..ok coming out of lurking for this

DMT is no longer generally considered a 'psychotomimetic' "in the eyes of science" PowerfulMedicine..
(as dreamer042 demonstrates)

to quote Stephen Szara who was the first scientist to report it's effects (1956), in an article 50 years later:

[http://www.mppt.hu/images/magazin/pdf/ix-evfevfolyam-4-szam/dmt-az-oetvenes-evekben.pdf]

the fact that DMT is present in the blood of both 'normal' and schizophrenic people demonstrates this..(it is also not present in some schizophrenic and normal people) ..the psychotomimetic model is, with increased research into the roles of endogenous amines, not a valid scientific theory..
in https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=27382
benzyme wrote: "you can't pinpoint any single function on a ubiquitous signal transduction ligand such as DMT, which has affinity to different receptor systems."
nen888 wrote: "^..i agree with benzyme..the same over-simplifications are made frequently in popular books & press regarding serotonin (5HT)..with endogenous tryptamines there are physiological as well as mental effects..."

as far as entities being 'delusional', no solid truly scientific statement can be made about this...
however, evidence that such DMT entities are a different model to delusional psychosis is that
1) many independent people report seeing the same or similar entities, in many cases without external cues or foreknowledge of such reports...the DMT Nexus wiki entry on entities is a good compilation of categories of reported entities experienced by multiple people..looking for them to be 'real' in a material sense may not be valid, but the theory of jungian archetypes is..
2) many non-western cultures incorporate entities (spirits) into their belief systems, where such experiences do not correlate with schizophrenia or similar..

in short, it is an area which needs proper research, not falsely labeled 'scientific' pre-assumptions..

Yes, I agree. I wasnt calling you out, just making an observation. I dont really think it's useful at this point for me to even worry about how real or unreal it is..it's something beyond that polarity.

Whoa, hold on there. Schizophrenia is not the only psychotic disorder. And drug induced psychosis is not the same thing as schizophrenia. I was not claiming that DMT has any link to the mechanism of schizophrenia, although there is not definitive proof that endogenous DMT doesn't contribute to some psychotic disorders.

What I'm saying is that consuming DMT causes effects that mimic what would clinically be referred to as psychosis. It produces a drug induced psychosis.

Here are a few more recent papers:

Su, T. P., Hayashi, T., & Vaupel, D. B. (2009 ). When the endogenous hallucinogenic trace amine N, N-dimethyltryptamine meets the sigma-1 receptor. Science signaling, 2(61), pe12.

Kamata, T., Katagi, M., Kamata, H. T., Miki, A., Shima, N., Zaitsu, K., ... & Tsuchihashi, H. (2006). Metabolism of the psychotomimetic tryptamine derivative 5-methoxy-N, N-diisopropyltryptamine in humans: identification and quantification of its urinary metabolites. Drug metabolism and disposition, 34(2), 281-287.

Pabba, M. (2013). The essential roles of protein–protein interaction in sigma-1 receptor functions. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 7.

Janowsky, A., Eshleman, A. J., Johnson, R. A., Wolfrum, K. M., Hinrichs, D. J., Yang, J., ... & Riscoe, M. K. (2014). Mefloquine and psychotomimetics share neurotransmitter receptor and transporter interactions in vitro. Psychopharmacology, 1-13.

Heekeren, K., Neukirch, A., Daumann, J., Stoll, M., Obradovic, M., Kovar, K. A., ... & Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E. (2007). Prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex and its attentional modulation in the human S-ketamine and N, N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) models of psychosis. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 21(3), 312-320.

Riga, M. S., Soria, G., Tudela, R., Artigas, F., & Celada, P. (2014). The natural hallucinogen 5-MeO-DMT, component of Ayahuasca, disrupts cortical function in rats: reversal by antipsychotic drugs. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 1-14.

Daumann, J., Wagner, D., Heekeren, K., Neukirch, A., Thiel, C. M., & Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E. (2010). Neuronal correlates of visual and auditory alertness in the DMT and ketamine model of psychosis. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 24(10), 1515-1524.

