[Ibogaine] DMT thread

Scott Doran doranman2 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 1 15:09:21 EST 2009


Hi Matt,

I believe Dr. Strassman used people who were familiar with using drugs as it
is kind of hard to obtain a legitimate informed consent from someone who has
no idea what they are consenting to. I personally don't know anyone who does
not get high regularly who would dream of consenting to taking one of the
most potent psychedelics I think the kind of work you are expecting from Dr.
Strassman would best be presented in a peer reviewed scientific journal
where the readership would be more inclined to wade through the complexities
that a serious brain study would entail. The average reader of a paperback,
i don't believe is interested in most of these neuro-biochemical
complexities. Andrew Weil, Jonathan Ott, Ralph Metzner , and many other
respected scientists wrote positive reviews for the book. I don't believe
they were just punching his ticket, I think if they were commenting on a
paper in a scientific journal they would expect more proof to back up
conjecture which was originally intended for the layperson in the book.
I suggest you send Dr. Strassman an email and present your observations . He
does read and respond to his emails. He could explain his intentions in
writing the book much better than I. He would probably welcome your
intelligent crticisms and offer reasoned explanations.

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:30 PM, simon loxton <simonloxton at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> Recently there was a thread on "the farm"where drug tests were being
> performed on inmates and volunteers alike.
>
> What was interesting was a corresponding story I found about the German
> scientists who were adopted by the USA. The US basically integrated
> scientists who were working on matters of interest to them without any
> prosecution. the project was called "paperclip"; this led to the farm and
> the study and use of mind altering drugs and biological-chemical weapons in
> warfare.
>
> Its funny enough to watch the footage of the UK involvement with LSD being
> tested on troops but what they also did was to test sarin on troops; telling
> them they were doing research for the common cold. This specific project was
> to test the lethal dose which became apparent the following day with the
> next group of volunteers.
>
> With all the dirty little secrets that have come out I would be more than a
> little concerned about what is going on today..
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Matt Shriver <ibogamail at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 January, 2009 18:57:41
> *Subject:* Re: [Ibogaine] DMT thread
>
> I guess my major criticism of this book is that it seems like a wasted
> opportunity.  Here was a professional doing human research on psychedelics
> for the first time in years and he could have written something professional
> and scholarly to help bring this type of research more legitimacy.  Instead
> he wrote a book that seems to popularize DMT among drug users, which is just
> preaching to the choir.  You can even see this by reading the reviews of the
> book on amazon where there is more than a couple people expressing the view
> that it is a book by and about druggies.  Incidentally I also found amongst
> the reviews, and the comments on other reviews, more than a couple people
> presenting Strassman's theories as fact once again.
> I think his insistence on using people with previous psychedelic experience
> worked against him.  I don't know if he had trouble finding subjects but he
> describes a few who had done psychedelics like LSD and mushrooms around 20
> to 30 times when they were younger but had not done so in a long time.
> These seem like the ideal candidates.  But he also describes subjects who do
> psychedelics 2 or 3 times a month, and a number of subjects who have done
> MDMA, or acid, or shrooms, over 100 times.  He also mentions one person who
> had done IV heroin, and several people who had experience with cocaine and
> at least one person who had done methamphetamine as well as one person who
> regularly smoked marijuana.  Now granted I fall into several of these
> categories myself but I also know from experience that so called "normal"
> people who do not know me, and only hear my drug history, absolutely do
> pigeon hole me as a druggy.  And that is precisely what the majority of non
> drug experienced people reading this book will do with 99% of the subjects
> he describes.
>
> I was also put off by his use of the "spirit molecule" phrase.  Knowing
> what I do about DMT, before I had read the book, it seemed appropriate.  But
> I had expected him to show how the DMT itself suggested this phraseology..
> Instead he comes at it from the opposite direction and talks about how he
> was certain, without every really explaining why he was so certain, that
> there was a "spirit gland" and therefore must be a "spirit molecule".
> Seriously wtf?  At first he thought melatonin was the spirit molecule
> because it was excreted by the pineal gland which he had already designated
> as the best candidate for the spirit gland.  But when melatonin failed to be
> psychedelic he decided it had to be something else.  This isn't just
> conjecture or hypothesis any more, this is looking for facts that support a
> pre-existing belief system.  Granted it isn't a well defined belief system
> but still it has almost nothing to do with science.
>
> I also want to say, and I think this is something he acknowledges to some
> extent, is that science is the wrong tool to study what he wanted to study
> in the first place.  I think some of the experiments he describes do have
> legitimate scientific value in finding out more about the mechanism of
> action in the brain.  But he was more interested in the subjective
> spiritual and emotional effects.  I agree that those effects are actually
> the most important and interesting ones, however science cannot say anything
> about subjective experience because there is nothing that can be
> scientifically measured.  If the researchers come up with some scale to
> measure our subjective experiences (i.e. on a scale of 1 to 10 how
> powerfully effected would you say you were?), who is to say that my 8 on
> that scale isn't exactly the same as your 4?
> I should also point out that I am a little over 4/5ths of the way through
> it so he may well address some of these criticisms in the closing chapters
> but this is my impression so far.  I will also say that despite my
> criticisms it has been interesting to read.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Douglas Fraser wrote:
> > Ideas have a way of diffusing from the scientific journals into popular
> culture and turning into "fact".  I think Strassman was the first to come up
> with this idea, and from what I remember of the book, he made it clear it
> was an idea.  But people have a way of assuming something they like  is
> "really" a fact and then the game of telephone happens
> >
> > doug
> >
> >
> > Matt Shriver wrote:
> >> Hi Brad
> >>
> >> Try this site.
> >>
> >> http://forums.ayahuasca.com/phpbb/index.php
> >>
> >> I am also curious from your last post where you mentioned Strassman's
> DMT as to what you thought about it.  I have been reading it for the past
> few days and so far I am a little underwhelmed.  Specifically what I am
> finding objectionable is the way he is not very clear about what is his
> hypothesis and what he is representing as scientifically verified factual
> information.  He seems to slip back and forth between the two and I think it
> obscures the truth more than it reveals it.  For example, I have heard
> and/or read on numerous occasions that the pineal gland releases a dose of
> endogenous DMT at birth.  Then I find while reading this book that this is
> only his hypothesis.  So unless this has been tested and verified since he
> wrote the book, this is still just hypothetical and yet it has been
> represented to me more than a couple times as truth.  There are other
> examples exactly like this one as well.  I am all for hypothesizing but I
> think it is important to be clear about what is hypothesis and what is not,
> especially for a scientist.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> Brad Hays wrote:
> >>> Does anybody know of a list like this one, or maybe a forum that's a
> good clearing house for ayahuasca information?  A bud gets to Iquitos
> several times a year and is always inviting me to go.  No telling when I
> could make it happen but I figure it's never too early to study up.  Thanks
> >>>
> >
> >  -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> > (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
> >  -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
> >
>
>
> -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
> -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
>
>
>
>  -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
>  -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20090101/247ea1c5/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list