Acacaya actually started this thread. I'd say, with sidekicks like that, why would chocobeastie need any detractors from the nexus?

I have moved all of the posts from the recent back and forth to this thread as they were ultimately a distraction from the relevant discussion in this thread. People wishing to continue that discussion should do so in the linked thread.

Please adhere to the Attitude for all posts. The moderator team will be keeping an eye on this thread to make sure it adheres to our community standards. If the discussion cannot remain within the boundaries of those guidleines, this thread will be locked.

Thank you

I’ve been trying to get out of this conversation from page 3! But I think I’ve said enough. Believe what you want to believe folks! I see no point getting drawn into even more pettiness and arguments.

(I would post the monty python argument clinic video again, but fear it would get deleted again!)

But like I said, I will clear this matter up, a fun little project for me!

I think a lot of what is going on here is really sub par. Lots of accusations, pettiness and general “holier than thou” negativity. I was recently surprised to find Dick Khan get quite a lot of chop from Snozzleberry and Endlessness. Shouldn’t you be welcoming in this researcher? Encouraging him to participate in the community?

Well this community will become another one castrated by its moderators as far as I can see. I’ve seen this time and time again in the psychedelic community in real life and online, when you have these people trying to control the show and tell people what to think, and people of substance just walk away disgusted.

Anyway, something I have thought about is, what if I never got into DMT? What if I just stuck to acacia tea drinking? Or went and lived in a cave in the Himalayas? Would there be a changa section on the DMT nexus? If not, what would there be? How many more or less would have smoked DMT in their lives? How many lives would have not been changed?
I can’t tell you these things, but I have thought about it.

I know a lot of people thank me for what I have done. It feels almost like a lifetime ago, and I feel somewhat detached from it. There are bigger discoveries/“rediscoveries” for me to work on, that’s just who I am and what I do, I pioneer things And I don’t do it for the money or the strokes, it is because it makes me happy and because I enjoy the adventure and fulfillment.

I know Acaya pretty well actually. I appreciate his passion, independent mind and eccentricity. You can’t really blame the guy for his grammar, he’s a product of getting kicked out of the best private schools in the country!

Care to explain what does chop mean? Seems like something negative. If i was unfair or excessive in any way with anybody, feel free to point out, id be happy to correct myself when wrong

I have to ask what, exactly, surprised you about the responses?

Dick made a number of claims about "science" and his "research" that didn't hold up to scrutiny (see dreamer042's comments, in particular). He shared clickbaity articles that failed to engage with their titular subject matter. He gave at least one interview where he stated his next major focus was on marketing and finding himself a following. All of these things strike me as problematic and, at the very least, in need of discussion/engagement if you bring them into this community...especially if you are looking to hang your hat on them as your "body of work."

When pressed on the matter and presented with such valid critiques as dreamer042's, he opted to avoid the discussion rather than engage. That's fine, it's his choice, but if you're going to promote yourself as an "expert"...an "authority"...an "author"...who gives vice interviews and conference presentations, you should be prepared engage with critiques about your ideas, assertions, and methodologies, imo. Otherwise, it appears that you're just searching for an acritical audience to digest whatever you spew out.



I'd also like to point out that you've sidestepped engagement with the points raised since your last post. I won't reiterate them again, I just want to make sure the avoidance doesn't go unnoticed.

And this quote speaks such volumes, imo, it doesn't even require a reply, especially given all that's been demonstrated in this thread:

Snozzleberry,

I have thought at times you are rather confused and trivial in your arguments, but am aware saying that is ad hominem. I think perhaps it might be more that I live in a more intelligent culture than yours, where everything does not need spelling out literally just in case there is any misunderstanding at all. For example, we don't have signs in Australia telling people really obvious things in case someone gets sued!



I try to keep in mind my understanding of American culture when I post here as Australia is as differnet as France is to Spain to my mind. However, I would say the dutch are much more sensible and intelligent than us!

And in what is said, is simply said in Austrlia, an implication is not a statement. It may be more of a humourous jive, something that may be mistranslated online. You have kept accusing me of changing the goal posts, "but I'm not playing a game bro!", just trying to communicate.

