:
ilearnt a new word today

SOLIPSISTIC!
I honestly have never heard that word before.

Solipsism
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
,
well you learn something new every day.!
coolas .
and it fit right into this thread.
must be meant to be aya.


i think mabe we should start a new thread.
along the lines of monty python and
THE MEANING OF LIFE.!
somthing in the vein of ,

PSYLLYCYBHUASCAHARMAROO
, and the meaning of tryping balls.???

yes i know im just a silly little
KANGAWALLADINGBATT

wats that skippy?
major tom has fallen down the rabit whole and
you want me to go after him?
allwright then,
you better give me the red and the blue pill for this job!
down we go

i've read all of this.

.....

i'm speechless.

Snozzleberry,

The thing is that it matters to a lot of people who invented Changa. I only really did start to come of the closet around 2010 as things were getting a bit out of hand… I have heard of this old lady in Australia with dreadlocks who says she invented Changa!

Anyway, Graham St John covers the story of how changa came to be in his book “Mystery School in Hyperspace: A cultural history of DMT” This book is meticulous researched, do you think Graham St John would dare miss something in his extensive interviews in the Australian and global DMT scene?

https://www.anoniem.org/...al-History/dp/1583947329

Before the early 2000’s, I never came across anyone who smoked DMT with a smokeable MAOI and other herbs. Sure, I met a couple of people who did infuse DMT into herbs (normally parsley!) and I read about it on the internet, but I never heard of anyone smoking an MAOI at the same time with DMT, and people like Ott never told us when we gave him changa, “oh yes, I smoke DMT with an MAOI”. It was a new thing at the time. Perhaps there were other people who smoked DMT with ayahuasca and/or other herbs before that time, but I have NEVER heard of that, but the point is, even if that was the case, that only stayed with them and maybe their circle of friends.

Changa is a combination of herbs and ayahuasca vine and or leaf, anyway, not just with an MAOI as you imply, and I was the one who began to create THAT alchemy. And what was created was not just an alchemy, but a momentum that spread changa all around the world, and I started that, actually - and it wasn’t just a walk in the park I can tell you!

>However, that said, DMT, whether extracted from any of the acacias, or mimosa, or phalaris, or synthesized, when pure, is DMT, regardless of the source. There is no difference between the DMT molecule from any of the botanical sources or synthetic DMT. DMT is DMT, period. Plant extracts are not necessarily pure DMT, and therefore, sure, they demonstrate different effects, but that is not what endlessness is saying.

There may not be any differences recorded by modern day science regarding the DMT molecules. But from some species, you are only going to get pure DMT. And there is a world of difference in the experiences from these species.

I’ve just been hanging out with some guys in Mexico who are very experienced with mushrooms from all over the world, we all agree that the differences between different mushrooms are very radical.

This is not an appeal to authority, this is what people like acacaya and I have come to accept as self evident. And this is not an extraordinary claim to me, it is a very simple and obvious statement based upon extensive experience.

Nobody is expected to take our word for it, but at least take into account what we are saying and not disregard it because of what the present day pharmacological understanding of these matters may be.

Only in Australia will you have the trees which contain pretty much pure DMT. If you are really interested in the fact of the matter, you will do the comparative tests yourself.

I would expect at some point, someone will carry out the scientific research which will confirm what we are saying, because its bleeding obvious to all experienced explorers.

OK, so there's a lot going on here and as you've made a similar post in a different thread that includes some other points that are also worth addressing, there's a lot to keep track of, so please bear with me.

Now, before diving into the weeds, I think one of the significant issues at hand is why it matters who decided to call this mix changa. What's in a name? Why does it matter if Joe Shmoe or Fulano de Tal or whoever crafted the name changa? What utility does it have? Who came up with the name hippy flip or candy flip? Would a different name lead to a different set of experiences?

