While this thread has been first initiated to test for possible differences in different 'kinds' of DMT extracted from mimosa using different solvents, this can serve as a basis for testing other plants and extractions too

Some Nexians have come forward wanting to do blind testing to test the difference between purified white DMT and the broader spectrum extracts using less selective solvents, so we should brainstorm how is the best way to reliably test this.

I think we should come up with some kind of specific standardized questions that all participants should try to answer. This first post will be edited to include the finalized version of the protocol with instructions, questions (and results if there are any), as well as willing participants.


DMT BLIND TEST PROTOCOL

Participants:
Ice House
Opiyum + 7 friends

(who else?)

How to proceed

1- First preparation of materials
A- Write down how each type of dmt was extracted, ideally take pictures of them, and test them or keep sample for potential future analysis.
B- Create a score-card consisting of a line with name of each participants and a few columns (10 or so) to use later when writting down from which 'coded' batch each participant is consuming on each round.
C- Print out the questionnaire below

2- Prepare two batches of infused herbs in a double-blind way
A- Infuse two separate batches of non-psychoactive herbs, each with the different kind of dmt and put in two equal containers. Write the label of what is what.
B- Then ask someone else to change the label from the real name (for example jungle and white) for a code (say 1 and 2). Then this person writes down the key to what is what (for example 1=jungle 2=white) in a separate piece of paper which is hidden in a safe place.
C- Then you, now that you dont know which is which anymroe, will change the code from 1+2 to something else (for example A and B), and also write down what it means (for example A=1 and B=2 or whatever), keeping the meaning key safely.

3- Double blind testing
A- Each participant launches at least 4 times from each batch. The experimenter can choose the order of launches at random (For example A-A-A-B-A-B-B-B or -A-B-A-B-B-A-B-A or whatever). The launches do not have to be on the same day. If they are, please wait 1 hour since last launch.
B- Write down on the score card what each is consuming
C- After each launch, participant answers the small questionnaire
D- Only when all have participated in all tests, are results shared.

Important:
- People must NOT have consumed any psychoactive substance the same day, including weed, and ideally no other psychedelics appart from dmt for at least 4 days.

- Try to keep other variables the same (no music, same amount of lighting, etc)

(these instructions can be changed depending on feedback of others in this thread)

Questionnaire:

Participant name: (obviously no need to share the real name on the Nexus, write a coded name when sharing the results, but just in your own circles you know the results from each person)
Age: (only needs to answer in one questionnaire)
Previous experience with dmt/other psychedelics: (only needs to answer in one questionnaire)

Launch number: (to know which launch is to later compare with result scorecards)
Overall Intensity: 1-10 (1-very mild 10-extremely intense)
Visual Intensity:1-10 (1-no visuals 10-extremely intense ) (making blind folds standard is not essential but recommended to standardize CEV and OEV)
Contrast in colors: 1-10 (1-shadows and grays 10-all colors)
Auditory Intensity:1-10 (1- no sounds 10- extremely strong sounds)
Feeling of Paranoia/fear:1-10 (1- none 10- a great deal)
Love/Empathy: 1-10 (1-none/indifferent 10 - extremely loving/empathic)
Positive physical sensations: 1-10 (1- none 10- extremely positive/pleasurable physical sensations)
Negative physical sensatinos: 1-10 (1- none 10- extremely negative physical sensations)
Was there Entity contact?
[b]Which type of dmt was this?
[b]Was it easy to know which type it was?
[b]Other relevant comments/observations about the trip:[b]

(Please give feedback on questions you think are relevant. Maybe there are already some tools we can use, I think I remember strassman developing a Hallucinogen Rating Scale?)

Great idea!!!

The simplest I can think is one without having much to do with questionnaires. It proceeds as follows:

0. METHOD OF EXTRACTION/PROCESSING NEEDS TO BE DETAILED as per Materials and Methods, but it needs really not be standardised among experimenters.

1. Participants are being "primed" with all different spices under test, e.g. let's say yellow vs white (or jungle vs jimjam vs white vs chaliponga vs sugar). Priming with maybe 3-4 sessions with each known spice in question should suffice. This is analogous to what Strassman did in his study, by priming the subjects of the main study with a low and a high dose.