I'm just going to back away now, and hope you have other people to argue with on the internet, I surely do when I have the inclination!

When I see you in Australia, I will actually not be a petty little crunt to you in person like you are probably used to in the states, and I will try and be civil and friendly to you, as I have been so in the past.

Man that got racist really quick lol
Aussies arent far from muricans. We are all humans still dont forget that.

Not to push this too much further off topic, but...


I did level some pretty serious critiques regarding his Breaking Convention presentation and the information available on academia.edu regarding a lack of standard methodological protocol but I also most assuredly extended exactly that invitation.

The reason that I ask for people to spell out what they are saying is so that I can have as full an understanding as possible of where they are coming from and what they are saying...and engage with it accordingly. I would rather not make assumptions and presumptions, only to be told that I "missed the meaning" and find that I have wasted time engaging with my own misunderstanding rather than their meaning/position. Shadowboxing is all well and good, but not particularly conducive to discussions.

I find that when it comes to ideological/intellectual discussions or debates, some people like to keep their words, definitions, intentions, etc. vague and murky so that they can change up their meanings/definitions/assertions as it suits them and avoid actually taking ownership of the statements they've made...or perpetually accuse others of "not getting it."

As much as I dislike flat text for it robbing much of the emotional affect from communication, one of the huge advantages it has is that when someone spells out what they mean, you have a lasting record of it that can't be denied...all the moreso if you ask them to clarify their position and they provide additional written information/context/elaborations.


I understand that you have a low opinion of American culture, and that's fine. I do as well, although I think many of the systemic ills that exist here are rampant elsewhere, even if they display differences in phenotype. That said, I don't really see the relevance here.


All of that aside, you still haven't engaged with endlessness', dreamer042's, or my own questions/points regarding what caused your stated "surprise" to the responses Dick received. Again, that's fine. You're not obligated to answer anyone's questions or engage with anyone's points, it just kind of defeats the point of communicating in the first place, eh?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late to my Tuesday hanger-swallowing appointment

Hey chocobeastie,

IMHO thinking oneself to be intelligent is one of the most unintelligent things to do. Someone once told me that the word intelligence is derived from "inter legere", to read between the lines.

To me, the picture that you posted mostly looks like an actual example of american irony. The rarity of that could be argued, but let us not be led astray again.

Before you back away, I want to ask you if you are also going to back away from any of the unsafe dosage advice you gave in the other thread, ie. retract it, as opposed to silently ignoring the criticism you received?

Back on topic:

If you had never got into DMT it would not really have made much difference in the scheme of things, DMT would still be where it is today, the world would likely have one less self promoting website and book, though that gap probably would have been filled by someone else as well.

If you had stuck to acacia drinking maybe? a few less trees would have been destroyed? Maybe not.

If you went to live in a cave in the Himalayas most assuredly a few less trees would have been destroyed.

Yes, the Nexus would still have a section on potentiating smoked DMT with smoked beta-carbolines and on dmt smoking blends, it just maybe? would have a different name.

You would be one less person that had smoked DMT, but the overall impact would have been negligible as all the info on DMT was already in existence prior to you finding it and the Nexus and The Spirit Molecule book and movie, and all the other major outlets that exposed DMT to the masses propagated themselves quite readily without any input or assistance from you and your changa meme.

DMT would have changed just as many lives, minus yourself.

---

So let's take your claims at face value, let's say you are the inventor of changa, no one ever had the idea to mix harmalas and dmt and smoke them on some herbs before you did back in 2003 or 2004 or so. You created the concept, released it to the world, and watched it run wild for 7-8 years all the while keeping quiet about it. You were content to watch quietly from the background for all those years and not take credit for your world changing conceptualization.

Why then did it suddenly become of interest to be recognized for it all those years later? Why come onto the Nexus announcing to the world you deserve credit for creating it on February 8, 2011? If you spent 8 years disinterested in seeking the limelight for your creation, why are you so vehemently defending, and reiterating, and I expect, fervently working on an article to prove, that you fathered this concept a decade and a half later?

