I don't think there's much room for interpretation. They did a healing session and it worked just the same way, as it always has with the shrooms before.

To me it seems you've run into a typical cognitive dissonance. (we all do every now and then)
Everything that fits your POV is true, and everything else must be wrong.
It also seems you change your claims on and on, with new facts emerging.
E.g. first you claim there was no MAOI+DMT on herb before you, then someone clearly proofs this as wrong. Then you switch by saying, adding also additional stuff was your invention, etc.

Just ask yourself truly: Why is this so important for you?

Probably most people simply wouldn't care at all.

I think I would be very interested in reading that thread.

Also, if Maria Sabina said the spirit was the same, it doesn't mean she was right.

I had a chance to take mushrooms in Zapotec country a few days ago, the spirit of the mushroom appeared to me as a middle aged lady.

I've never had a chance to take synthetic psilocybin, so I cannot be sure as to its efficacy. But to my mind it would be a completely different spirit, a synthetic spirit I would call its "anima". Maybe Maria Sabina interacted with the anima of the synthetic mushrooms? Who knows.



I've always been very clear. I invented Changa and named Changa.



At this point, there are some people who I think, out of agendas which only they know, are painting me as some kind of imposter or fraud, which I think is really not nice. There is a truth here and I'm communicating it as I see it. It is also quite normal of me to communicate quite intensively online for many years and this particular topic is quite close to my heart!

Snozzleberry,

Ok, I’m giving up this point by point discussion as its becoming tiresome and going to try and just cover the territory. I think much of this communication may represent some form of misunderstanding.

I’m not trying to set my personal awareness as a metric for human knowledge, I’m just stating my experience and understanding at the time. That’s it. Nothing more. Just saying what I experienced and understood at the time. Do you understand that? Good!

When I say “Only in Australia do you have trees which contain pretty much DMT”, I am saying only in Australia do we have the ability to compare different acacia trees or MANY sources of DMT. Sure, you can compare Tenuiflora to Psychotria Viridis, but in Australia we have a few other species which are rather pure sources of DMT which gives us an ability to make comparisons people from other countries would have difficulties. Understood? Good!

Like I said, it was news to me my claims were widely contested (which I still do not believe), I will make sure to bring the evidence to the table in the future and hopefully end this sort of redundant discussion.

I have never discounted that people smoked DMT with MAOI’s, I was aware of Gracie and Zarkov’s work for sure. It was however pointed out that Gracie and Zarvov did not smoke the Ayahuasca at the same time as the DMT. And I have never said that smoking DMT with an MAOI was something I started. Of course I was aware of the McKenna’s smoking ayahuasca vine wth the mushrooms. I was ALSO aware of an Australian researcher who was smoking MAOI’s and then taking DMT orally.

I’m saying the whole package was a new development and a new creation. And that was when Changa was born. I don’t define changa as smoking ayahuasca vine or an MAOI and THEN smoking DMT. It is a mix with the ayahuasca vine or leaf and other herbs in the whole package and that is what defines it.

For your information, the article about the origin of Changa which is in my book I was asked to write in the EGA journal by the editor of the journal, Des Trammachi, an academic who wrote his phd thesis on DMT.

http://independent.academia.edu/DesTramacchi

For the record, Nen has said nothing to my face about me not inventing Changa. At EGA in 2011 as I recall, he credited me with switching a lot of people on. Since then I aware he has associated with people who seem to have a hatred for me that borders on psychosis.

I’m very much concerned about the obtusifolias as well on the far north coast of NSW as well. My response to that article that you and him wrote some time ago, was like a kick in the guts that lasted a few hours. I wrote a document in 2002 saying, guys! We need to grow these trees, we need to grow these plants! Only in the last few years have people been really rising to the challenge. I am not a grower, it is not my story, but I have distributed many thousands of Acacia seeds all around the world.

I think its very important to be clear about what changa is and what Changa is not.

Changa is not people smoking Ayahuasca vine or MAOI’s and then smoking DMT.

Changa is not people putting DMT onto a herb or herbs and then smoking those herbs.

Changa IS the BLEND of Ayahuasca vine and herbs into which DMT is infused.

I too tend to think it was obvious progression, and agree that at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who did it first or who popularised it. But at the time, a lot of people were skeptical or “didn’t get it”, so it wasn’t obvious to them at all, and many people were skeptical the ayahuasca would have any effect at all when smoked with the DMT at the same time! Ott was one of those people.

