A thousand apologies if this has been posted, I've not been very active here lately, but the title says it: the new psychedelic webdite run by former CNN journalist Amber Lyon.


Hereeeeeeeeee................................

Inb4 Snozz comments...oh wait

It's too early to comment entirely one way or another, but color me unimpressed.

With such articles as "Five Mind-Blowing Facts About Ayahuasca" where three of the facts are only tangentially about ayahuasca and two of them are rather mundane (to say nothing of the actual caliber of the writing), as well as reposts from NaturalNews, which, David Gorski of ScienceBlogs called "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet" and is widely considered to be full of CT's and un-/anti-scientific "reporting"...my concern is growing.

The sad thing about the five mindblowing facts piece is that five truly mindblowing facts directly related to ayahuasca are easy to come by...and yet, this is the product:

Five Mindblowing Facts


Also, hyping aya tourism is in pretty poor taste, imo, for a number of reasons.

It'll get better with time

Hey it could be worse. Seriously though I think we should prepare for this type of activity to increase. As well as continue even with efforts to provide higher quality information coming from more and more places.

I don't fully share the outlook of those that see this sort of thing in a negative light. I'm just happy that things are taking off. I think at this point we're good to go, just have to bide our time till full legalization while also doing our job of correcting misinformation.

I agree with both of you though, at one side it seems uneducated ( not surprising for main stream CNN journalist), but at the same times he covers her crowd.

As in Buddhism, there is a line in chant that says:

- I vow to master innumerable approaches to Dharma.

Which means that there are many applications and interpretations, and all should be encouraged. Something like this...

The more the better and it will all help to eventually legalise the plants.

So good luck....

Has anyone considered reaching out to Ms. Lyon and telling her how we feel about all this? She comes across as a little bit naive (which I think is totally acceptable, given her history, but I bet she would be receptive to learning.

endlessness suggested just that to me earlier in the chat (I suppose my veneer has worn through, if I ever had much of one to begin with ).

I've started putting down some of my thoughts and will probably take some time over the weekend to organize them and make sure they are composed in a calm and collected manner.

I've gone back and forth about whether to write an open letter or just send it to her directly, and I'm currently leaning towards the latter. That said, depending on her response and/or if others want to chime in, I could imagine a situation where an open letter may make sense. I just figured for initial communication, something more personally-oriented might be more effective.

Thoughts?

SnozzleBerry,

I am curious what bothers you so much in that so short article, or rather a list?

Why don't you post here what should be said about Aya? And what you would like to write.

However in general I see this forum as smoking DMT forum, and not so much of oral use which is very different, on one side, and on another many people work with Aya only with shamns, ect.... So again I am really curious to see what you have to say in general terms.

I think a personal letter is a great idea. I have faith that you will be able to articulate it properly.

My first impression was a bit the same as Snozz's.
But then again what do we expect? I think that is the downside of going out in the open. It has happened with Bob Dylan as it has happened with Hip hop.

Once things get commercialized it's "normal" to seeing things of great worth become almost banal. On the other hand I found some things that I liked on the site as well like the banned TED talk of Graham Hancock.

It's a double edged sword: on one edge we want these plants and all that comes with it to be out in the open, on the other I fear something like what happened in the sixties. What gives me hope is that there is a lot of science to back all of this up.

Let's not forget that the most important thing is still the experience we get from these wonderful plants.

i like this website, thanks for sharing it here at the DMT-NEXUS

Certainly

So first, we have the sensationalized title. And yes, we can probably all agree that ayahausca can be mind blowing, but this is the sort of title you see in in tabloids or oversensationalized press. There's literally no reason to sensationalize ayahuasca.

Then we have typos in the article. Not a big deal, but when it's something basic like "it's" instead of "its" it just looks bad.

Then we have problematic claims. These include:


You don't "heal" depression or PTSD as they're not acute illnesses. Additionally, this statement regarding healing numerous mental health disorders is dangerous when presented in an abstracted sense.


The paper linked in support of this statement (which is linked to a pay-for-subscription page via reset.me) is not only incorrect in stating "Without other ingredients present, ayahuasca works only as a purgative (Ia purga,la limpia) without any other hallucinogenic effects," but it also makes NO claims that support the above statement (to be fair, it's ~25 years old and reflects some of the knowledge of the time...so this is more an issue with reset's choice to use this article). This is academic dishonesty, plain and simple. Also, this is a definitive statement that should be a statement of possibility, if you are going to make it.


The study cited in support of this is the wrong study. At best, that's sloppy, at worst, it's academically dishonest (and seeing that this has already happened once...). The study that should be referenced is, iirc, one of the Callaway studies that was related to the Hoasca project.



