well there seems to be some confusion about this subject!
i ca nt post on the official changa site yet,
so ill start or continue it here.!

Ok, so how many people were actualy there at that time
in australia.
in the golden years of dmt reserch in australia.
I was.
and CHOCOBEASTIE definately was.!!!
and so was LIMOLORDS.

i dont believe that guy that said he was given
by name (changa in 1994)in the states.
im sure he smoked somthing but it wasnt called changa,!
where are outher people that have heard this at that time in history,???

anyone who was around in OZ in that time and was part of
the great( CHANG-AH experiments)..
and there were many who partook,
and i was there when johnathon ott came to oz and smoked
dmt infused herbs ,and so was chocobeastie.
and im telling you they didnt call it CHANGA.!

it is a well and widly known fact that choco
came up with that name.
i was there,
and so were manny outhers that can testify.

and endlessness,
conserning your post on dmt is dmt.
that is bullsharks mate.
ill take that double blind organic pure dmt test all day long bro.

choco wouldnt bother i dont think.
but ill make that bet with you mate.

i can tell the differencs between obtucifolia, courtii,
acuminata atleast 2 or 3 different varients ,
phleb ,from synthetic ,
blind folded and spun around 3times before smoking.

thats why i say (oils aint oils),
they all have totally different qualitys and energys.!
and choco is right in the fact that they all
have quite different visual aspects as well that you
can fully become acustomed to the differences over time.
which alot of people i know can fully tell the difference too.

Chocobeastie appears to have a bit of a fixation on his self-applied label of "the father of changa" even though it appears most people say at most, he coined the term "changa." The thing is, I don't really understand why that matters. If people have been racing cars in the street for decades, without a name for what they're doing, and I come along and say, "This is streetracing," I haven't really done anything to contribute to the activity itself, I've just created a shorthand label for it.

People have been smoking dmt/beta-carboline mixtures for centuries, at least. Most cultures have had their own name(s) for it. Who cares who came up with the particular name. Why does it matter? What does it actually add to our understanding of the experiences?

Also you post remarkably similar to limolords...is that you limolords?

yes it doesnt matter snozz.
but sompeople have contributed to the cause a great deal.
and psychodelic history should be preserved for future reference.
outhwise we would have no terrence and dennis books and ott books,
and no classic stories like stoming heaven,
the electric cool aid acid tests
and stories like owsly told at ega,!!!
clasic stuff bro.

(CHANG-AH) is a brand name ,
just like coka cola,
or pepsi!
and as such has patents pending.
(LOL)

and we all do have classic stories to ad
to the history of DMT.'
and i think a book should be writen
to tell different parts of that story,
that we are all part of.

just like storming heaven.
and just as valid and just as important as
anything those people that came before us had to offer.

just as the people that started dmt nexus have an
awesome and important valid story to tell .

we could call it
ACACIA DREAMING

acacaya, can you please reference what post you are taking about?

I dont think I've ever made an affirmation that smoking extracts from acacia is always going to be the same as smoking pure DMT, specially when alkaloid content changes. There must be a percentage where different alkaloid content will affect the experience, whether quantitatively and/or qualitatively. That will likely depend on what alkaloids in question are being changed. That being said, this has never been properly studied with controls/blind tests.

I started a thread on making a double blind test with DMT-containing extracts in order to increase the knowledge on the subject, not as a bet that the results will be one thing or another, but as an open invitation to learn more together. Do note that this was first started to discuss particular extracts of mimosa hostilis using different solvents, and claims of different effects. In that case, my hypothesis is still that the minor alkaloid changes will not consistently and reliably affect the dmt experience qualitatively. In the case of acacias, there is a greater variation of alkaloids depending on species, and therefore my hypothesis isnt the same. I suppose in some cases changes will be seen, but dont know to what extent, in what cases, what kind of changes, etc.

If you or people close to you want to participate in blind testing research, that would be awesome. Lets get the extracts tested to know what do they contain, and then we plan together the methodology, or follow that thread and post back the results


Lastly, regarding changa, I personally don't care much what its called and who first called it, but if you do and want to talk about it, I don't mind, go right ahead

cool as bro.
i would fully love to participate in a real study on that subject!
and so would outher people we know.
people that have extencive experience in that field.
there is alot that can be learned from this.
the science needs to be done.
and experimentation is the only way.
real purification testing.
and dosing.
there is still so much work that needs to be done,
and there are people out there that have the time , knowledge,
experience and will to see it through.

would love to hear your sugestions on how to formulate a plan
my friend.