I just don't see why it matters, even though you assert



Surely you can see that even after reading your assertion that this matters "to a lot of people," there's no explanation or reasoning given as to why it matters; just that it was significant and that you are the inventor, rather than some old dreadlocked Australian lady.




I too have read (and own) a copy of MSIH and I think Graham did a stellar job in compiling a veritable mountain of information. While it certainly is an odd experience to find oneself referenced in a drug history tome, it appears you've gotten slightly ahead of yourself. Don't let that fame go to your head boyo! The passages that deal with you as the originator/inventor/namer of changa all appear to cite works by you, exclusively! I'm talking specifically about the passages from p167-p172, as those appear to be the pages relevant to the discussion at hand.

Surely you can see how that would leave a skeptic unconvinced, especially when numerous reputable Australians (and others) have disputed your claim to be the "inventor" of changa, with some acknowledging that perhaps "namer of changa" would match their historical experiences/knowledge/understandings.

For instance, in the other thread I mentioned at the beginning of this post, nen888 states:



There's also nen's post stating:


As an aside...do you really believe that someone living in Australia would figure out to make a blend with plants indigenous to South America before the South Americans would? Really? You can say with a straight face that that passes your plausibility test?



So we have documented discrepancies, which your insistence to the contrary doesn't dispel as there appears to be no evidence being presented to support said insistence. Or at least it hasn't been presented here, as far as I can tell.

You then go on to state:



Please forgive me for saying so, but certainly you are not setting the bar for other human knowledge/experience based on who you have come across and/or what you have heard, are you?

Your assertions re: Ott and others are directly contradicted by nen888. When you go on to state that "I have NEVER heard of that, but the point is, even if that was the case, that only stayed with them and maybe their circle of friends," you seem to not only be asserting that your awareness defines the scope of human knowledge, but also that if someone invented changa and didn't publicize it to the point where you heard it, it "doesn't count" or something to the effect. Can you see why this might cause people to raise an eyebrow (or two)?

But that's not all, because in that other thread you also say



You seem to engage in quite a bit of shifting the goalposts. First ott didn't smoke changa, then he may have smoked DMT on caapi leaf, then it doesn't really count as changa because it was missing the magical "other herbs". Your recollections, admissions, and definitions seem awfully fluid for someone who is asking us to believe a published historical account based solely on their own writings/assertions.

There's also the claim by roninsina in the other thread



To which you replied



Again, we see you asserting that if something hasn't entered your awareness, it has a tenuous case for existence, at best. However, by my accounting thus far, all we have are personal claims and anecdotes about names and inventors and not a lot of real concrete evidence. Certainly not the rock solid case you continue to claim exists. Can you see why an outside observer might think the history is murkier than you make it out to appear? Especially given that you seem to be the only person so fixated on who the inventor "must" be.

Further confusion is introduced by another nen888 quote in that same thread, which you yourself shared:



Yet, despite this additional confusion, which comes through quotes by Australians, you still insist that



I've also spoken with several Australians who shed doubt on your claim to be the inventor. At least one of them was of the mind that you were possibly the namer of changa, but also spoke towards a certain propensity of yours to be pursuing a spotlight as "the father of changa."




This is precisely what endlessness and I were saying the whole time! Of course pure DMT is different than DMT + NMT + betacarbolines and other alkaloids. BUT, if you take that plant extract that was not just pure DMT...that was DMT + NMT + betacarbolines and other alkaloids and you isolate and purify the DMT and compare it with the purified DMT isolate from the plant that only contained DMT in the first place, there should be no discernible differences...similarly, if you compared those purified isolates to pure synthetic DMT, you should not observe any differences. DMT is DMT.



No one is claiming they wouldn't be different. Again, different alkaloid profiles and ratios would strongly suggest that they SHOULD be different.



I'm unclear as to what's going on here. The earlier assertion, as I understood it, was that the "energy" around the DMT would be different when isolated from a DMT-only tree and a "multiple-molecule tree." That was the issue that endlessness and I countered. Any time a person says something to the effect of "trust the experts" (as was stated earlier in the thread) they are entering into an "appeal to authority."