Again, I’m having difficulty with this conversation, because you keep saying that people were smoking MAOI’s separately and DMT before me and that was Changa? And I’m saying, I was aware of people infusing DMT into herbs and also had some awareness that people had experimented with combining DMT with an MAOI. (But not in the same package mind you)

What is also significant is that I observed that the combination of admixture herbs are activated by the DMT and the ayahuasca. So each herb you use in changa is of vital importance.

Neil Pike in this article, mentions smoking DMT infused into herbs and seems to think this is changa. I only heard of people infusing DMT into parsley or marijuana, not a blend of herbs. The only guy using a blend I heard about was the guy smoking DMT with Mullein and Mint. I’m not saying that I what knew is the end all and be all, only that is what I heard about at the time.

http://www.paganlovecult.com/philos/first_dmt.html

Peter Stafford mentions that some people use herbs as a carrier to DMT in his psychedelic encyclopedia (page 330), but he even suggests steeping the herbs in water so that the aromatic flavoring is absent. The three herbs he mentions are parsley, Marijuana and Red Raspberry leaves, but not any kind of combination where the effect of the blend of herbs is considered paramount. He suggests using one herb, not a blend of herbs, as the herb is simply considered a carrier of the DMT, a convenient way to smoke it.

So I do dispute that smoking “mixes” containing DMT were popular at the end of the 21st century, as Neil Pike says. Such smoking “mixes” might have been something to pop up on occasion around Nimbin or the hills of Byron in the mid to late 90’s, but “popular” may be stretching it. It was easier to just sprinkle DMT on your cannabis joint, which is something that I know was relatively popular at the time. My earliest experiments were of sprinkling DMT on ayahuasca vine joints btw!

When I came on the scene in 1999, DMT itself was very rare. Even in 2003 at intra cortex festival in far northern NSW, I met one American girl who had difficulty even finding DMT to buy!

I maintain that I am the inventor of combining DMT with Ayahuasca vine and other herbs in a blend. There is no historical record of that occurring before me. Sure, other people may well have done that before me, but they didn’t give it a name or apparently see the need to share it with the world.

And that’s an important differentiation, I saw the value of this blend and proceeded to spread that idea throughout the world.

Regarding your views on molecules. One could argue science is the development of knowledge, for science to progress, transform and evolve its understanding of the world (which it must do), there must be a flexibility to test hypotheses. I consider it unscientific to simply maintain the status quo of scientific evidence, as science is actually a method, not a description of reality.

We may have different ways of approaching reality here. I maintain my own views, thoughts and perspectives based upon my own experience as being primary, not external and objective experiments to rely upon what is real or evident in my understanding of the world. I don’t expect anyone to believe what I say, I’m only reporting what I believe to be the case and what I believe to be true.

Nen888,

Yes, but the concept of smoking an MAOI and then DMT is not the same as smoking DMT infused into herbs including ayahuasca.

There is a big difference.

As for standing up, and shouting out “it was me! It was me!” I only did so after 6 or so years and then very gradually came out of the closet.



Ok, so you’re essentially saying I created changa :-)

I guess it is the old differing point of view, that of Aldous Huxley and Tim Leary. With me being in the Tim Leary camp. A lot of people have been critical of my actions from day dot.

Like I keep saying, it is only in the last little while you have said that people smoked harmalas and DMT previous to changa coming on the scene.



I don’t disagree with that, except I would say it was hardly well established. It appeared more experimental to me.

As for the old guard being against me, I heard from our mutual friend K in the very early naughties, that there was a guy fantasizing about cutting off my fingers and then fantasizing about killing me.

And then we have your friend W, who has consistently appears to be hatefully against what he thinks I represent in the most irrational and crazy way and telling lies and false stories about me to other people. This is not conspiratorial stuff, but simply what I have experienced. At times it has all been quite intense and crazy.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about all this at this point.

This discussion ultimately boils down to a couple of points for me, at this stage, as I see you are unwilling to engage with the full litany of critiques levelled thus far.

As such, I will simply present those two points and leave it at that for the time being. Notably, these points are things you have either attempted to skirt, or have outright ignored.

1) You claim to have conceptualized changa.