(choco wrote
The guy who innovated the 10x caapi extract, gave it to his friends and they all decided it was too strong. For sure it is something to experiment with and some people may like it.
(you wrote)
>DMT is DMT, wherever it comes from. Considering it is clean of possible impurities, whether it is fatty acids or secondary alkaloids from plants, or other impurities from synthesis, it will be the same thing. Maybe self-suggestion will explain differences felt, and I would think if you made a blind test you couldnt tell them appart. Not to say you should use dmt from other sources, I think you should do exactly as you feel is right, im just expressing what I felt reading your post

(choco wrote)
I beg to differ.

DMT is NOT DMT. Any of the well experienced people in the tryptamine scene in Australia agree upon this, because we have many different sources of DMT from many different plants and each plant has a different kind of communication, a different set of visual themes/qualities/effects and the nature of visual experience changes completely depending on the plant.

With double blind tests of pure DMT from natural sources I bet experienced plant heads here would be able to determine the difference - especially between synthetic DMT and naturally source DMT.

(acacaya wrote)
swim helped in most of these with choco

It appears you're missing the point. In the examples you've presented, you are talking about plant extracts that have not been purified/isolated to just DMT. I'm not suggesting the goal is to always isolate just DMT from the extract, as NMT and betacarbolines can play their own role in the experience, and some may desire those different experiences.

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.

Does that help clarify?

Joedirt wrote

Quote:

BTW chocobeastie if you really are the inventor of Changa...I LOVE YOU. Thank you so much for this.

(choco wrote)
Thanks. Truly, it is something so much bigger than me which I feel quite detached from even. These days, unless I am in Australia, people often don't believe me if I tell them, which I find kind of amusing actually.

Something like this doesn't help or change anything about the inner work you have to do in terms of self-esteem and so on.

Quote:

Also as for the differences in dmt from plant to plant. There is no difference what-so-ever if you fully extract and purify the material. Now if you want to talk about crude extracts from plants or different plants in brews then absolutely I can believe there is a huge difference. But DMT is a molecule specified by a specific formula and atom connectivity. Period.

(choco wrote)
Joedirt, Thing is each plant within each species is different. The nature of its molecule *and its effect upon human beings* is not adequately explained by the basic atomic structure we assign.

DMT from really younger plants for example just doesn't do the job.

If you compare the DMT from the root bark to the tree bark. The root bark is always going to "better".

You can only do these kinds of tests if you have access to the plants themselves and in Australia there is a large network of people who work with these plants.

I just wanna say there is no question in my mind about this issue, and I've been working these plants for over a decade and I know people who have been working with them for over two decades.

As for the difference in DMT species to species, that is not at all a contentious issue among researchers here. That DMT is different between individual trees, is accepted as fact among researchers here.

So the molecule is like an information carrier (i.e. transmitter) which comes from the tree. It contains information in the way a crystalline chip does. So when you put it into your brain/nervous system, you are going to be connected to the intelligence of the plant it came from. And each plant has a different intelligence and "personality", which you can communicate with. You find this with all sorts of plants. For example, even though all mushrooms contain psilocybin, there are vast differences between the qualitative experiences from different mushrooms over the world.

I would also suggest also that each individual mushroom has a character and quality which cannot at all be explained by an understanding that different mushrooms must be reduced down to a static two dimensional molecule which does not possess any internal qualities or attributes.

Reductionism is good for beginning to understand things, but the finger is not the moon, the map is not the territory etc.


endlessness
#68

Posted : 7/8/2011 11:33:10 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 12722
Joined: 19-Feb-2008
Last visit: 06-Jul-2017
Location: Jungle

chocobeastie wrote:

That DMT is different between individual trees, is accepted as fact among researchers here.

(endlessness wrote)
How many of these researchers did double blind test?
Test your plants and drugs with TLC Kits. No formal chem knowledge needed!

(acacaya wrote)
swim and friends have purified the spice using
vacume distillation on multiple occasions,
and swim and there friends have special affinities to each spieces tested,
and there are large differences in there qualities even when ultra pure.

(the plants are the teachers.)
in plants we trust.!

so lets do the tests!!!

we can only learn from our mistakes?

and we have mixed up the samples ,
and had outher people pack blind test cones multiple times.
and most of swims friends could tell which spieces more than 80% of the time.
all of this was done some years ago,
so we need to do some real blind tests with the proper guidelines for blind tests in place
to get true results.!

Hold on.

Are you seriously asserting that extracted, isolated, and truly purified DMT is structurally or molecularly different from one plant to the next and compared to synthetic DMT? Have you actually had any of your supposedly ultrapure compounds analyzed by GC/MS, or HPLC?

That's a pretty bold claim that's unsupported by the chemistry concepts I'm aware of...

no bro swim is not stating that it is in anyway physicaly different.

(choco wrote)
I just wanna say there is no question in my mind about this issue, and I've been working these plants for over a decade and I know people who have been working with them for over two decades.