Here is my favorite:

Mason, O. J., Morgan, C. J., Stefanovic, A., & Curran, H. V. (2008 ). The Psychotomimetic States Inventory (PSI): measuring psychotic-type experiences from ketamine and cannabis. Schizophrenia Research, 103(1), 138-142.


Does it get any more clear than this? WHO is an organization comprising top scientists in relevant fields from many countries throughout the world and they have come to agree that DMT is a psychotomimetic.

Case closed? Probably not. Delusion does require that the sufferer ignore evidence to the contrary.

"What I'm saying is that consuming DMT causes effects that mimic what would clinically be referred to as psychosis. It produces a drug induced psychosis."

That view has been discarded by most professionals as far as I understand.

This is also just one paradigm. I honestly could not care what medical professionals think who have never taken DMT. I spent enough time in academics flirting aroung this topic in anthropology classrooms with people who favored rational western paradigms when discussing these things, which often seemed to me like an ego stroking circle jerk of pretentious energy.

..i'll engage one more time..because you're taking conjecture as scientific fact, and bias without evidence as fact too..
..you're also treating the definition of psychosis as quantifiable, and it is not, it is qualitative..


[A critical review of reports of endogenous psychedelic N, N-dimethyltryptamines in humans: 1955–2010
Steven A. Barker, Ethan H. McIlhennya, Rick Strassman]


was this stated?

Psychosis from a diagnostic perspective (such as the DSM IV) is based on a person presenting multiple symptoms..it is an open, not a quantifiable interpretation...the experiencing of hallucinations is simply one symptom...other's, such as beliefs, paranoia, catatonic behaviour, mood disorders etc would constitute the usual diagnosis of a pyschotic disorder..
..deliberately inducing an altered state of consciousness, but being aware that this is what one is doing, does not constitute psychosis...hallucination (on it's own) does not equal delusion..
now, while some have tried to equate all forms of non-western spiritual belief, shamanism etc with 'psychosis', this is regarded by many as culturally inappropriate..usually in such cultures, the shaman or yogi etc is in the highest successful functioning category of individuals..
..the very definition and diagnosis of psychosis is not a quantifiable process, it always carries a degree of subjective judgement..
..many here have simply stated that they have experienced entities under the influence of DMT, but do not hold any fixed belief about them...this is not delusion, or psychosis..
only a very conservative psychiatrist, with a limited understanding of the phenomenon, would claim this..
remember Stephen Szara is a psychiatrist..and many would agree that an altered state of consciousness alone does not constitute psychosis...otherwise states experienced through meditation, or indeed dreams would be described as mimicking psychosis, which is generally not agreed to be the case..
..a more appropriate model of 'drug induced psychosis' would be that induced by amphetamines, after the drug has worn off..the complete deviation in terms of belief system about the physical world, extreme behavioural changes,paranoia etc...

it is the way in which you present an argument as given fact which is of concern here..

to quote wikipedia:

as for the WHO statement...if you think that's credible, i find that disturbing..
..lol..
you mean a small group of scientists who almost always have not done specific research on entheogens, who are paid to be politically biased on the topic...it rarely gets more Unclear than this..

are you not aware of the increasing number of scientists calling for actual research into hallucinogens due to the purely political motives for stopping any legitimate research since the '60s?

against the spirit of science, the argument you present is dogmatic..and partly belief based..

you are confusing belief with perception, and you are confusing belief with evidence (either way)

this is itself a symptom of psychosis

Sources please. I've provided eight recent articles that contradict this statement.


It is just one paradigm, but as far as I understand, the term paradigm implies a view that is generally unified. If this is untrue, then the view that DMT is a psychotomimetic is at least the primary paradigm.

You are entitled to your opinion of the current paradigm, but it doesn't change that his is view held by most scientists in relevant fields.

^Nen, Research into hallucinogens does not necessarily mean research into the validity of drug induced paranormal experiences. In fact, this is likely the last avenue of research that will be attempted. But it seems unlikely that this research would totally change the current views on hallucinogens.

Whether you personally agree with the current paradigm does not matter unless you are able to convince the relevant people that the paradigm needs to be changed.

I have never stated that anything I've presented is what I specifically believe. The point I am making is that the current scientific paradigm is that DMT is a psychotomimetic and that it produces delusions. Science does not make differing claims as to the reality of any DMT induced delusions, so entity contact is just another delusion.