A concept is understood to be an abstract idea or a general notion. The concept of changa is to combine DMT with harmalas (you insist that it must be caapi) and potentially other herbs, in order to produce a medley of effects from the combination, when smoked.

Not only do Erowid and the Entheogen Review provide evidence that this concept predates your entrance into psychedelia, we have archeological evidence that provides fairly compelling insight that this concept was in play over 4000 years ago!

You try to sidestep this by claiming a particularly narrow definition of changa, but you can't simultaneously claim such a narrow definition while also claiming to have created the concept. The concept was already in play...potentially for millenia!

2) You continue to claim subjective experience as reliable data for qualitatively and quantitatively differentiating compounds.

This claim just doesn't hold water. Your claims of "we've done so many subjective comparisons we just know" is ultimately a meaningless assertion for anyone who is not you (or anyone else who holds such beliefs based on their subjective experiences). It's fine for you to state that as your experience, but trying to bring that to the table to dismiss rudimentary scientific concepts is ridiculous.

To see just how ridiculous it is, look where it got you:



Obviously, you chose not to answer, because there is no scientific evidence on which to base such an assertion.

Given the absurdity of that position, it's understandable why you didn't engage with this point and instead chose to give the equivalent of stating "Nyah, nyah, no it's YOU who is unscientific." By definition, your assertions are not scientific as they lack any quantifiable data, relying solely on your own subjective experiences, devoid from any protocol (like those endlessness suggested) and make claims that fly in the face of rigorously established chemistry concepts.


For me, those are the two major issues at this point in time. Everything else is essentially background chatter about just how famous you should be, who supports (or denies) your claims to fame, and why you feel comfortable negating the merit of other people's narratives because you were unaware of them...among others.

Fin.

I don’t insist that Changa must contain caapi, but without the caapi, I don’t believe there will be the same synergy and activation of the different plants that you use in the blend. Also, I originally defined what Changa is, and it originally contained caapi as a primary component, so I get to define what Changa is :-)

Some people don’t use any MAOI at all and still call it changa, that’s not my problem ;-) Some people use Syrian Rue extract, which I don’t believe works as well.

For sure, this blend mentioned in the entheogen review, of extracted phalaris and Syrian rue extract looks like a nice blend, however, it cannot quite be called smokeable ayahuasca due to all the other crazy alkaloids in phalaris arundinacea including 5-MeO-DMT. AND it doesn’t actually contain ayahuasca! It would really be smokable ayahuasca if just contained DMT and Ayahuasca.

As it stands, even though this research that was printed in the entheogen review, it looks like it never really took off. It looks really experimental and like a great blend actually! Although I would personally be hesitant to combine MAOI’s with 5-MeO full stop.

For sure, the concept was there of combining the tryptamines and the MAOI’s to be smoked at the same time, but this blend lacks of the synergy of herbs and the ayahuasca vine’s activation of the DMT.

As for Gracie And Zarkov’s experiments, they smoked MAOI extracts 10-15 minutes before smoking DMT, so that’s something completely different.

These are all great experiments and explorations. But that is what they remained - EXPERIMENTS. Changa is actually something you can find in many countries in the world today, and it was not just an experiment, but it was something that was refined over many years beyond the prototype stage, that become a cultural phenomena and that spread into many people’s hands and I can tell you now, that was no accident!

I don’t deny that the concept of smoking MAOI’s and DMT may have been in play for millennia, and like I said I have heard stories of these combinations, but I couldn’t point out anything in the literature to you about it.

As for my subjective experience regarding alkaloids from different DMT containing plants, these are simply my own subjective viewpoint and opinions. That’s all it is. I’m not calling it reliable data. I’m just saying, this is what I THINK.

I’m allowed to THINK, aren’t I?
I’m allowed to have an opinion, aren’t I?
I’m allowed to have a subjective point of view, aren’t I?

And furthermore, I am not the only one who thinks this way, I’m hard pressed to think of anyone with extensive experience who says that DMT is the same from any source.

This is not an appeal to authority, I’m just recounting what my peers actually think about this matter and what the consensus is. I don’t expect any acceptance of these viewpoints from people who are maintaining that the truth can only be arrived at via science, because that’s scientism plain and simple.

I just think your inability to entertain any other viewpoints is unscientific as it doesn’t allow science to proceed. Endlessness has the right approach I think, one of curiosity and wanting to further understanding. You are claiming what is already known is the truth, which I think is the hallmark of someone who does not really understand what mature science is and therefore I believe your approach is unscientific!