To reiterate, of course taking an extract from a plant containing only DMT will result in a different experience from taking an extract from a plant containing a range of alkaloids...you're talking about taking different compounds! This was not the earlier assertion.



Are you unfamiliar with M. tenuiflora? This is one reason I would not be so fast to declare that only the things you are familiar with are true, if I were you. M. tenuiflora has a remarkably clean DMT profile and was actually, afaik, for a long time, the most sought-after tree for extraction purposes globally. The assertion that only Australia has "trees which contain pretty much pure DMT" is utterly and demonstrably wrong...and a pretty significant thing to be wrong about, imo, especially for such a niche conversation relating to the preparation and administration of DMT.

Whew, that was a monster of a post, so I'll leave it at that for now!

Thanks for chiming in on the discussion

chocobeastie wrote:

actually plenty of people did this..your statement implies that you had some kind of universal overview of the entheogenic world at the time..there are reports from mid 90s Entheogen Review of people doing this...certainly a number of people i knew did this in the 90s...it's a fairly obvious idea to try if you think about it..i don't recall you arriving on the field until the late 90s or early 2000s..a lot of experimentation had gone on in Australia and elsewhere before that..this also brings up the mention by the OP of the 'pioneering' years of experimentation in Australia.. by my reckoning that's the early to mid 90s..OP and chocobeastie (if OP is claiming that vintage) come in after this, in fact building on and using the information of what others had done before..

now, if changa purely means caapi leaf+dmt+specific herbs, then sure chocobeastie can claim to have begun this franchise in the early 2000s..but if it means caapi+dmt or MAOI+dmt, then there was plenty of this going on before that...see Entheogen Review..as for the origin of the word changa, as has been indicated, there is plenty of uncertainty there..

as for the OP, you are coming across I'm sad to say, to me anyway, as exactly the kind of cowboy who has helped get some acacia species heavily damaged in the wild to fuel people's egos and wallets...i'm not going to specifically comment on the OPs ramblings, except to mention that i may be talking at EGA this year on the subject of what the word "sacred" means in the modern age..i think this would be a good topic for the OP and their associates, and indeed much of the changa/trance party type scene..

to Snozz i say, it will be good that in Australia you will also encounter more thoughtfulness, eloquence, humility, and sensitivity to the environment than the OP's, or at least how it comes across..

that's all i'd want to address in this thread, so we can at least put in historical perspective what actually took place before chocobeastie's introduction to dmt and acacias by others..

? nen888

never seen you trypin bro?

met you at starseed gardens .!
about big tree ,
to big to hold hands around,
do you remember bro?

never heard you talk about you experiences,!
just tecknical bullsharks.!
wattleva bro,!!!???

acacaya..it's to do with the "great untouched forests"...and what approaches in communication do the plants a service, who of course noone invented..that's why, for them, i even talk in the first place..and that's what i'd hope you ponder...be well

on behalf of the great untouched forests of the great and powerful OZZ!!!
FAIRENOUGH BRO.
WE FULLLY respect all of that!!!.
and agree completely! ,

its all good bro .
they are safe foreva my friends.!!!
just dont asume to speak for the one my brother.!?
as we are all the one!.

RESPECT.!!!???

chocobeastie, if we are going to appeal to authority, I might as well throw one here: Maria Sabina said that synthetic psilocybin that Hofmann gave her was perfectly good and just like the mushrooms she took, had the "mushroom spirits". Wouldnt she, according to your opinion, have noticed and claimed a difference?

Also, I'm definitely interested in "the fact of the matter" regarding the pharmacology of these different compounds and where are the limits of human ability to perceive differences depending on the extent of alkaloid variation. I've started a thread to provide a blueprint, for double blind tests , and im offering free LC-MS testing to go along with that. If the 'experts' you know are so sure of what they are saying regarding differences in DMT even after purified, from different sources, and that would represent such a breakthrough in pharmacology and is easily demonstrable, why aren't they doing this simple test?