It doesn't matter if you find this to be politically motivated or not. This is just an observation of the current state of affairs. If you don't feel that the WHO is credible, then what about all the other recent peer reviewed journal articles that I posted? These are all incredible as well? No one knows what their talking about except for you I guess. You are entitled to this opinion, but once again, your opinion doesn't change the paradigm.

It doesn't mater if psychosis is quantifiable and I never treated it as if it is. And I never stated that drug induced psychosis is the same as pathological psychoses. The reason that DMT is thought of as a psychotomimetic is that it produces qualitiative effects that are similar to pathological psychoses but are not exactly the same as pathological psychoses.

Here is a relevant part of a quote that I will repost:

Instead of imposing your criticisms and opinions onto the current scientific paradigm, why don't you cite some sources. The one source that you did cite has no relevance because DMT does not have to be a schizotoxin for it to be a psychotomimetic that causes an acute drug induced psychosis that differs from other psychotic disorders or psychoses. The effects of DMT qualitatively mimic the positive symptoms of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.

..in the name of actual science, and freedom from potential disinformation i'll bat one more time..

PowerfulMedicine...these papers you cited?

they did not find any conclusive evidence of DMT as a psychotomimetic...

and now, taking the good advice of a few here, i will opt out of this thread..

You are a funny man mr. medicine. Guess you didn't read that paper, earlier in the thread, as closely as you claimed.




Also, as nen pointed out, linking eight papers that don't really support what you're claiming...and citing the papers as a whole rather than pointing to the relevant passages (which, again, as nen pointed out, don't really support your conclusions)...well, I think it's cute. Academically dishonest, but cute.

Are we smoking the same DMT?

Why don't you go tell this to David Nichols, Rick Strassman, Dennis McKenna, Rick Doblin, Franz Vollenweider, Stan Grof, and countless other leaders in psychedelic research, and see whether or not they agree with you that DMT is a psychotomimetic that mimics schizophrenia. This is an outdated term that was pushed decades ago by people who didn't understand psychedelics to the degree we do now, and nothing you've cited conclusively shows otherwise.

This thread is going nowhere. I think you might have missed what I posted earlier, but it's becoming evermore relevant as you continue to twist facts, ignore indications of your flawed reasoning, and engage in olympic-level mental gymnastics in order to maintain your dogmatic position at all costs.

"If something cannot be shown to exist by science, the belief that it does exist would be considered a delusion from a scientific standpoint."

Didn't the great Carl Sagan say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"??

Hmm I get what you are saying but this sounds a little too dogmatic to me. As a biologist myself and someone who is obviously very pro science, I am very comfortable admitting there are some vast gaps in what science can currently measure. for example science, and the very methodology by which it operates, depends on repeatability, so freak or black swan phenomena can't be well studied, and tend to neglected or ignored as a result, potentially missing out on some really interesting things. Out of body experiences and near death experiences are good examples of these. I'm not sure I want to get into a long winded debate about these, but basically the science doesn't have a whole lot to say on either phenomena. With OBE's, any brain measurements taken of people while out of body have shown conflicting parts of the brain lighting up, and different brain waves being produced, and only individual case studies considered, and as yet science has very little to say on what is actually going on here, so I guess a lot of scientists just consider it some kind of twaddle. With NDE's, there are a variety of explanations...hypoxia, high CO2 levels, hallucinations etc, but all these hypotheses have some fairly hefty holes in, so I don't believe science has yet got a good handle on these.

It wasn't until the mid 1980's that mainstream scientific thinking accepted that neurogenesis occurs in mammals and other animals...despite evidence for this existing decades before hand! Science is really great n' all but it can only get you so far.

No. I'm drinking mine.


Appeal to authority fallacy.

Also I think we need to make sure that everyone knows what mimic means. It does not mean that they are the same thing. A walking stick bug mimics a stick but it is not a stick despite sharing many of its qualitative characteristics.

Here is a quote from wikipedia about the positive symptoms of schizophrenia:



While some people here may deny that DMT produces delusions, you can't deny that it produces hallucinations and disorganized thought and speech.