—

“I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a 'body of knowledge,' but rather as a system of hypotheses; that is to say, as a system of guesses or anticipations which in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are 'true' or 'more or less certain' or even 'probable.' “

— Karl Raimund Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959),

“At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. “

— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1997), 304.

One fellow in the Jungle drinks this vine then drinks this leaf a few minutes later and has this really powerful experience and tells a few friends about it.

15 years later another clever fellow downriver hears about the experiment of the first fellow and (assuming the first fellow has never thought to try drinking them at the same time over that intervening period) decides he's gonna mix the vine and leaf together, and add a root, then name it yage. Then he runs around and shares it with everyone in the village and next village over and it gets shared up and down the river. Next thing you know shady doods hanging around street corners in Iquitos are offering up all sorts of concoctions as the "real" yage for a hefty profit.

Did the second man "invent" the ayahuasca technology?

10 years later people in all different villages have added their local flowers, and barks, and herbs, and roots and developed different ways of brewing, and concentrating, and fermenting it.

Surely this yage technology is still the intellectual property of that pioneering fellow who (probably wasn't the first one that) mixed em together and added a root, because he loudly proclaims it is so, thus it must be.

So it appears to me that you are ceding that the conceptual framework from which changa was developed existed prior to you coming along. Is that what you are saying? Because changa is, at most, one edifice of a much broader concept...and a concept for which you cannot take credit, despite your earlier claims to the contrary.

And with regards to your comments that I'm being unscientific. I already stated the following:



So when you made statements that challenge fundamental chemistry concepts, I demanded that you provide evidence to back up your assertions. You are unable to provide evidence to back up your assertions, instead insisting that it's evident to you and that my refusal to accept your assertions somehow makes my position "unscientific" although it's not entirely clear what you mean by that word.

I am asking for the exact same things that endlessness is asking for, I'm simply not presenting it with the niceties and grace that are inherent to end's personality (traits I truly admire in him).

In case you missed it, endlessness stated:



My position is that to even present a hypothesis worth listening to, you should be able to provide evidence that provides a reasonable foundation upon which to rest said hypothesis. You can tell me you believe that when two hurricanes cross paths LSD will rain from the heavens, based on premonitions received while smoking changa, but without some seriously compelling evidence, I'm likely just going to laugh at you, as what you are saying doesn't adhere to the model of reality I'm familiar with. If, on the other hand you can show me that each hurricane will actually be decimating a clandestine LSD storehouse immediately prior to their collision, then perhaps I'll consider waiting outside with my mouth wide open.

The subjective experience of psychedelics, DMT in particular, is so varied in its effects, the notion of making meaningful statements about the composition of a given extract based on the subjective effects generated is nonsensical. The "jungle spice" phenomenon underscores this point incredibly well. Ice House's blinded experiments where he was unable to determine which color DMT was which based on his experiences, without being able to see the DMT also provides solid evidence that contradicts your assertions.

Do you see what I'm getting at? We have a few preliminary experiments dealing with the matter at hand, experiments whose preliminary results contradict your assertions, which is precisely why I've repeatedly asked for evidence, which you've refused. Your assertions are being made outside of any experimental framework, ostensibly because you appear unwilling/uninterested in pursuing them...because you've already made up your mind about it the subject, yet somehow I'm the closeminded one

chocobeastie, your claims of people threatening you etc are news to me..yes some people are outspoken against you, but i have not heard of anyone threatening assault etc..this is why i feel like there is a level of delusion going on, and also some kind of smoke screen from the issues...there are some very critical people, yes, but your rendering this into some kind of personal vendetta war is, from anyone i'm personally aware of, fantasy..and you then claim others are 'psychotic'..the main detractor i can think of is still annoyed on behalf of trees, and also at what he sees as irresponsible attitudes..
the issues people criticise you on are not specifically to do with changa, other than concept invention, but approaches..

