep me updated.

OK, can you check/fill the following
___________________________________________________
Method: STB (link to the TEK, if it was used ?)
Solvent:
1. Naptha (a bright yellow powdery/grainy batch)
2. Xylene (reddish orange waxy batch)
3. Heptane (off white batch of crystal shards)
___________________________________________________

We're good, could be titled
"Bioassay comparision of DMT freebase extracted with different solvents via STB (Straigh-To-Base) extraction method". Probably.

I would use these examples for hm, sampling ground, to refine and test variables which could help with designing tests that would be even more "importanat" (personal choice) for the community.


Future:
My focus lies in other areas since as I see it, the majority of extractions are made with one of the two/three ways with a certain two solvents being the most popular choice.

Method : Solvent

1. STB : Naptha
2. Dry TEK : Naptha/Limonene
3. A/B : Naptha

Because of that, my biggest interest is the difference in between crude extracts (no Re-X) and the effects of recrystallization.

Libra:
http://www.scribd.com/do...-and-Alcohol-Dependence

_______________________________________________
Questions, question, q's, q, cue, cues


1. What will be your choice of the smoking device ? Can you see the DMT during the smoke process in that device ? Do you own (can obtain) two devices ?

2. Which scale you intent to use ?

3. Is there a possibility of another human being present (to prepare the samples) ?


Keep shining,

Shaolin.

All very iteresting, but what if the participants can taste the difference, recognize if it's jungle or glass shards by the taste of the vapor? It would no longer a blind test and possible placebo could kick in again. Injection would be best but that's problematic.

hence why masking with an inert herb is recommended in the first post with the protocol

Ah I see, yes that may work.

The long thread about jungle spice was my first contact with the Nexus, so this is a very exciting idea!

I recently happened upon an article in The Entheogen Review (Volume XV, #3, 2006, ISSN 1066-1913) written by Dr. Rick Strassman, M.D. entitled "The Inner Work".
It is written in response or as an adjunct to Dr. Andrew Sewell's "So you want to be a Psychedelic Researcher?" article from a previous issue of the same publication.(found here)

I want to post a link to Dr. Strassman's article and think it would be ideal suggested reading material to anyone considering running tests of a psychedelic nature. Unfortunately I am having trouble finding the article online which is frustrating because it's such a great piece. It brings up many issues that deserve a great deal of consideration on the part of anyone who chooses to do this sort of work, authorized or otherwise.
I've thought on it for a bit and I just decided to scan the article and attach it. As it's a publication dedicated to unauthorized research and this is a forum/thread about the very same I think it's fitting. I hope this doesn't present any liability to the owners of the site.

..factors that need to be taken into account in such studies:

Dietary (metabolic) factors (e.g 5meoDMT can cause MAOinhib., have seen 1 person purge on relatively pure DMT); some foods are 'drugs'..changes might be
subtle but need to be taken into account)

Cross-tolerance & other substances (e.g. recent ingestion of LSD, psilocin etc causes cross-tolerance with DMT; while DMT showed no physiological
tolerance in Strassman's studies, subjective effects were reduced. I suggest DMT requires a complete 24hr metabolic cycle before a user is likely to
achieve similar effects from a similar dose.) (also, many herbs like nymphea, licorice root etc change an entheogen's action, not to mention SSRIs or caffine)

Agreed & understood lexicon of terms to describe mental & physiological subjective effects.

Differences in efficiency of vapour absorption (if using this ROA)..i.e. amount in chamber is not always completely taken into lungs, or held).

& finally whether we are talking about purifying dmt from plant sources, or are we comparing dmt+other alkaloids with pure dmt? (which should display
slightly different effects unless other substances are truly inactive, not even synergistic)...

hope such work comes 2getha...

Messed up a batch of dmt, turned to orange goo....decided to go for it, loaded up on 6g of rue, 20 minutes later I blasted off in my meditation hut...I cannot explain how strange this experience was, and this is coming from someone well-versed in strange...lol...One could have attributed it to some suspicious new "allies" in the form of herbal-transcendtal incense I had purchased the day before and then used in ritual at this time, which also ended up smelling like horse dung or something of the like.....I disposed of the new allies quickly after the experience, just in case they may have had an impact...the strangest thing tho, was the jungle spice seemed to bypass the 6g of rue completely, resulting in almost-painfully vivid visions at extreme levels, of which I had only ever encountered on spice alone....'strange' stuff indeed...

What solvent were you using to extract this "orange goo"?

I hope this work comes together... I've been experimenting with white and yellow DMT and have noticed some differences that come up each time. Here's some comments from shroomery, too:

http://www.shroomery.org...lat.php/Number/11682737

Could the oils from extraction(A/B) be yuremamine?
That would account for the matter that at least for me the effects of yellow DMT last longer(as for nature boy, too at shroomery).

No, yuremamine breaks down in normal extractions due to pH changes and heat. It could be NMT present, it could be n-oxide, could be self suggestion, we cant know. Please try the double blind experiment

Thought I'd contribute to this thread instead of opening a new one.

After my second successful extraction I decided to have an experiment.
DMT #1 was extremely pure white and recrystallized from the first pull using low heat.
DMT #2 was yellow without recrystallization from the fifth pull using 50° Naphta.

Three subjects were tested, five days in a row using 2 ceramic stones with 25mg on each.
All three subjects have experienced 50-100 trips.
The subject was free to choose the stone without being told which DMT it was infused with.

The results were rather clear:
The subjects were almost never certain when giving the answer what kind of DMT they smoked and had to guess.
The percentage of guessing the right DMT sample were at 65% which lead me to the conclusion that there is no difference, since 65% is too close to the 50% chance.

Next time I'll follow the protocol so the results will be applicable to your chart endlessness but haven't seen the thread before so I just did it this way.

I decided to do this with my ex girlfriend who I am still very close with and my best friend. The study involved two enhanced leaf blends with equal amounts of white DMT and the other had jungle spice. I also used a control of chamomile and passion flower with no DMT. Over three hours we all smoked a bowl in a bong of each. Those two had no idea which was which since it was already infused. The results were that the jungle spice produced a much more significant coursing vibrating feeling. To me it was like snakes winding through my body. The visuals were darker and less fluorescent for all of us, and the jungle DMT seemed to last much longer too.