Here we have the typical industrial fixation on DMT. Harmalas are not even mentioned by name and are referenced only as the broader class of MAOI compounds to point out that they are needed to have an oral DMT experience. This is sharply at odds with the traditional usage of ayahuasca, as has been pointed out by numerous academic experts.


Ok...so what? Not only is this only tangentially related to ayahuasca, ayahuasca tourism is inherently destructive, especially as it scales up. Encouraging mass migrations of tourists to the Amazon sounds like a recipe for disaster in both social and environmental contexts.


So, not only is this only loosely related to ayahuasca itself, but the "facts" given in support of this statement are shaky at best. Again, as a non-acute illness, PTSD is treated not healed or cured. Talking about "healing," especially with a dearth of scientific literature to support it is both dangerous and misleading.


Sorry, how is this mindblowing? And again, it is tangentially related to ayahuasca at best.

Yeesh...after going through it point by point, I'm even less fond of it than I initially was.


Don't I? Haven't I?

I pretty much expected the launch of this site to be like this. Seemed like they were just trying to post relevant information and get it up and running. Shame in that, but I still think the idea behind it is sound. Once she sheds some naivete I'm sure this site could go far and do some real important psychedelic journalism. I think writing her a letter is a great idea as she does seem to be an open-minded and receptive person.

Wow what an amazing contribution to the cause. It looks delicious, professional and from what i have gathered, breaks down psychedelics in simple words for everyone to understand. Sure, it does not satisfy those who have deeper knowledge, but it's not geared towards them.

This was clearly made by someone who understands media and how people who consume media prefer to be talked to. Even if we don't like that - one step at a time! This is the cost of mainstreaming psychedelics, there is no way around it.

Also, why get so hung up on terminology? If anything, depression is more an illness than a disease and for sure can get healed but. I have no idea why someone would think otherwise tbh.

Chapeau Amber Lyon!

LOL don't any of you remember what this place was like at the beginning? I mean I wasn't here in 2006 but I was here in 2009 as were many of you . . . .

It is not the Nexus, we know that. Perhaps they deserve time to grow, breathe and spread their wings. This place didn't start as an eagle or a hawk. And sometimes I feel like we are Icarus

Growth takes time and it takes people who care and people who are aggressive and adament not only about quality but also about documentation, such as Entropymancer here.

I never said it wasn't an illness. I said it wasn't an acute illness. Generally speaking, the medical community does not claim to "heal" or "cure" people of PTSD or depression (as I pointed out earlier, the same is true of cancer and addiction).

It's an important distinction because it's important not to make bogus claims.

EDIT: I'm somewhat surprised to see how many people are defending incorrect information in the name of "mainstreaming psychedelics." To me, that defeats the purpose, no?

Snozz, i think it is a good idea to correct blatantly false information. Have you written Amber Lyon about that yet? Still, sometimes, things need to be simplified in order to be understood. Perhaps a better wording would have benn "helps in treating" yet i doubt many people would know the distinction. Snozz, you are very academic but most people are not. They want to be talked to in their language. Of course, some instances of misinformation could easily be avoided, but there has to be a compromise. What you deem as sensationalist, is just a normal tone to many...anything less would feel like "meh" to them because they are used to "high intensity" language.

That may be, although MAPS seems to be doing just fine discussing MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, even securing the interest of the DoJ, so I don't know how much I'm willing to accept that.

But that does not address the fact that this article contained two claims that directly cited sources that did not support the claims in question. Even if I dropped every other point that I've raised, I don't see how that alone does not strike anyone as problematic.

I'm not arguing that there are no factual errors or simplifications, but to take her audience into account. Furthermore, i'm more with Pandora on this one. Critique is needed and one should be prepared for it. Still, we shouldn't forget that this woman is working for the cause. It is weird to see that people who appear to be from the opposite side of the cultural spectrum getting involved in psychedelia. I see it more as a chance for unity though.


MAPS of course, is a master at striking a fine balance between mainstreaming and factual consistency.

I'm not exactly clear why we should take her audience into account when considering errors. Simplifications, perhaps, errors just don't make sense to me. If anything, a naive audience dictates greater intellectual rigor, lest they spread rumors, inaccuracies, and half-truths. But hey, that's just my opinion.

My time engaged in political organizing has taught me that people who seem aligned with you may not have your best interests at heart. At times, the divide may be significantly wider than it appears on the surface. You would be surprised how many times I have seen liberal proponents of "change" sell out their radical counterparts or people they purportedly "stand for," whether to police in the streets, judges/juries in the courtroom, or "the public" in media outlets.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm worried about the potential for harm I see here. I understand that many (most?) apparently don't share my concerns. I suppose we will all see how it plays out.