Please note that this was an analysis of M. Hostilis TRUNK BARK. NOT ROOT BARK. They then compared it to Brazilian MHRB solution (aqueous, prepared under unknown conditions by an anonymous "Shamanic Priestess" in Brazil in 1983). Judging by this fatal error, which was not accurately addressed by the authors, raises serious doubts in my minds. I cannot help but doubt the results of this research due to the fact that they investigated an extract of Mexican mimosa hostilis STEM BARK, and compared it to results obtained from an extract on an aged Brazillian MHRB solution. In order to take this study seriously, I would want third parties to conduct further studies into the alkaloid content of M. Hostilis stem bark from both regions. This fatal error of comparing the alkaloid content of two different parts of M. Tenuiflora from two different regions of the world raises serious doubts as to the legitimacy of this study.
TL;DR take this one with a few kilograms of Potassium Chloride on the side. Until a better-conducted study contrasting the alkaloid content of the TRUNK BARK of M. Hostilis from both regions, harvested around the same time from plants of similar ages emerges, I cannot help but consider this study to be little more than a few pieces of pseudoscientific toilet paper strewn together and cast-off into a half-rate journal by grant-groping Academics.
Further research into this topic is HIGHLY warranted.
'"ALAS,"said the mouse, "the world is growing smaller every day. At the
beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad
when at last I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have
narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner
stands the trap that I must run into." "You only need to change your direction," said
the cat, and ate it up.' --Franz Kafka