2. Participants go to the next stage where they have to be administered at least 5-10 of yellow OR white spice. In a hypothetical double-blind study the prime researcher would choose at random one prepared vial (out of 2) containing either white or yellow), an assistant would prepare the VG/bong/pipe and record colour, then the subject would smoke.

3. The question would be whether the subject can guess whether what he smoked was yellow or white. Analysis of such data is easy via a chi-square test, testing against the null hypothesis of a 50% guess-success (no discrimination). This is the Guess-The-Spice Test, or "GTS Test" for short.

GTS testing can be used in conjunction with questionnaires that also analyse qualitative effects should there be any significant differences.

0 - So you mean the extraction process does not need to be standardized between different experimenters, as long as it is detailed, yes?

1- What do you mean primed? That they know what they are getting beforehand? Are you also saying there needs to be both low dose and high doses done?

2- Yes, I agree 5-10 experiences seems good, I wonder if people would be willing to go that far, specially if there is more than 2 types. But I would say at least 4 times with each type for it to be statistically significant. Also, so people dont know what they are smoking, an idea would be to infuse herbs with the given dmt type.

3- Yes ok it could be simple enough to just answer the question "which dmt did you smoke", that would be one of the main aspects. Though indeed since people would already be going through the trouble of smoking so many times in a blind test, and since so many people claim difference in things for example "light vs dark" of the visuals, "lightness vs 'evilness' " of the effects, we could ask questions regarding this. I think the typical "choose a value between 1-5 where 1 is light and 5 is dark (or whatever else we would like to ask) would be interesting.

I think mixing the different types with one person could be confusing and inaccurate. I find once you start down the road after a while the type of spice doesn't matter and it becomes one kind of experience regardless of the type of spice. Staying with one type in a given session might be a more focussed method.

What about each person in one session staying with one kind of spice and really getting into whatever that version delivers. Rather than switching gears in the middle.
Ghetto science project
Same group 2 consecutive sessions spread out over a few days.
Lets say 2 people to start with . First session One goes yellow one goes white. second session reverse it . take notes on results.

keep diet similar in both people leading up to sessions. Diet is just one factor among many to consider.

Good to see this discussion take off. I'm willing to participate. I'll be looking into blind/double blind studies.

Thanks for starting this endlessness. Getting the entire communities thoughts on this is surely the best way to approach this.

I wasn't planning on informing my participants on anything concerning what they will be ingesting other than it is a herb(least psychoactive herb I can find/have on hand) laced with different kinds of DMT. Maybe the second time through a guess the spice test would be interesting.
For starters I think the only varieties I will be testing will most likely be a white DMT once or twice cleaned/recrystallized and Red "jungle" pulled with toluene after aliphatics stop yielding.
Because the jungle is often reported to be stronger I was also going to vary the doses. Perhaps a 20mg jungle dose would turn out to be just as intense or, more so, than a 40mg White DMT dose consistently enough to point to something other than DMT mediating the effect.
Doses:
White DMT- 20mgs and 40mgs
Red Jungle DMT- 20mgs and 40mgs

Procedure
Each dose is administered randomly and without the participant knowing which is which and after which a set of questions(see below) will be asked and recorded. After each dose 30-45 minutes (more or less?) is allowed to pass before redosing. Each variation will be administer twice(more perhaps?) giving a total of eight doses.
This way comparisons can be made between each participants eight doses to see if those line up and, of course, between the participants themselves.
I have 7 participants lined up and with four doses administered twice each and 30-45 minutes between doses(pushing it close in my opinion) than that would be 4 hours per person. I'm thinking I may break it up into two sessions, on per day, per person with each session consisting of all four dose varieties administered randomly.

Questions

The questions I have come up with so far, with a little help from here, are as follows:

Overall Intensity: 1-10 (High-most intense, low-least)
Visual Intensity:1-5 (making blind folds standard throughout the experience for each participant so specifying OEV and CEV doesn't much matter)
Contrast in colors: 1-10 (high = all in rainbow, low = shadows and grays)
Auditory Intensity:1-5
Feeling of Paranoia/fear:1-5 (5=a great deal 1=none)
Love/Empathy: 1-5
Positive physical sensations: 1-5

Also would record: Age, Gender and level of experience with psychedelics and I would make sure no other psychedelics or psychoactive drugs that could effect the outcome would have been taken. I'm sure some will have had Marijuana within the previous 24 hours but I can't see that being too big a deal.