I repeat. I am not saying that the DMT experience is the same as schizophrenia. I am saying it shares some its characteristics. I am saying that according to the majority of scientific literature, DMT is considered to produce an acute psychotic reaction that differs from schizophrenia in many ways.

Also, I want to point out that none of the more recent papers I cited were trying to prove that DMT is a psychotomimetic. The papers just dryly refer to it as a psychotomimetic presumably because this is considered common scientific knowledge.

I'll quote more specific passages later today or tomorrow when I have time, but first I'd like to direct your attention to this paper:

Riga, M. S., Soria, G., Tudela, R., Artigas, F., & Celada, P. (2014). The natural hallucinogen 5-MeO-DMT, component of Ayahuasca, disrupts cortical function in rats: reversal by antipsychotic drugs. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 1-14.

The title says it all here. Some of the effects of 5-MeO-DMT can be reversed by an antipsychotic drug. I understand that this is not the same thing as DMT, but it is close enough and can play a role in entity contact.

And here is a passage from the abstract of that paper:

I'd say that this is a relatively strong conclusion.

So by pure technicality it has some symptoms which some people might say are similar symptoms to those of psychosis.

So does falling in love.

There's not really much reason to think any differently of these experiences. They have some things in common when it comes to the definition of certain words used to describe them. Is that the point here ? I feel like there has been too much passion put into this thread to justify such a small observation.

PowerfulMedicine, your last post is trying to hint into something that was already discussed: correlation is not causation. Just because area X of the brain is affected does not necessarily mean that the experience is created by area X. The TV analogy made before deals with this..

Can you not see the extreme leap you are making into suggesting that just because giving anti-psychotics in rats stops effects of psychedelics, it somehow means psychedelics are the same as psychosis? Also as Orion says, even if you say `it share some characteristics`, this is a non-argument because everything `shares some characteristics` with everything else, and this in no way proves anything regarding the validity of entity experience.

Also, you say some here dont accept psychedelics are delusions, but let me reaffirm that NOBODY in this thread said that, you are making a false dichotomy once again. I´d say that most people agree that at least in some cases people can be deluded with psychedelics, but this in no way tells anything about the actual nature of the psychedelic experience or what entities are.

I will give you one last chance. If the next post involves another fallacy, sweeping generalization, talking as if you represent science, misleading use of sources to back an opinion/belief as if its a fact, going round in circles or any such similar argumentative attitudes as were displayed, I am locking this thread and giving you some vacation time to rethink.

Let me try to get this in more concrete grounds, because I dont think its very clear:

What is your main point in this thread? What is the idea you are trying to convey? Is it that entities are a delusion? If so, maybe, maybe not, maybe sometimes, but nobody knows and this is speculation, no scientific paper can prove that. Feel free to post opinions but be clear and honest expressing them as only that.. opinions.

So, did the rats report any entities?

I am not trying to answer whether or not entities are delusions. I am trying to show whether or not the current scientific paradigm is that entity contact would be considered a delusion.

My argument is uninterested in whether or not these views are considered to be correct or short sighted by users of DMT and other hallucinogens. I am only interested in the overall perception of this phenomena according to the scientific literature.

Also, I didn't just say that they share "some characteristics". I outlined the specific characteristics - characteristics that are largely diagnostic of both psychosis and the DMT experience.


I did not imply any causation when citing this. Notice how this study is not trying to prove that 5-MeO-DMT is a psychotomimetic. It is trying to find underlying neurophysiological mechanisms that are related to the observed psychotomimetic behaviors caused by this compound.

In this example, the authors of the paper clearly already consider 5-MeO-DMT to be a psychotomimetic. This is just one example showing that the scientific paradigm is to consider DMT and related drugs as psychotomimetics.

Here is another example from Strassman:



Strassman, R. J. (1995). Human psychopharmacology of N, N-dimethyltryptamine. Behavioural brain research, 73(1), 121-124.

Here is another passage from one of the paper I cited earlier:




Janowsky, A., Eshleman, A. J., Johnson, R. A., Wolfrum, K. M., Hinrichs, D. J., Yang, J., ... & Riscoe, M. K. (2014). Mefloquine and psychotomimetics share neurotransmitter receptor and transporter interactions in vitro. Psychopharmacology, 1-13.