As for the difference in DMT species to species, that is not at all a contentious issue among researchers here. That DMT is different between individual trees, is accepted as fact among researchers here.

So the molecule is like an information carrier (i.e. transmitter) which comes from the tree. It contains information in the way a crystalline chip does. So when you put it into your brain/nervous system, you are going to be connected to the intelligence of the plant it came from. And each plant has a different intelligence and "personality", which you can communicate with. You find this with all sorts of plants. For example, even though all mushrooms contain psilocybin, there are vast differences between the qualitative experiences from different mushrooms over the world.

I would also suggest also that each individual mushroom has a character and quality which cannot at all be explained by an understanding that different mushrooms must be reduced down to a static two dimensional molecule which does not possess any internal qualities or attributes.

Reductionism is good for beginning to understand things, but the finger is not the moon, the map is not the territory etc.

nature and energy are a vastly different concept than
mere chemistry
and anyone who has worked with the plants long enough
will and can attest to the spiritual conections to these
highly evolved beings

This is all just one long appeal to authority...not an actual evidence-based assertion.

Really?

have you the long history and experience with all these different spieces?
not many people have!
not on this level.

and if you have?
and you obviously do have some
extencive experience.
then you have to agree aleast that there
is a whole outher thing at work here besides
mere basicic chemisry!?
how can you possibly deny these experiences.
by multible fully chemistry trained and spiritual people.

as i says let do the tests.
im sure people like dennis mkenna would be interested.
and ott.
iv spoken with ott about this matter and so have outher OZZYS
and us based people and we realy do need to do the tests.
as endlessness has said on multiple occasions.

lets actualy see what happens.
you never never know,
if you never never go!

It fully actualy supprises me and choco that ,
fully experienced people here still dont get it?
ovcause its fully possible
how can you have these experiences over ,and over again and still
not learn anything about energy and light?


bumbfounded really

I'm not asserting that I've got all the answers or haven't had experiences that raise serious questions. But when you make material claims like DMT from one source is different than DMT from another source...not physically different but energetically different, that raises innumerable questions. Not the least of which is how have you determined this.

It sounds like you're saying that the difference is from the subjective experience. Whether this is from the subjective experiences of isolated and purified DMT seems unclear from your posts. But it also appears you have not actually done double blind studies on purified, isolated, and analytically-verified DMT. So at the very least your assertions are premature and lacking shareable, verifiable evidence/data supporting them. As you are the one making the claims, the burden to provide that evidence is on you. Do the tests in a rigorous, methodologically-sound manner, share compelling evidence, and I'll gladly engage with the research.

As it stands, you come off as another peddler of woo, expecting us to take your subjectively-experienced differences as fact because you claim "the experts say so." Sorry, but that doesn't fly here.

I peddled woo once ... got a nasty rash.

well bro it is as true as aserting that water holds memory,
as a (crystal holds memory)
and when an experiment and results are repeatable,
than yes that is subjective evidence to a degree.
alot of people here talk alot about chemistry,
cool thats what it is about bro.
but !
every time iv smoked or drunk aya with pure synthetic dmt.
it was to say the least,
a verry unenlightening experience,
devoid of all truth or knowledge and quite emty
to say the most,!

downright booring,

not saying anything is the truth bro!

endlessness reconds its worth doing the tests though.
wheres your proof that its not possible.?

So...not actually supported by scientific evidence? Therefore hard to assert as "true"?

From wikipedia





Proof that it's not possible? That's not really a thing.

I specifically said do the tests. I never said the tests aren't worthwhile. What I did say was don't come here making claims with no evidence/testing and expect us to just take your word for it.

like i said ,
lets do the experiments.
and i dont expect any of you to believe anything bro.

well youl all just have to come to
the
Great OLD LAND OF OZ

and see for yourselves.
we'll take yas all out bush.
if yas think yas can all keep up
with us OZZY boys,

you can stay at my place snozz.
no worries mate.
we'll do some experiments with choco, LOL
but seriously,
you are welcome bro.
we can go for a surf first!
do you surf bro?

theres some sic light waves down under
where we live.
and multiple acacia spieces all around where we live.
you might love it bro.
might not ever come back! LOL
we sure havnt.
still there actualy.!LOL

come climb our biggest volcano in OZZ
mount warning
(wollumbin in aboriginal)
means the cloud gatherer.!
its mens initiation ground.
verry spiritual ground.
women are not aloud there,
we do aya up there with the brothers somtimes.
its the place where light hits mainland australia first on the top.
amazing views.
and acacia obtucifolias grow on top where we do the circles.
its only about 30ks from where we live.
untouched forest on the mountain.
looks like lord of the rings or somthin like that.
and its full of diamonds too.

anyway

love and light to all.

peace out

I spent many fine hours in Nimbin, That whole area is where I would live (if I had $)