Once each participant has answered all the questions for each dose twice their experience/responses will be graphed and hopefully the results will be consistent enough to help answer some commonly asked questions and to merit more tests in the future. If this does go well I hope to test other things, jim-jam, yellow, tan waxy etc.

Suggestions, criticism, advice?
I need to get to bed but this is basically what I have worked out so far. Am I on the right track? If not what can I do to get on the right track? Is doing this the way I'm describing worth doing? Does it even have a chance of providing conclusive results?

But why would it be innacurate? I mean, if the types of spice are so different as people say, it wouldnt matter what you smoked before, no?

What do others think about this, always use the same type on the same day or alternate the types?



Maybe 30 mins is too close, better go for 1 hour between. Breaking up into two (or three or four) days seems good. Try to make it around same time of the day.

Are you participating too? In any case even if not, it would be ideal that you neither know which is which. So for example you can do this:

1- Infuse two separate batches of herbs, each with the different kind of dmt and put in two equal containers. Write the label of what is what.
2- Then ask someone else to change the label from the real name (for example jungle and white) for a code (say 1 and 2). Then this person writes down the key to what is what (for example 1=jungle 2=white) in a separate piece of paper which is hidden in a safe place.
3- Then you, now that you dont know which is which anymroe, will change the code from 1+2 to something else (for example A and B), and also write down what it means (for example A=1 and B=2 or whatever), keeping the meaning key safely.

This way neither the person that made the first label nor you will actually know which is which anymore. When experiment is done just check both papers with the keys and you'll know which is which. Maybe there is a simpler way of doing this but this is what I thought of, what do you guys think?


I think ideally it would be better to make more sessions, lets say 3 per dosage (so 6 per type) but I dont know how much spice you are willing to use and if the participants are willing to do it so many times. If not, 2 each would be fine, its all very appreciated anyways.

Another possible issue I thought is that someone might have a too-strong trip and not want to try again, at least the same day. This is acceptable and they should know beforehand that they have this choice, but that of course it would be very appreciated if they did go through all the tests, even if they only finish a few days later.

Regarding them not knowing which type is which, what do you guys think: only say that there are two types without specifying, or saying beforehand that the two types are 'jungle' vs 'white' ?





I would also say add "Negative physical sensations". Oh and, I would say rather standardize so that all the questions are 1-10 (or 1-5). In any case I think the questions you posted are very good, and blind folds seems like a good idea to me.

Recording age, gender and level of experience (both with psychs, as well as separately about dmt experience) are excellent ideas. Not using other psychoactive drugs or medicine which might interact is good idea too. Ideally no weed the same day, but if thats not possible, at least, say, 4 hours beforehand of no use (if thats possible, considering stoner friends getting together will probably want to smoke a joint and talk before). If they do smoke, then it should be written down how long before they smoked too.

Another essential question you missed is that they guess which is which (So either : Is this white or jungle?" Or "is this type A or B", and maybe an extra question of "Was it easy to tell which is which"

I will edit the first post after others chime in on what they think about this.

Good work everybody! Im getting excited about the results!

Nicely planned! Indeed , i think that the administrator should not know also which dose he/she administrates so as to be double blind. We do not want any ques from the administrator to skew expectations of the participants or to paint the situation/results in his/her light of conclusions/expectations so far.

Also i would insist on no weed or other psychoactives being consumed: for me being under the influence even of a well known to the imbider psychoactive is enough to render the study invalid, it would be a mockery of a test.This because you insert two variables in the test and actually record their synergy: keep in mind that the subjects will receive a substance that can put someone in a suggestive state,why complicate it further? If other psychoactives are used then this will not be a "double blind test of red/jungle vs yellow DMT" but rather a half-assed go at it which would be more akin to having fun for anevening doing something interesting with imported air of "research" to spice things up. Furthermore if people cannot and will not abstain for a bit from the herb (mentioning it because its the most common) then... that means there are more pressing issues at hand needed to be addressed than if jungle or white spice are different in effects. That would smell of addiction, of something that you cannot control even for accomplishing something bigger.

