The title of the thread is "made in your head", not "found in your head".

Read the article...

"Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."

Read the article...

"Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."

?

Obviously we are waiting for the actual study. I don't know why one would assume that i'm saying this proves 100% that dmt is made by the pineal when we haven't even seen the study.

And it still stands that they are claiming to have demonstrated that the pineal actively produces dmt, at least based on this article. What you quoted is a reference to a different study that further supports this one....not the study in question.

"Research at the University of Wisconsin has recently demonstrated the presence of the DMT-synthesizing enzyme as well as activity of the gene responsible for the enzyme in pineal (and retina). Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."

I'm not saying it is an accurate study or anything like that. Just that everyone who keeps claiming its only about dmts presence in the pineal and not about its production in the gland seem to be mistaken, at least according to what Strassman wrote in that link. We have to wait and see for sure, obviously

I'm skeptical and not suggesting we rush into believing anything

'Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal'

I think they mean 'has established' or 'establishes'. Credibility something something hint hint.

'Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal'

Subsequent research into these compound’s role in naturally occurring altered states, occurring in collaboration with research centers around the world, will be ongoing for many years.

Your Donation Amount:
100.00
Comments or Instructions:

Not to sound overly negative.... but I think they just want to trick me out of at least 100.00 dollars.

This has been an interesting and opinionated read, and I'm no scientist, a lot of it is over my head, but it seems to me that as the conversation goes on the skeptics are steadily losing ground. As more and more evidence is presented that seems to indicate DMT is produced in the brain (non-conclusively), the OP and the like still refuse to budge, simply because the evidence is "not conclusive", even though highly indicative.

Healthy skepticism is healthy. Cynical skepticism is cynical.

Rewind time a while, and the OP would probably be the guy going around saying "There is ZERO evidence that the world is round."

My $.02. Just sayin

... no I will not budge and neither should anyone else until there is evidence. If everyone hadn't pedalled the pineal... 'theory' .. in the first place so much...

It's probably just me alpha but it sounds engrish to me is all, I don't want a debate about it.



But as for you sonny jim... no I will not budge and neither should anyone else until there is evidence. If everyone hadn't peddled the pineal... 'theory' .. in the first place so much...

We will respectfully give way to new evidence, welcome it with open arms. But so far, no such cigar.

You sure about that last sentence? Seems to me a few posts back you were bringing data into question over the grammar used to deliver it, and were using this as an excuse to not even consider it.

Real scientific of you.

You do you, bro, never said do otherwise, but if you want to talk science I've got somethin for you to consider, daddy o'.

Historically, we have consistently scientifically described our world based on the furthest implications of our current understanding(s), at that time in history, in whatever field of data you pick. And historically, we always find out that the picture we thought we were looking at is much bigger at some point down the line when we gain better analyzation tools and methods, and in many cases, the furthest imaginings and theorizing from a "genius" of old do not compare to the knowledge which a modern day child posesses, because although the genius had the right idea, he was wrong.

The "discovery" that 99% of our DNA is "junk" is a great example of this. This is obviously not true, but we make it true based on our very limited understanding of DNA. It's not that 99% is "junk" we have just only come to understand 1% of it so far. The junk DNA theory is in the process of being dismantled as we speak though, with some studies involving coding and modifying DNA using vibrationally tuned lazers. We will eventually come to learn how utterly wrong we were about this once we are using a better understanding as a point of contemplation.

Human history is rife with scientific conclusions being jumped to and then overturned based on better understandings as data compounds over time, so we can use that itself as "scientific data", and quite safely say that we are going to come to learn that whatever is really going on in a 'psychedelic experience' is more complex than we had ever dreamed, simply since this subject inherently involves some of the least understood concepts, scientifically speaking (consciousness/perception, dimensions, etc. etc. etc.) and at this point we actually have no idea what is really going on.

In reality, the subject of the psychedelic experience may be the most scientifically complex subject we have ever tried to make sense of as humans, and since we currently know next to nothing, there is obviously so much more to be discovered.

You say that you will not budge "until there is evidence". Well, you know what... it's very typical when dealing with complex theories to have indicators of something which can't be verified, which lead to the eventual verification of what was indicated. How about the Higgs-Boson, for example? Arguably the most important scientific discovery of all time to date. The LHC was constructed based on a plethora of indicators. We had no idea if we would really find a Higgs-Boson, it just really seemed like we would. And guess what. We found it. But if you had your way, the LHC probably would have been a "dumb idea" and you "wouldn't have budged" until you saw real evidence. If it was up to you, we never would have discovered the Higgs-Boson

We do need people like you though to attempt to shoot down everything on the leading edge so the stuff that is false and weak doesn't persist, but you would definitely be telling people the world is flat since we have no evidence of anything else, if you were around during such times with your present attitude.

Your move, bud