you seem to think that whatever you weren't aware of from your limited perspective at the time didn't exist..this is one of the criticisms, as certainly entheogen review was not some single experiment, other people tried this, and DMTurner was quite widely read, within the scale of the entheogenic world, at the time..you think no one else was doing this? this is what some people find incredulous

the reason changa is well known is because you took an aggressive marketing approach to your particular blend, with its name, incl through a network of shops..initially marketing something that was based on wild harvested tryptamine ingredients.. this is what some people in Australia get annoyed about, at least the ones i know...you may have marketed and promoted a blend and concept, but to claim novel invention is what various people disagree with, and the written evidence from earlier shows..
invention and mass promotion are two very different things..
it's like a franchise approach...and the name has stuck, but harmalas+dmt, and herbs, was an approach grown earlier...your insistence on claiming things is also what leads to more outspoken rebuttal of you by some..

when you say something like 'I get to define what changa is', it seems you're more interested in power and acclaim, than accepting a meme has evolved far wider than whatever your part in it is..which seems to be naming and promoting, though one nexus member says they heard the name earlier..

what people do with things, not claims to fame, are what may be argued is more important..

and nen888,
respect bro,

all that business about the trees with choco,
was a verry long time ago.!
more than 10 years ago.

and the same groups of people ,
and outhers have also questioned my harvesting methods.
but do you are ops really think that we care so lttle about the trees,
after more than 15 years or longer!
that we do any dammage at all to the environment.
we all have more respect than that mt friend

Nen888,

Surely you know about W's obsession with me in the past. This is not my paranoia, it has been a living reality.

So you are saying K made up what she heard from you? I understand this is many years ago and you may have forgotten.

I don't buy what you are saying to be honest about having had a lot of experience with smoking MAOIs and DMT before, at the very least you didn't continue to do it and prefer straight crystal as you have mentioned many times here.

Your attitude to Changa, posted on this forum years ago, was with curious interest. i.e.

"..smokable ayahuasca, i get it, interesting.."

and

"as for Changa, it sounds really nice (thanks for new inventions), i just can't see why you'd want to mix precious tree extract with much else, just personal i guess. i'd probably be more into it if the dmt came from huge pastures of phalaris (with free range bovine staggering happily...)"

(btw, you've changed! reading your posts from years ago, a much nicer guy comes across then... what happened?)

If there was a time to mention this approach to smoking DMT was "grown earlier" it was 6 years ago, not now I'm afraid.

It actually wasn't an aggressive marketing campaign that made that name stick, but a seeding and sewing to the right people at the right time.

chocobeastie, the person i am not exactly sure who you mean, but assume is the person who is very vocal publicly about their objections..he is a recognised plant oriented person, and has certainly never in any conversation to me suggested anything other than discrediting some of your claims..to try and link me with someone i rarely see as part of some wider conspiracy is ridiculous..

re 'smokable ayahusca, interesting', at the time i was trying to appreciate how in any way changa differed from Harmala+dmt, which i'd come across plenty of times...but the more i think about there is little difference..6 years ago I simply had difficulty working out what was the concept of Changa..from my era's point of view it was a bit 'so, err, what's the point here?..
definitely people were smoking more commonly Syrian rue and if they had access caapi with dmt extracts between 94-99 in a variety of 'scenes'..plenty of people say this, including other nexians who you also presumably acuse of being wrong..that's why people, other than me, question what inovation there actually was..simply because i didn't pursue encouraging that route, doesn't apply to others...you create these overviews based on what you were personally aware of, and somehow generalising everyone who disagrees with you into some kind of group bloc, which is rubbish..in older quotes i was being diplomatic, but subsequent research by other nexians has called this into question..6 years ago my general attitude, in those threads was 'so what exactly is the point to this word changa? oh ok, i see..'..the method was known by at least some people before the hype around the word wasn't..

so called 'dreamleaf' product in shops...that is the change from the approach of others..whoever or however that happened, that is what i call aggressive marketing..but this kind of caapi+dmt blend existed before your push for it...this is what multiple people tell me..but then you somehow create an argument that because i personally wasn't out there encouraging this route of administration that it either didn't exist or i wasn't aware of it..or that others weren't.. you dismiss reports in ER or by DMTurner like no one really noticed and tried this at the time..and refer to one very small social subset within Australia that you were aware of at the time..