It would be interesting also for the people not to have had imbided in psychedelics for a week or so. Remember, with a small number of people (yes, even 20 would be small reasearch-wise speaking) you want to eliminate as much as you can the other variables that might affect their responce. This also makes it rather important for the test to be well planned out befora it starts with a solid protocol, that also has exclusion criteria.

That's confusing as hell but after reading it a few times and visualizing the whole ordeal I think it's a fantastic idea and now I can participate as well.
And I think an hour is the way to go which means this project is probably going to take quite a while to finish.



Never pulled Jungle before so I don't know what the yields are like but, in the event that they are lower, I imagine that might be the only limiting factor as to how many sessions there can be per person.
Making it clear that people can bow out at any point without feeling any pressure to continue is very important.



The weed will be an issue with one person but knowing how much that person enjoys DMT I'm sure 24 hours can be achieved.
I like the "was it easy to tell question" because their answer to this question could end up being wrong. They could be absolutely certain of every experience and turn out to be wrong.




Is it an issue if a lot of time lapses between the sessions of an individual participant? What if we did four doses one day and weren't able to get another four in for a few weeks? Shouldn't be an issue right? Or should there be some sort of timeline on the whole process?

I edited the post to make it more understandable, hope it helps



Im very curious to know the results but I guess if we waited this long, what is a few more days/weeks or even months... We're in no rush, right?



Yeah I think its important if he can at least not smoke the same day.



I cant see why it would be an issue, just try to store the dmt in an airtight dry cold place just so that nobody argues that it degraded with the time

An accurate way would be a double blind test.
The person administering the test doesnt know, and therefore cannot influence results.

I think the best way is a simple straightforward procedure.

The participant, before the study, proforms non-blind tests with all substances. Maybe 2 trips of each one. They can then create an idea in their head of what a jungle trip, or an oxide trips are like.

I would reccomend testing:
DMT N-Oxide
N,N DMT
"Jungle DMT"
Enhanced Leaf Changa (to see if it really does come on slower etc.)
Caapi 10x changa

The most effective way, as to not get overwhelmed with the wide variety of choices etc, is to proform each test as a comparison to white n,n-dmt as a control.. I.E n-oxide vs. n,n, then changa vs. n,n

Another important thing is to have one test, in which BOTH A+B are both N,N- which will be an interesting one


Then for the test:
Its important that dosage is relatively similar, so that should be established. I.E not a strong jungle vs. a common n-n dosage. It should be the same dosage as the participant partook in for the non blind pre-test.

I think it is probably a good idea to administer an effective but sub breakthrough dose, to lessen mental stress from proforming multiple tests in one day.

The one problem, is that the vaporization must be exactly the same, i.e get all vapor without burning any in one hit each time.

A person not involved in the study, packs a dose of substance A into GVG or efficient pipe, and writes down which substance is A and which is B. Given to study administrator, who gives to blindfolded participant and helps them to effectively take in all of substance A in one go.

After A and B are administered, the participant simply describes a difference, if any, which is written down by administrator, and then labels either A or B as the variable.

After the tests are administered to a large pool of participants, we can get an average of how many participants could actually detect correctly which was not n,n. And also, if there is a strong correlation of positive detection, we can refer to the notes taken down of the differences of experience, and see if we can find mutual correlations there as well.

Hope some of my ideas can help, this is going to be a really cool test, I would love to participate in it.

Am I the only one who thinks this would be far too subjective to be of any value, no matter HOW double-blind you make the comparisons? DMT is far too capricious a molecule to be studied via a questionnaire, although I must confess I see no other way. Problems arise simply because the brain chemistry are different between individuals. Also, dosing (and the intervals between) would need to be accounted for, plus a myriad of other potential variables, even DIET.

Sounds like fun for the participants (LOL)...although likely to be bereft of any meaningful data.

N.B.

I really like this idea.