I'm genuinely curious as to why you never sought credit back when you created it and watched it grow to have a global impact and participated in discussion about it on SA back in 2005 and Bluelight and Tribe in 2006 and the Nexus from when you joined in 2010 through to 2011. Then all of the sudden in 2011, well after the technology had been relegated to the public domain and thousands of people have created their own unique variants, you pop out of the woodwork seeking all the glory you were never interested in for all those years prior. What motivated the sudden after the fact interest in being recognized for something you could have cared less about for so long, and why even now are you so ardent about being recognized for it?

pitubo,

I was just saying some people need 150-200mg DMT. I wasn't suggesting anyone jump straight up to that amount, but I think it is useful to keep this in mind. It is the same old pattern you read on here, "I tried 60mg and then 100mg and not much is happening, what am I doing wrong?"

dreamer042,

This is the thing, I have already answered these questions. Like I said, I wanted to let Changa do its thing, without my visage or image hindering its development as I already saw that happen to some degree in Australia, which I thought was strange and petty, but I certainly noticed that was the case. I felt a lot of people don't like me because of what they feel I represent to them, and that is whole lot of things. The pioneer doesn't have to do so much to step on people's toes, change is challenging for people to deal with!

I felt it was funny when people thought changa had originated in the amazon.

People in the Australian underground knew it was me, they were not asking me about on the shaman australis forums about changa, because they already knew all about it! I knew pretty much all those people on that shaman australis thread.

There is no point to seeking "glory" or "recognition", you confuse where I'm coming from. As an Australian person, you can't ever really expect to get much "glory" or "credit", hard as you yanks may find to understand this, as your culture is much more about "ass kissing" it seems to me.

My uncle worked in high level military and said it was a very different culture, the Americans he said expected ass kissing, and Australian people just do not do that. In fact, the opposite is true, if people feel you are getting too big for your boots, they will try and downsize you, kind of like you guys

Regardless, I would say people in Australia proably recognise my work for creating a culture in this country and furthering dialogue, probably even above "changa". Like I said, the only people I have heard doubt this are Nen and his "friends", also "the traveler" has peeped in here, and I don't even know who he is btw, but doubtless he knows who I am or we have met.

I had written an article, I posted it in 2011 and hoped to set to inform people with what I felt was and do feel is the most relevent information on changa. I wasn't really expecting "glory" here, and didn't get it, a whole lot of egotism, doubt and suspicion for the most part. Ultimately, I don't care, I was just sharing information that I felt needed to be shared at the time.

To be fair, your exact quote, in its entirety was:



Not only did you not suggest that the person in question gradually walk their dose up, but you also insinuated that people should maybe just jump in at that dose. After all, being a first timer means it's your first time, no? So by definition, this quote reads as though it's encouraging people with no DMT experience to jump in at that dose...and even in the context of the thread it appears to be encouraging someone with minimal experience to jump up to a large(r) dose.

If you meant something else, such a blunt statement is clearly problematic as the shortness/offhand nature of the suggestion doesn't give any indication about people working their way up, but rather states that they should jump in at the 150-200mg range, even if (especially if?) they are a first timer or inexperienced.

When you give advice, especially dosing advice, your words--as they are written--matter. No one can read the mind or intention behind the words.

The thing is that your wording is suggesting that people jump straight in. Instead of backtracking after the fact (and in another tread), it ought to have been a bunch of clearly worded disclaimers to go along with your initial claims.


What is your reasoning (if any) that specifically newcomers need a higher dose of dmt? Do newcomers have some kind of innate tolerance that is destroyed after their first experiences so that said tolerance is gone after a few experiences? Or do newcomers often struggle to get the maoi inhibition right, and do they need a few trials to figure it out?

The pattern that I have been seeing on the nexus is that people have weak effects because they are not getting the maoi inhibition right. When they do, 50 mgs of dmt produces plenty strong effects, just like they would with vaporised dmt (but lasting hours instead of minutes).

As I already quoted to you in the other thread, the dmt-nexus health and safety page explicitly mentions cautions about oral dmt dosage. Are you not aware of this? Do you think it is just a random bit of text without much general relevance? Do you believe the nexus attitude rules about safety and responsibility do not apply to you?

Thanks to improved understanding, with the vaporization roa the amount of dmt required for a breakthrough has nowadays decreased to 30 mgs or less, provided one uses the right tool and technique. The oral situation might be analogous. What if we were to start recommending people to try their first vape at 150-200 mgs? Would that sound like a responsible thing to do? At least with vaping, a mishap lasts only minutes of eternity, not hours.

Why would we not want to point out the relevance and importance of the maoi part? Why instead casually recommend a shoddy workaround involving a massive dmt overdose. Why risk causing a terrifying overdose (lasting several hours) for those people who do get the maoi part right at first?

I pointed out these issues in my original rebuttal in the thread where you made your unfortunate recommendations. Why did you not care to respond there? Why did you not address the core issue (which I just spelled out again) in your belated reply here, instead of your pooh-pooh'ing that readers should have known to "keep in mind" that they perhaps shouldn't do as you had actually recommended to them? Do you care about this at all?

Good point Snozzleberry! Ya got me there!

However, in this case, the woman took 195mg staggered over a one a half hour time period. In that time period she should have got a much bigger effect, which would indicate to me she is a pretty normal sort of person who needs 150-200mg.

If she just took 150mg-200mg all in one go next time I imagine it would work well for her!

I consider 150mg to be a pretty standard visionary dose. Yes, it can be overwhelming, but these visionary experiences I think often are! That's when you can really get out of the ego construct and go deep into what's there.

A lot of 1st timers need 200mg, first timers are often more hard headed than experienced people. I am coming across people who need huge amounts of harmine and something like 400-500mg just to get a visionary experience.

Myself, I like 100-140mg.

People dose DMT far too low as far as I'm concerned. In both this tryin to be sciencey community of DIYer's and the kumbaya wearing white folk.

Now back to topic.

I don't have any particular problems with you getting credit for coining the name "changa", even if that might somehow be debatable in particular ways. You have clearly put a lot of effort in popularizing the term.

I believe that all would be well and everybody would have been content with that situation if you could have left it at that. Your home crowd would have cheered for you, while some others might have kept grumbling in a corner forever about some of your reputed less favorable past behaviors, but most would have happily stepped over that as some youthful indiscretions -- provided that you had actually shown to have grown up.

Unfortunately, instead of being content with some credits and regards for coining a name and helping to popularize a concept, you come here on a grandiose mission to popularize yourself by claiming to have invented the concept, nay owning it. What did you think was going to happen in response to you crowning yourself as the pope of changa? That we'd all bow in reverence?

You may fantasize all you like about people being out to get you or wanting to mow you down because you're too big for their liking, but the simple reality is that the prospect of having someone publicly making the rounds pretending to represent dmt is going to horrify many of us if said person is someone who has a clear habit of irresponsibility in terms of actions, statements and dodging critical feedback on those. The reactions that you are getting here are perfectly logical and quite sensible, if you have the eyes to see the other perspective.

So newcomers do often need more than other people, this is well known to ayahausca faciliators. I know some who will not even work with first timers, because they drink 3-4 cups and nothing will happen. Nothing may happen for several times!

Nobody really knows why this is, and we can only theorise why it may be the case.

A lot of people on here, may be overdosing too much on the harmalas. You shouldn't get nauseous on harmalas unless you are OD'ing on them, it is a VERY fine line and the nausea can be horrible. I normally consider it a harmala overdose if someone is nauseous for hours.

Some people are very, very sensitive, those are the people who need 30-50-60mg. For most people those doses are not truly visionary. Anyway, I'm going to stop posting on here about this, as you all think you know better than me

I'm so glad that you know better than the amazon people who have for generations foolishly insisted that dmt is entirely optional to ayahuasca!

Did you know a lot of amazonian tribal people only started to use DMT admixtures in the last few decades?

Source?