when other nexians here have mentioned people in Australia questioning your claim of invention, they are talking about people i don't afaik even know...it isn't an isolated claim..
most of the pre 99 era is undocumented, but ER is enough to demonstrate proof of concept..
whether so called changa has to be your specific blend, that's another issue, but is more I think about packaging than actual concept..the questioning of your ownership of the invention has been raised now, initially by other nexians, in response to your very vocal claims.. once the discussion began, i have added what i recall historically..invented and promoted are two very different things...6 years ago at the nexus, beyond the name, the meme and concept of changa had its own life..and we see in the thread I quoted the DMTurner passage from, in 2007 people independently exploring Harmala+dmt combinations without any apparent reference to or knowledge of calling something 'changa'..I entered this aspect of the debate after other nexians questioned your changa wikipedia entry..so trying to turn this into some kind of duality conspiracy by me and some old Australian plant heads is not i think seeing the scope of what others here are saying...my view is just mine..my point is there are other people independently offering parallel views here..

this is where i'd rather leave the discussion..in the end it doesn't matter to me who popularised different blends or mixes, or even who first smoked dmt.. no one invented the plants, and they are what is being given package name tags here...but i think it's important to separate whatever your personal issues with people who are not me, and whatever i'm supposedly personally 'into' or not, from a broader discussion than that...the people you want to link me to are, as far as i know, mostly concerned about responsible practices, ethics and the environment... not the existence of something now called changa..but hey maybe it's time for new names to emerge to...and how different is coke to pepsi anyway?

i wish you peace, chocobeastie.. stepping out into the world entheogenic stage with certain kinds of claims, though, may not always result in that..especially somewhere as discerning in language and fact checking as the nexus..if you feel that it is up to you to tell nexians what changa should be, i leave that discussion between you and them..

edit: ps the only reason i have participated in this discussion is to address specific claims you make, and have not much interest in any personal issues, which are not really existent..this is a forum for the collective knowledge, each nexian contributes

Well, I can tell you what happened when I came up with Changa and started sharing it with people (for free mind you) Every Tom, Dick and Harry started making their own blends! And they didn’t consult me about how to do it, they just scurried away and started doing it.

This is why I am skeptical that people in the 90’s really saw the potential of this smoking MAOI’s and DMT. It would make sense that some people would have experimented with MAO’s and smoking DMT in different ways, as it makes sense to do so. The extent literature shows Gracie and Zarkov making those experiments and a person on the entheogen review experimenting as well. As I’ve said though, Gracie and Zarkov didn’t smoke the MAOI’s together with the DMT and the entheogen review experimenter didn’t use ayahuasca or a blend of herbs.

Did this all go much further than experiments between them and their friends? It doesn’t look like it. It just looks like a one off stillborn experiment.

The reason I call myself the father of changa is because I nursed this baby, I brought it into the world, shared its wisdom with other people around the world. Actually coming up with the alchemy was just the first step. And I gave this baby a NAME. I explained the value of it and why this baby is very good mojo. It took a long time for people to get it actually. Now the baby is grown up into a teenager and doesn’t want too much to do with me. But now it is truly established, is when this issue is coming up, and I find somewhat telling its coming up now. I find it somewhat besides the point, as I have put a great deal of effort into actually bringing Changa into fruition around the world.

I cannot see how anyone can say Gracie and Zarkov or unknown entheogen review experimenter is the father or inventor of changa. At best they were some people experimenting with smoking DMT and MAOI’s, that’s very different to creating a bend of herbs containing ayahuasca and DMT which actually spread from that point onwards.

I remember when an elder came to me and said he had discovered that infusing DMT 50/50 into ayahuasca leaf was for him the holy grail rather than a blend of herbs. Is that Changa? Yes, I suppose it still is. But to my mind, the real alchemy comes into the equation when you add all the other herbs.

>.but this kind of caapi+dmt blend existed before your push for it...this is what multiple people tell me..

You only said that Ott put some DMT oil in Caapi leaf. You must understand my skepticism, as I’ve only heard this recently in the last year or so.

And furthermore, you talk about the Australian scene as if it was a cool, calm collected bunch of concerned people. People are often very worked up, including yourself, especially about these trees. Nobody with half a brain is going after the obtusifolias on the far north coast which are very low yielding acacias. Down south there are plenty of obtuses with twice the yield and other species with 2-3 times the yield in the phyllodes which are much more common.

My experience is that there are lot of people who do not like the cut of my jib to say the very least, and I’d say there are a lot of people who may be trying to put some effort into trying to discredit me. I don’t have any personal issues with these people, except to just being aware of their mental instability and how they spread lies.

Regardless, the narrative has already been set. My book was just published in Italian. Some grumblings on the nexus and some old timers mumblings isn’t going to change that narrative. And I’m willing to put some effort in to ensure there is no doubt that narrative is correct.