Taking that a step further what if we had four samples given randomly. A,B,C,D. In one session 3 are N,N and 1 is Jungle, in the next session it's reversed 3 jungle and 1 N,N. The participant is asked which one doesn't belong, so to speak.
This would decrease the chance of accidentally guessing correctly...no?


This thread has already helped my thinking on this a great deal. I have a much better understanding of what needs to be done to prepare for this.

Exactly, even though ideally it would be nice if everyone followed the exact same extraction procedure, it is a killer to ask people to do all things the same. Besides, nobody really does it, even in mainstream science; instead, they detail the procedure they followed to acquire their material.


By "primed" I mean that the subjects should first experience the yellow knowing that is yellow and the white knowing that is white (or whatever the comparison is). I am OK if the subjects are making subjective judgements at this level (e.g. yellow more "organic", white more "alien etc), and this helps them to make a true test decision when it comes to the blind test. That is, if they really think they think they are confident they can tell some difference between yellow/white while they know, then they should also be able to tell in a blind experiment. Or in other words, if the test asks them to guess yellow or white, they must know beforehand what yellow or white is!

Also, the dose must be the same for either substance, say 30mg yellow vs 30mg white. We might want to allow for the subject to decide the dosage if he's more sensitive or he's good/bad at the vaporisation technique. Maybe subjects could decide anything from 30-60mg depending on what is more comfortable with them?


The more trials the better, 5-10 is ideal and maybe far-fetched, yet even if one gets 4 people to try it even 3 times each there're 12 trials total, which may be enough to show if there's a trend or not. Further similar tests by other groups can be added to strengthen existing analyses.

Oh, and the idea of herb infusion is brilliant, since none will be able to see the colour!


I firmly believe that the subjective effects are secondary, and even useless if people cannot discriminate between, say yellow and white. The subjective tests become interesting if there's really a difference i.e. when people can tell the one from the other.

The subjective tests can be implemented to the GTS test; questionnaires can be given both during the priming sessions and the guessing period. One can also decipher how the subjective experience of knowing the spice colour may change during the blind testing.

Good idea opiyum, Three's probably enough to at least minimize risk of guessing. Because already, with 3 sessions, with say 4 variables and a control to be tested, and 2 non-blind pre-tests per variable, your then looking at 23 sessions in a short time span. Thats a lot of sessions...

Its a really good idea, it will dramatically increase the accuracy of the study.

This is going to be really cool, just needs to be standardized to a certain degree.

Across the board- participants would need:
Its not going to be exact, but at least make sure that all compounds are relatively pure.
vaporization is efficient.
vapor is administered in about the same amount of time- 1 toke,
Duration between sessions the same

Participant by Participant they would need to make sure:
Mindset relatively the same
Setting the same
No other substances which could effect experience are ingested.

I think that dosage is probably best done on a lower end, as 23-27 breakthroughs would make me nervous to say the least

Maybe 15mg or something in that range?

I think it would also be very important for there to be an option for the participant to vote "no difference in effects"

This is exciting, good brainstorming you guys

Yes i don't think that it could possibly be studied via a questionnaire, i see the only way of effectively getting enough data for a strong correlation, is a large pool of participants (like we have here on the nexus), doing something akin to the pepsi-coke challenge. modified to be much more accurate, i.e spot the coke in the 4 drinks idea that opiyum established.

And another important part of data is the notes that are taken down.

Ha I'm researching this and I just googled " creating a blind study ".

Interesting to say the least.

Personally I dont think this is a good idea. In this case, people would have a 1/4 chance of getting it right. But to guess the 4 right if they didnt know anything is much less chance (im sure its an easy calculation but I suck at maths.. Maybe 1/16 ?)

I think its better to just keep the randomized tries.



Arent you maybe mixing things up? We're not trying to study all of dmt's effects through a questionary, we're trying to answer a pretty simple question: Can people notice the difference between 'types' of dmt in a blind test? If people constantly come to the forum claiming they do notice the difference in a non-blind test and not taking care of any other variable, why would it be any less valuable to create a much more controlled setting and have them answer that question again?




Edit: First post was edited to include the new changes to the protocol, please review

Great that this is going to be done. I'm looking forward for the results. Happy new year!