Dont take this as a "they are non-believers so let me tell them why they are wrong", take it as a "there's a variety of opinions and hypothesis around a testable subject, we all might be partially right or wrong, so lets work together to test and increase everybody's knowledge"

And lastly, acacaya, please stop making multiple posts and posting disconnected thoughts and all this random capslock and so on. If you want to post, consider whether your post is adding to the discussion or not.

Well, does it matter that Albert Hoffman invented LSD? Or that Alexander Shulgin rediscovered MDMA?

People like yourself are certainly making a big deal out of this issue.

It wasn’t just the name, it was the concept behind it, of smoking low dose DMT which matters, of using ayahuasca vine to extend duration, realising it worked when smoked at the same time (something that people have only recently stopped protesting) to brighten and ground the experience, as well as other herbs to enhance the experience, make it easier to smoke and taste better. These are all significant discoveries, I think.

I think Changa completely changed the playing field in terms of DMT in the world today. THAT matters. People are curious that it originated in Australia and think that is interesting. Does it matter in the scheme of things? Not really, but credit where credit is due, I say.

I started this fire. Not J. Ott or some mangy underground person who doesn’t want the limelight. This is the other thing, if it wasn’t me, will the REAL inventor of Changa please stand up? They will not, because they don’t exist. And if they did, how many people would say they are the real inventor? I would be able to collect stories from many dozens of people who can attest to me naming and inventing Changa, which would include pretty much all the high profile people in the Australian scene apart from a few sour puss krusties who obviously have an axe to grind.



Yes, and why wouldn’t that be the case? As I am the only one who has written about this period in which changa was developed!

And you have met Graham as well. Have you talked to him about this issue? Don’t you think he would confirm these developments without a shadow of a doubt before putting it into his book?



Well, I don’t even know who you are talking about. Have you been to Australia? I guess people don’t say this to my face, but I thought it was unquestioned actually, even among the old guard, who at one point, blamed me for creating changa!



I have never heard of this snuff mentioned anywhere, can nen888 provide some mention of it in some literature? It comes up with zip on google.

Like I said, I am aware that people smoked DMT on herbs, it wasn’t well practiced, but I did come across it. I credit the guy who recommend to me smoking DMT infused with Mullein and Mint in my article about the origin of Changa.

I was not aware that other people were smoking Caapi vine and leaf at the time and I had my head pretty close to the scene in the early noughties. Maybe it was something a few people did behind closed doors, but I’ve only heard about this very recently. Surely, surely, someone would have come up to me in all these intervening years and said, “hey, did you know I used to smoke DMT infused into caapi leaves?”

Nobody has ever said that to me.



I’ve never come across such a blend in any literature. The thing is, it takes the extraction of DMT to make it work effectively. Without the extraction, the DMT is not quite so effective.

I have heard of people in the amazon simmering down ayahuasca and smoking that, but then again, I can’t reference that to you in any literature. I have also heard of them smoking ayahuasca vine, again, I can’t point to that in any of the extent literature.



Sure it would have counted if they had combined ayahuasca and DMT in a blend of herbs. Maybe Ott did smoke DMT with caapi, but he apparently didn’t see the value in it and he didn’t combine it with other herbs. If he saw the value in it, then why didn’t it take off? Why didn’t he write about it or mention it in a talk?

I didn’t consider Changa “invented” until the addition of a combination of herbs and the ayahuasca vine.

Like I said before, when we gave Ott Changa, he was very skeptical that he addition of caapi vine or leaf had any effect at all. So far this is all just heresay from one person that he had smoked DMT with caapi leaf. And if I had come across DMT soaked in vine or leaf, I would have said so.



Sure, I can understand how an outsider may think the history is murkier than I make it out to be. It is worth taking note that Acacya just came on the scene here to back up what I said.



