BS.

Nowhere in their paper did they present evidence that it is being synthesized in the pineal. And accordingly, nowhere did they say that is is being synthesized; they did however pondered at the possibility.

Obviously, if in the publication the authors were saying as freely as in your communication with Dr. Barker that the paper means "that DMT is also being synthesized or produced by the pineal" they'd be scalded with boiling oil by reviewers. Or if they did when their manuscript was initially submitted for review, such claims must have been criticized and removed by reviewers.

I am concerned about Barker's response because it shows that he's quick to jump at conclusions about his data and that he's being uncareful to pass his misunderstood opinion (which unfortunately comes by a credible person as he is) to laymen.

Unfortunately, Infundibulum, I agree with you. Once I re-read the paper, it simply showed that DMT is found in the pineal, in fact it is found all throughout the body. Something is up with this, I need to get him to clarify, hmmmmm......

I would email Barker this thread (and the one infund linked, with further discussion) and ask him why they think this shows its produced by the pineal? It would be interesting hearing their answer.

Yes, that is a good suggestion.

Dr. Barker is a good guy, and he does not at all mind responding to e-mails or talking about it, I have even been to his office a couple of times. Just Google him and e-mail him anytime, I swear it is cool. I am awaiting his response about pineal production....

His latest response:

"The pineal is a secretory gland and the enzyme
that makes DMT is in the pineal"


My after response:

"Is there anyway to demonstrate that?

Not trying to give you a hard time man, just want to be excited and make sure I understand what I think I understand "

ask him for a photo of a western blot and microarray, to show evidence of cDNA-bound enzyme isolated from pineal gland cells.

I think a western blot would suffice, or even a proper immunohistochemical experiment in pineal glands using antibodies against INMT. Mind you, the very same thing has been done and was reported in a poster by cozzi and ruoho a few years ago (also mentioned in the very first post of this thread by joedirt), but there are numerous problems with the latter

1. They used macaque monkey pineal sections probed with INMT antibody raised against human INMT. The human epitope their INMT antibody recognises has very poor homology with macaque INMT. This is a recipe for disaster in immunohistochemistry.

2. Their immumo pictures did not have controls like no primary antibody controls

3. Their inmt signal was completely all over the place, completely patternless. Not what you expect ffrom immunohistochemistry

4. The cozzi et al poster is a poster, i.e. not a peer reviewed study. And since it is unpublished and also with the data presented therein so open to numerous criticisms, how can dr barker cite such findings in their recent study is beyond me. This is bad citation and bad science overall...

I wonder what dr barker has to say regarding the above points

His latest response:

"Yeah. We’ll be looking at CSF to see if it is being secreted."

I will ask him about the above.

He says it is safe to assume at this point. That is all.

what the heck does that mean?

it's also safe to assume that humans are responsible for the increase in global warming.

I find his Dr Barker's responses worrisome. But maybe that's because in his email communications with DisEmboDied he was aiming to address the questions of a layman, not tight criticism from a colleague (not that this is excuse, but anyway).

Well, I believe that Dr. Barker knows what he is doing and where he and Strassman are going with this. He probably can see the result, but just can't quite prove it yet, not quite yet, technically. He knows that I am not a hardcore scientist such as himself, so are conversations are indeed less formal. He is just excited to talk to someone as interested in this stuff as he is. I have degrees in psychology and philosophy and so he likes to here that perspective from me since he is all about numbers. I will be in love when that result finally comes through without a doubt that the pineal produces and excretes DMT directly into our brains!

not holding my breath, they're more likely to confirm
presence and expression of the inhibitory enzyme Strassman
mentioned in a 1990 monograph.

This is the original place where I found out about the paper:

http://www.cottonwoodresearch.org/dmt-pineal-2013/

hooray for enlightened rodents

DisEmboDied, any word from him about when they are gonna try comparing this baseline information to rats that are sleeping or at night or in other states of consciousness?

This is indeed a rich area of research that everyone is on the edge of their seats wondering about. Would love to know more, do they need any grad students?

"hooray for enlightened rodents!" -love that!

Actually, he does need a graduate student, his former grad student, who did his Dissertation on ayahuasca, has graduated and moved on...I am talking about for Dr. Barker, I don't know for the rest of Cottonwood...For Barker, one must have extreme mathematical/science skills, not really psychology/philosophical skills alone, as he is a chemist primarily. His last grad student first had a Master's in Neuroscience from Tulane. But he needs a new one, so apply! He works at LSU, his page is

http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/cbs-update/Barker.htm

Just to clarify, psychology requires advanced mathematical, statistical and scientific skills. Otherwise we are talking about psychotherapy.

Pineal calcification is real, for the record.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pineal+gland+calcify+autopsy