But in many respects, this is just so much water under the bridge for me, and I’m onto other plant research which I feel is just as significant a development as Changa.

You really are an arrogant, self-absorbed fellow, aren't you? Here you go again, presenting yourself as the clearinghouse...







Again, people didn't tell you, so it must have been a stillborn experiment! Despite the evidence that people were clearly experimenting in different circles, as the meme keeps popping up over time and in different locations, but hey, that probably just means a random person here or there was struck with this incredibly obvious idea and then gave up on it shortly thereafter, not that different psychonauts were experimenting and talking to each other directly, rather than trying to post all over a relatively nascent internet drug scene in order to share their experiences. Feels like sound logic to me!



So fixated on beingthe father of changa, you can't even accept that all of these modern-day experiments have a lineage that appears to go back millenia. You are the only person looking to apply the criteria of "what does it take for someone to be declared as the father of changa," likely because most others realize the absurdity and arrogance of attempting to make such a preposterous claim.





You can spread your myths and fables as far and wide as you like...all it is is the perpetuation of your own self-delusion and fixation. Publish your book in every language, it doesn't make your assertions any more or less true, it only evidences your motivations and the underlying characteristics behind them.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate this wonderful post by dreamer042:

If you want credits for being a great inventor, then why don't you just simply invent something new?

Everybody can just accidentally stumble upon something. But only a visionary pioneer, wich you apparently are, can make a habit out of doing that.

Were you around for DMT world Snozzleberry? That was some years before the nexus. I don't remember any people reporting smoking MAOI's and DMT in that forum, but maybe there was a report or two on there, but what is clear is that no culture arose from those experiments and it didn't become very popular.

Dorge was the one who really spruiked changa on here first. And when I began posting, he simply disappared!

Nice ad homo bro. It just makes you sounds like a sourpuss, which you're covering up with excessive smileys. People have already written to me about what you have said, don't think many can't see where you are really coming from.

Where is it you think I'm coming from, exactly? I have no horses in this race. I'm simply an observer who sees that the historical record clearly contradicts your assertions!

I've published zero books...
I've got no merchandise...
I've never profited nor made an attempt to profit off of my "psychedelic persona"...
I've never pushed a psychedelic product on a national or global marketplace...
I've made zero claims that I should be a psychedelic celebrity, or recognized as the "father of" anything...

So what, pray tell, is my agenda? Other than feeling a compulsion to point out the gaping holes in your assertions, whether regarding changa or pharmacodynamics? I'm not the one looking to make material or reputational gains from the "psychedelic community"...that's all you

Okay fellas let's keep it above the belt here.

Besides, let's focus on the real issue at hand. When am I gonna be recognized as a psychedelic celebrity? Where my book deals? Who is giving me paid speaking gigs at festivals and conferences around the globe?

I decided to mix harmalas with melatonin and didn't read about anyone else doing it before me, where's my recognition as the father of harmela?

chocobeastie, I think it's been asked but not answered, why is it so important for you to hold this title? Is there some part of your ego that needs stoking? Ask yourself, honestly, why you need this? For celebrity? To sell books? Why?

If there's one thing I've learned from my use of psychedelics over the years and interaction with the psychedelic community it's that the true pioneers do not shout from the mountaintop -- in fact, getting them to emerge from their caves can be a monumental challenge, as it should be. These people, in my experience, tend to be some of the most humble unassuming folks I've met. I have no experience with the AUS scene so maybe things are different down under. I've known a few others, however, and can't see any of them fighting so hard for ownership of a claim.

And let's be honest, it's really not that big of claim. OK, you put DMT on dry leaf... a pretty natural evolution when first working with the molecule. "Kinda hard to smoke this awesome crystal... let's try it on some leaf! Even better, let's try ayahuasca leaf... WOW!" (Personally, for me, it was m.teniflora with syrian rue extract on mullein but pretty much the same thing, chemically.)

You did not spend years in a lab creating new compounds like Hoffman or Shulgin. You did not find new plants with novel compounds. You took known knowledge and maybe put the two together somewhat early in the days of mass DMT awareness. And *maybe* coined the term. You are not the father of changa. A fame-seeking step-uncle... maybe.

I'll leave my signature as something to consider and hope you find the fame you so desperately need: