That is just something you pulled from god knows where. I never said I OWNED anything! I never tried to popularise myself here. Here has NEVER been a particulary friendly part of the internet for me, and I only post here very occaisonally.

The concept for you may be different to the concept to me, if you read my writings about changa, you will see what the concept is for me, and I've clarified that here, largely using ayahusca vine, infused DMT and other herbs.

I've repeatedly made it clear here, that I started doing this and popularising it. If you don't buy that, you don't have to! See if I care!



Dear sir, I was never under any such illusions that the highly intelligent, supra smart arse, highly independent citizens of the DMT nexus would ever do anything but fart in my general direction as they generally have done!



Yeah, well, you may miss my humour. This is water under the bridge. I've largely fulfilled my role in this world.



Excuse me? You do not know jack about me and my life and who I am and how I behave?

You are just a random person spewing discrediting words on the internet. Don't you ever dare to presume I take you very seriously at all.

You can find this in an extract of this book about how the matsigenka came into contact with Psychotria Viridis.

https://books.google.com...igenka%20DMT&f=false

The hauchipaeri trbe only added psychotria to their brew in 1960's after exposure to matsigenka who were the neighbouring tribe.

http://oxfordindex.oup.c...o/9780199341191.003.0002

"The ayahuasca brew (Banisteriopsis caapi and Psychotria viridis) was introduced very recently among the Matsigenka and Yora (Nahua) indigenous people of southern Peru. The Matsigenka used Banisteriopsis liana previously, however they did not learn to add the potent Psychotria admixture in preparing the brew until the 1950s. Introduction of ayahuasca to the Yora (Nahua) was even more recent and drastic. Shortly after their contact and decimation by contagious diseases beginning in 1985, the Yora adopted ayahuasca and abandoned previous shamanic substances and rituals. These two case studies demonstrate how quickly and completely ayahuasca shamanism can be adopted, supporting the idea that widespread ayahuasca use even among indigenous populations may be fairly recent. The studies also attest to diversity and dynamism in indigenous practices on par with the differences observed among various urban ayahuasca practices."

It has been repeatedly been made clear, by multiple people, that your claims of origination and your actions regarding popularizing were seen as dodgy.

I sat through half a public presentation by you (on youtube, thankfully while I was doing something else that was actually useful) so I am clearly convinced that I am not going to buy your book or any other merchandise that you are planning to sell.


Your behavior on this forum is quite apparent. I am not saying that I am assuming that any insinuation or accusations made against you or your past behavior are a proven fact. Your responses here to those, however, are.


I am a random person on the internet questioning some of your statements on the internet and even vehemently disagreeing with a few. This side effect is to be expected when making statements on the internet. If that bothers you, then don't make statements on the internet.

Would it surprise you if not only I, but many other people here, found that a good part of the words discrediting you actually come from you yourself?

OK...but your initial claim was:



So I have two questions:

1) Is two or three indigenous groups "a lot of amazonian tribal people?" Bearing in mind that numbers and populations are all relative.

2) Is 50+ years ago "the last few decades?" It appears that the Yora were more recent than that, but that's a singular tribe, no?

Yeah, I was seen as dodgy by the dodgy! I can agree to that. I've never had the issue of people I actually respect taking issue with my actions and words. I'm not saying I'm without flaws, but the people I respect normally have compassion and understanding and are actually cool people who can put things in perspetive.

All you are hearing from here is some disgruntled folks and trolls who have an agenda to spin. Really, I don't have more time for this little corner of the internet and I actually have some work I need to do

Snozzleberry,

My initial claim was going from memory, of something that I doubt very few people here would have any idea about!

My basic point is that some tribes decided to break tradition to add DMT to their ayahuasca when it was being argued that ayahuasca is all you need and how can you argue with the longstanding traditions? The answer is, some tribes have broken those long standing traditions, because the vine works better with DMT. Everyone knows that.

Also, it is interesting to note that ayahuasca is new to many tribes.

"Finally, the claim of vast antiquity for the use of ayahuasca is inconsistent with the number of Amazonian indigenous people who report that they have come in contact with the ayahuasca drink only recently and often within living memory—the Amuesha (Santos-Granero, 1991), the Arakmbut (Gray, 1996), the Cashibo (Frank, 1994, p. 181), the Ese Eja (Alexiades, 2000), the Guarani (Langdon & Santana de Rose, 2012), the Kukama (Rivas, quoted in Brabec de Mori, 2011, p. 46 n. 22), the Kulina (Pollock, 2004), the Matsigenka (Shepard, 1998; 2005, p. 201-203)."

http://www.singingtothep...on-origins-of-ayahuasca/

No, you are hearing from a range of people presenting different bits of evidence or opinions that discredit many of your assertions..if some people are disgruntled it's largely by how you've expressed yourself in this forum, and other media..or by claims of various actions of yours which you partly confirm yourself, which are ethically questioned..again you use the 'all these people out to get you' move which is like a tactic of classic narcissistic behaviours ..no one here, except maybe acacaya, has any personal 'agenda' regarding you or your claims to have 'invented' changa, the agenda at the nexus is to try and verify accurate information..no, people, people on the nexus, or in any entheogenic peer groups, are not out to get you chocobeastie..
they are responding to very particular kinds of claims you are making on the internet..it's just that the more public you go with these claims, the more people with different kinds of evidence, or recollections which differ from your version of history and culture emerge..to keep using the 'everyones got a grudge' retort is disingenuous, and i don't think bares up to scrutiny..

I honestly tried to show you perspective. A perspective with compassion and understanding, but not just for you alone. Apparently, you didn't like that perspective. Oh well, I tried.


Yeah, how right you are. It must be their agenda to project their own repressed unconscious onto you. How unfair. Clearly you came here without any agenda. And you don't spin. Ever.

I think you may be slightly misrepresenting the point pitubo made, which was not that "ayahuasca is all you need" but rather that DMT admixtures are optional.



I think this point might be more or less supported depending on which group of people is being discussed, but that's just my opinion

Interestingly enough, Shepard's passage from Bia's book reveals a bit more.



So, interestingly enough, despite Shepard's reporting that the few elders he's been able to get to comment on the matter have told him that "the former brew...is strongly intoxicating," for some reason, he then asserts that he assumes that "the Psychotria-based ayahuasca brew is preferred today...because it provides stronger and more consistent intoxicating effects than the older formula." Unfortunately, he doesn't give any insight into the reasoning behind his assumption, so it's hard to know exactly why he's making it and what evidence supports the assumption. I'm not sure why he wouldn't provide his reasoning, but it does leave us a bit in the dark.


You state that you believe that:



However, I would contend that this is not so much about what "everyone knows" a much as personal preferences. At Ozora, you and Giorgio Samorini were both adamant in your dislike of harmala effects and "side effects" for both oral brews and changa. Even in this thread, I believe you have referenced your dislike for harmala-heavy changa and ayahuasca. Giorgio mentioned his quest for a "perfecthuasca" where the harmala effects were essentially not apparent. I expressed dissent with those positions at the time.

Personally, I find the higher dose harmala experience to have much greater therapeutic value, for me. In talking and comparing doses with other folks on this site, I know that I am not alone in that view, but I would not claim that more or less harmalas are "better" or "worse" but rather that it depends on the person (or group) in question and the effects they are looking for. Actually, I would contend that one of the things that makes tryptamine/RIMA combinations so versatile is that you have at least two components you can adjust to modulate the desired effects from any given experience.

Imo, there's really no way to make overarching statements about the "ideal" especially given the difference between human metabolisms and MAO as well as personal desires. I know people who have no interest in taking DMT at this point in their lives, who still find tremendous benefits from utilizing harmala-only preparations. Would adding DMT to their preparations make it "better?" It seems unlikely to me as that's not what they're looking for, so how could it be "better?" I think it's important to remember that there is no universal experience or desire to have X experience. Rather, people should do what's best for them.



As a final aside, I don't know that anyone in this thread is claiming "vast antiquity" in the sense of omnipresence of ayahuasca throughout Amazonian cultures over human history. But, as Nen and Jamie wrote about in a prior Nexian article and as we have discussed in many threads, numerous plant decoctions, snuffs, and smoking blends containing various tryptamines and betacarbolines have been around for millenia. How widespread they were is of less interest to me, personally, than the fact that we can trace that thread back pretty far. Hell, looking at contemporary times, psychedelic users are a tiny percentage of the population. Perhaps it's not so surprising to find that perhaps that's nothing new, eh?

Just a thought

Certainly the caapi by itself as a brew can be more intoxicating in the way that caapi is. I have had a strong caapi brew after a 10 day fast and then it was visionary to some degree.



The DMT is just as therapeutic as the caapi, just dose a lot lower than you get visionary effects for. Did you know that for the most part, the ayahuasca churches in Brazil never really give visionary doses to people?

I'm all for 15mg or 30mg or even 60mg doses with caapi when using larger amounts of caapi, I think its more therapeutic than just the caapi. The caapi by itself I've never found to have the healing power.

I enjoy high ayahusaca doses and low DMT doses sometimes, but have never gotten into this with changa. I can appreciate how people like the depth and earthiness, this is what may be more needed than the cerebral hyperdimensional blast of DMT. But I think there is a balance, I see the DMT as masculine and the Ayahuasca as feminine, they work better together in my opinion. The Ayahuasca churches would never consider taking straight caapi for example, for them both elements are required.

BTW, Syrian Rue and Acacia phyllodes I am finding to be my favorite thing at the moment and getting the best results with people. There is another guy who started brewing the same time as me way back when who is reporting the same.

Different strokes for different folks I think. I have a friend who has used ayahuasca in the past, but these days he prefers and claims to get much more therapeutic/healing effect from the caapi alone, and prefers it alone without the addition of DMT. I've drank ayahuasca with an Ecuadorian shaman on numerous occasions, and he used vine heavy brews with only a little DMT presence...in his view it's the caapi vine that is the main healing agent, and DMT visions can be a distraction from the healing work. It's also worth mentioning that the upregulation of platelet serotonin transporters following ayahuasca use which is linked to its long term afterglow or antidepressant effect is associated with the beta-carboline alkaloids, and tetrahydroharmine (THH) in particular. I'm not doubting that the DMT component can assist when it comes to the healing aspect of the ayahuasca brew, but it certainly isn't necessary, and the caapi is in the driver's seat when it comes to the overall healing or therapeutic effect I think.

None of the above was addressed by chocobeastie or acaya. Fact is the original caapi acacia blend was called Dreamleaf which gained a great reputation but was never a commercial enterprise, and this appeared shortly after the Johnathan Ott visit. The mix called "changa" was a cheap knockoff with no caapi... passionflower was used with other herbs and it looked like chaff. It was weak, heavily promoted to youth at festivals and this is one of the many reasons people are upset at the promoter.

The response was just ramblings and disrespect by chocobeastie and others when talking about Mr Ott and nen888 (appointed Guardian of the Acacia by the local Indigenous) and shows their lack of real contribution and understanding on many levels.

P.S acaya I'm not your cuz or your bro you obviously don't know me.

Sheriff,

I know who you are and you come off as a bit confused online.

So Ott came to Australia in January 2005. Changa was well underway before that time. Like I said, myself and a friend both gave it to him then.

I know the guy who dubbed it "Dreamleaf" and you would know who he is too. This name never really took off except with some inner circle people. Changa did.

The man who called it "dreamleaf" did however spend some time spreading it around the world. I think some people didn't like the name changa because it sounded a bit ocker, a bit too aussie, so that's where the name dreamleaf came into the picture.

Changa always had caapi in it, and was 20% DMT at the time. I found that plenty strong and the point was, it was supposed to be a more gentler form of DMT, that was the whole idea in the beginning

You say you know me, if you do you'd know I'm certainly not confused.

After some investigation your timelines prove you wrong.



This is a lie.

I saw a sample of this so called "changa" two years after Mr Otts visit and it certainly did not contain any caapi [you used passiflora] and the mix barely produced a threshold experience [not plenty strong] according to a number of reports.

Again you are confused as the whole idea in the beginning, courtesy of Mr Ott, was to make it last longer [see earlier post].

So you and your "friend" couldn't have, even if you had the opportunity to, you didn't give Mr Ott "changa". Another lie.

Really choco thats a bold claim so you just magically knew how to do an extraction with no knowledge of chemistry beforehand? youclaim to have this knowledge without being "taught" science

I think you should take a strip from stametts and learn what being humble is

NOOOO! NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN! ARGH!

Sometimes, brownstone looks a bit like biscuit.

I was actually the first person to notice this.

Well, I discovered that fried egg butties are a vital component in activating nutmeg tincture

That's all very nice. Are you actually Julian Palmer or are you merely in the habit of copy-pasting unattributed quotes wholesale in the hope of looking good?

Who Should be Serving Psychedelics? January 15, 2020 by Julian Palmer

The way to have posted this would be to start a thread in the Welcome area (because you're a new member and can't post in the Ayahuasca section yet) entitled something like: "Re: Some thoughts on working with shaman's." or maybe "Interesting article about serving ayahuasca", or whatever. In the first case you would be able to request that your post be added to the thread of that title: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=30503 where it might be considered to be at home. In the second case you could provided a link to the Reset.me article, rather than - or in addition to - copying the whole article.

Either way, it does a disservice to be posting in the wrong thread and I'm not sure it's entirely repaired the train wreck here.

Have read all 10 pages of this. What a thread. BULLSHARKS!!