In this study they compare mefloquine to DMT because it is a "known psychotomimetic".

Now take a look at the title of this paper:

Kamata, T., Katagi, M., Kamata, H. T., Miki, A., Shima, N., Zaitsu, K., ... & Tsuchihashi, H. (2006). Metabolism of the psychotomimetic tryptamine derivative 5-methoxy-N, N-diisopropyltryptamine in humans: identification and quantification of its urinary metabolites. Drug metabolism and disposition, 34(2), 281-287.

This drug is closely related to DMT and is pharmacologically similar. They aren't even questioning whether it is a psychotomimetic. They state that it is in the title.

Also here again is a quote from a paper that is quoting the definition of "hallucinogen" according to the World Health Organization:



Mason, O. J., Morgan, C. J., Stefanovic, A., & Curran, H. V. (2008 ). The Psychotomimetic States Inventory (PSI): measuring psychotic-type experiences from ketamine and cannabis. Schizophrenia Research, 103(1), 138-142.

So here is another paper whose authors consider DMT to be a psychotomimetic. And to top it off, the World Health Organization agrees.

Since these papers are from peer reviewed journals, these papers can be thought of as representing the views of many more scientist than just the authors. These papers are edited and screened to ensure that they are sufficiently valid. And the views of the World Health Organization represent the views of hundreds if not thousands of scientists whether you find this organization to be credible or not.

Lastly, if you also consider the literature regarding other non-tryptamine hallucinogens with similar pharmacological effects, you will see that these are also considered to be psychotomimetics in the literature, and this includes more recent literature.

If DMT is a psychotomimetic, then it also stands to reason that entity contact would be considered a delusion contributing to observable psychotomimetic effects of DMT.

Oh, here is quote from Carl Sagan's anonymous article "Mr.X". It isn't about DMT, it's about Cannabis, but I just wanted to show that Carl Sagan would almost certainly describe DMT as a psychotmimetic:



Wait a minute, though. Cannabis can easily cause panic and terror just like DMT. I've already argued that DMT mimics the positive symptoms of schizophrenia and other psychoses, but it can also mimic many of the negative ones.

In case you don't know what positive vs negative symptoms are, the positive ones include things that most individuals don't experience like hallucinations while negative ones are deficits of normal emotional and cognitive responses.

If you can't believe Carl Sagan, who can you believe?

Carl sagan was an astonomer...

"Appeal to authority fallacy."

Oh, the irony.

I'm not appealing to authority. I'm just pointing out an interesting and relevant quote. He may have been an astronomer but he was a well informed scientific mind. It would only be a fallacy if I said that DMT is a psychotommimetic because he would have presumably thought that it was.

*Edit: I realize that the last sentence in my last reply could be interpreted as appealing to authority, but I ensure that it was not my intent.

PowerfulMedicine you are absolutely correct in stating that contact with entities would be considered a delusion by ACCEPTED scientific facts. Let us not forget that it was once accepted that the Earth was flat. It was once accepted by many that the God Zeus ruled the heavens. It was also once accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Many fallacies have been accepted as fact by many people throughout humanity's time. This is a trend that will continue for quite some time, I believe. But the plain and simple fact is that no one can be sure of the experience besides the one experiencing it.

Imagine you have your home full of guests. All of you stand in front of a window looking at a man outside. Someone tells everyone that it is cold outside. Without much debate, the "fact" that it is cold outside is accepted. The man outside hears this and informs you, through the window, that it is rather hot outside. Well since everyone inside believes that it is cold, the man outside is now considered "delusional". Now an easy way to determine if he is telling the truth or not is to go outside. Unfortunately, this is impossible with a DMT induced trip. So someone can tell you that what you have experienced is not real. They can try and convince you. Ultimately, no one can be sure of what you experienced but you. It is up to the experiencer to determine if what they experienced is real or not.

I'm not stating whether I believe these entities are real or not. Just stating that just because something is accepted does not make it truth. But for argument's sake, you are correct. Accepted modern science would call entity contact a delusion.