Yes, well, the Australian scene is quite political. I am aware the old school types never really liked the cut of my jib from the beginning. They seemed to want to keep the cat in the bag, and appear to resent it that I let it out!



Obviously I disagree. I think your certainty is actually really unscientific.



And I am saying that these differences are so startling, that they cannot be accounted for in terms of alkaloid profiles and ratios.



I am not saying trust the experts, I am saying keep an open mind, and take into account the viewpoints of people who have extensive experience. Best of all, do your own tests and experiments!



I’m thinking of a couple of Acacia trees which appear to contain pure DMT, both the main micro endemic ones. I think your claim I am wrong here is very much pre-emptive.

Apparently, because so many people think this is a such a big deal, and choose not to believe the writing on the wall, I will clear this issue up in time :-) So thanks for the heads up this is something people are not clear about and think is a big deal!

Well nobody taught me how to ID acacias or extract alkaloids from Acacias... I remember meeting you in 1999, when I got started.



I was introduced to DMT by someone you know, but apart from that, I was never offered any help or asked for any help, I figured it all out myself.

Yes, I do think it is strange she said that. Perhaps something was lost in translation or she was just being polite? Who knows?



Some people are not scientifically minded, they are not interested in doing tests and are not trained pharmacologists! That's why they haven't done the tests.



That's good to hear! I have talked about this with many people many times and feel this sort of DMT research could really open some new avenues of exploration and understanding.

Ok, first things first.

You need to stop setting your own personal awareness/knowledge as the metric for human knowledge. Every time you deny something legitimacy because "no one said it to [you]" or "[you] had never heard of it" you don't actually deny it legitimacy, you just show us that you only accept as true the things you have awareness of. It doesn't make your arguments compelling, it actually makes it seem like you are operating in a vacuum, blissfully unaware of the larger goings on of the world.

Take, for instance, your claim that "Only in Australia will you have the trees which contain pretty much pure DMT." I would bet that at least 99% of the people on this forum who read that will strongly consider if you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about, as M. tenuiflora is indigenous to the Americas and its alkaloid profile is, essentially, pure DMT.

Now, back into the weeds we go!



How am I making a big deal out of this? I'm simply pointing out that your claims are widely contested and come up against numerous discrepancies in the timelines and histories you claim. Part of the reason I find myself, personally, so bothered by your approach is that you simultaneously tell other people that their experience or historical evidence is BS, while offering no corroborative evidence for your claims...

and then you appear to compare yourself to Hofmann and Shulgin!!!



There are a few things to address here

1) Changa can be prepared in a wide range of doses, according to personal preference. Just because a blend is higher or lower in harmala or DMT content than you prefer doesn't somehow disqualify it from being recognized as changa.

2) There is significant evidence that you did not discover, invent, create, or otherwise pioneer the concept (that is to say, the notion that this was a thing)...the documented evidence on erowid and the Entheogen Review shows that the concept predates your entry into the "scene" by a significant margin


The thing is, I don't hear anyone aside from you saying that you are the inventor. Actually, scratch that, the only people I have heard aside from you saying that you are the inventor are people who are relying on your accounts and claims that you are the inventor.

Your assertion that if no one else is taking credit, it must be you because you're the loudest, most belligerent fellow in the room is predicated on seriously flawed logic.

Who invented herbal decoctions? Was it a singular person in a singular culture/location? Or was it such an obvious idea that the practice sprung up independently across numerous cultures, each of which applied the process to the plants/substances in their environment that made the most sense?

Your repeated assertions that it was you because you damn well say so don't make a compelling argument and are abrasive to boot. I know you've gotten away with this tactic of substituting belligerence for reasoning when shouting down people at public events, as you informed me at Ozora, but that's not gonna fly here.



I'm not sure how this makes for a sound case. You are the person who seems most intent on claiming to be the inventor of changa, despite numerous discrepancies as well as people who contradict your claims. Given your fixation on being "the father of changa" it seems perfectly understandable that you would write a book to create a record of this assertion. I still fail to see how Graham utilizing your book and personal correspondence somehow transmutes your contested claims into objective fact.

You can't get around the actually documented evidence on erowid and in the ER that the concept predates your entrance into psychedelics. Even though you loudly proclaim that "that's not changa" the concept at hand is clearly presented there. Even if we accept your slippery, shifting definitions, you still have to admit that you did not craft the concept. Yet for some reason, you continue to insist on a history in which you magically pulled the whole kit and kaboodle out of thin air. You and you alone...entirely divorced from decades and potentially centuries of psychedelic history. Give me a break!



nen has repeatedly said it to your face. My understanding is you've gotten into it with other Australians over this topic as well. So, I don't understand how I'm somehow the bearer of this news, but let me reiterate it to your face.

Your claims are contested by people who predate you in the psychedelic realm and also don't jive with the historical record presented in primary documents.



Who do you think you are? Why do you expect all of these people to come running to you to tell you about their ideas/experience/practices? Do you realize how insanely arrogant that sounds?

Why, oh why is "your awareness" presented as the bar against which things are measured? How does that make any sense?




I actually referenced several of these in our panel discussion at Ozora. I can see if I can dig up the references, but what's the point? Even if I give you references that show that there were snuffs and smoking paraphernalia that contained beta-carbolines and DMT, you've already shown that you will decry that as "not changa," even if it predated changa by hundreds of years and clearly evidences the same conceptual underpinnings.

Do you get the point here? Even if you put these things together at a particular location/place in time, you were not the only person to do it...and your doing it followed in a long-established vein of preparations. So declaring yourself to be "THE inventor" makes no sense and literally bulldozes tons of psychedelic history.



You continually dismiss things because you say that either no one told you or you were not aware of them, yet now you try to say that you would accept things you aren't aware of...despite all of the evidence to the contrary. You'll forgive me for saying so, but, I don't believe you.

Again, your considerations of what qualifies as "changa" and when it was "invented" are clearly structured so as to give you something to stake your name to. The thin-slicing and goalpost shifting you engage in is incredibly transparent. I hope you're getting something out of it, because personally, I find it rather tiresome.



This is kind of an ad hominem to dismiss, out of hand, people who contradict your accounts, not actual evidence of anything.




Hold on, this is an established chemical concept, my certainty is supported by scientific evidence. What are you basing your uncertainty on? A molecule is a group of atoms bonded together, representing the smallest fundamental unit of a chemical compound that can take part in a chemical reaction. Whether the molecule is synthesized by a plant or by a human in a lab, the bonded group of atoms are structurally identical, afaik. How is this a "really unscientific" assertion?

Based on what scientific evidence are you asserting this is not the case?



Based on what evidence? Your internal GC-MS? Your internal LC-MS? Your subjective experiences? We've seen countless examples of how unreliable the human organism is at subjectively identifying compounds, doses, and mixtures. If you're going to make claims like this, we expect you to actually have some real evidence to back it up. This is why endlessness suggested several tools and protocols to use. Things that, based on your response, I don't believe you have utilized. So again, it seems to me that you are simply asking us to take your word, to which I must simply say, "No thanks."

I'm not against your position, I'm against **ANY** position that makes assertions without providing actual, reviewable evidence and data. Otherwise we find ourselves in the mess of people claiming that they've objectively proved to themselves that the DMT entities are real spiritual entities that "actually exist" (whatever that means) and are going to usher in a new age of non-material scientific inquiry. In other words, it creates a total mess of unverifiable claims and assertions to wade through.




Dawg. You literally said:



No matter how you slice it, that claim is demonstrably wrong. How can you possibly insist otherwise? Again, are you unfamiliar with M. tenuiflora???

chocobeastie wrote:
..the concept behind this was clearly reported in Entheogen Review in 94-95, building on Gracie and Zarkov..in the 90s a lot of experimentation went on, around the world..the concept of enhancing or extending dmt with harmalas was, within the smaller underground them, a quite well understood concept...plenty of people followed what was going on in entheogen review...also the late DMTurner, who wrote the Essential Psychedelic Guide,1994, did this...it's a fairly inevitable course of experimentation..using specific additional herbs and calling it 'changa', that appears to originate with your promotion of the concept..there's the name, and then there's the concept..beyond hearsay we at least have the ER report as verifiable published confirmation..
..most people who innovate in the underground entheogenic world do not stand up waving their hands in the air and saying 'it was me! here I am"...so many of the innovations that have gone on are by people who remain anonymous and quiet..the GVG is a major development in terms of access to so-called 'hyperspace' by many, but it's developers do not go on about it like they have somehow brought dmt to the masses..
a lot went on in the entheogenic world before 1999, it just wasn't as internet connected then...the main criticism i hear within Australia of you is that you promoted changa like it had never existed before (that delivery method) in a very public (i.e. at trance festivals) and self-promoting way, creating a commodity scale that seriously threatened trees in the wild...
that's the main and repeated criticism i hear, of those who are critical...that you created a marketing vehicle, not that there is some problem with smoking harmalas+dmt, as people had already started doing this..
it's like asking who is the REAL 'inventor' of smoking DMT? maybe Nick Sand, but even he doesn't know for sure..


..this is where i feel there is some kind of victim/delusion going on...the 'old school' scene you refer to are the very people who let the 'cat out of the bag', who put information out there so that other people could discover dmt, from various sources...what the overall criticism i hear from the previous generation is of your approach is that you seemed to somehow think people weren't already accessing these things, and that somehow you were the one to bring this to the 'world'...but already, around the world, Entheogen Review being an example, people had been reporting this stuff...sure, ok there were plenty of people walking around at trance parties who may not have tried dmt yet...but whether they needed some kind of proclaimed evangelist to announce it to them was the criticism, at least that i usually hear..the cat was let out of the bag in the early 90s, globally, and in Australia by this so-called old school, which allowed many innovations to occur...personally, if see any development in 'changa', it's a a kind of packaging with a memorable name...but this meme was bound to happen anyway...the intense promotion of it out of australia was not good for acacias here in the wild, and the adoption of more sustainable sources like M. tenuiflora internationally was an important development...perhaps we can thank mainly Noman for that, but they don't stand up proclaiming themselves in that way..i've come across a few innovators over the years in the entheogenic world...most are content to lead their quiet lives without seeking the spotlight, that's more the 'norm' i would say...that's why no one who experimented with changa-like mixes prior to you could be bothered standing up, to claim a limelight they don't want...it's just not that important to them...

the core of this aspect of the discussion, is that the principle of harmalas to modulate dmt was well established before your deciding to name this changa and promote your particular blend..this shouldn't be taken as some kind of personal attack, it's not..

you've chosen to try and raise some kind of 'deep state' 'old guard' as somehow personally against you..which seems somewhat generalised and i feel, personally, oddly conspiratorial in viewpoint..
i cannot speak for others, but have covered what i hear from a few, and perceive myself...

as downwardsfromzero says in another thread, perhaps its more like 'reinventing the catflap', because the cat was already out of the bag...
.

DMTurner 1994 (Essential Psychedelic Guide) :-



see https://www.dmt-nexus.me...t.aspx?g=posts&t=299

Perhaps.. Or perhaps spirits = pharmacological action of the compounds of interest...




Not a problem if not everyone is scientifically minded and dont want to do tests, but then these same people shouldn't make claims that fall within the realm of scientific enquiry, such as whether the pharmacological effects of pure DMT from different sources will be different. Or at least make sure it's expressed clearly as an opinion/hypothesis and not as a fact.