Main Menu

4-HO-5-MeO-DMT & The Church of Psilomethoxin

Started by Rising Spirit, January 28, 2023, 11:01:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Handshake

The church has clearly said in multiple places that their sacrament contains (and is) psilomethoxin, not psilocybin. They are now backpedaling of course but there's plenty of evidence showing that they were making that claim.

The levels of psilocybin, psilocin, and baeocystin were comparable to those found in typical cubensis mushrooms.

People claiming that the article was "AI Generated" are referring to the mention in the acknowledgements section that ChatGPT helped write the article. However, ChatGPT did not perform any of the analyses, or the relevant science. There are no problems with software helping write a manuscript.


ayalight

#16
Here is an article by the pharmacologist Mario de la Fuente :

Opinions | The Church of Psilomethoxin: Fantasy Chemistry Gets Fact Checked

https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/opinions-the-church-of-psilomethoxin-fantasy-chemistry-gets-fact-checked

Some of the questions I have for people who are more pharmacologically fluent then myself are:
-Is Psilomethoxin similar enough to a neurotoxic tyrptamine like
5,7-Dihydroxytryptamine? Mario seems to think so yet I have read elsewhere that it is not likely to be.

-What are the specific amounts of the psilocybin alkaloids found in the sample and how do they compare to those of psilocybin samples of similar weights?

-Is Dr Sherwood's answer to the question of whether a reference sample of psilomethoxin is necessary to affirm or deny it's presence well grounded (it sounds like it is to my ears) This is what he wrote on this board or at least was quoted here:

"That's a great question!
Although psilomethoxin had not been produced as a standard (this is underway and hence why the manuscript is a preprint), we were able to search for the presence or absence of it based on its proposed molecular structure and its exact monoisotopic mass. By comparing the retention time and accurate mass of the ions detected in the sample with those of known tryptamines, it was quite clear that psilomethoxin was not detected in the sample (and would have been if present)."

These questions are all relevant in being able to push back on what will likely be the churches objections.


Thanks

Rising Spirit

#17
Naturally, I've gone through the gamut of awkward feelings since I posted this thread.  I've shifted my stance from enthusiastic, to confused, to embarrassed and rather dumfounded...  to downright disappointed.  Its' mind numbing that nearly 2,000 Church of Psilomethoxin members have possibly been microdosing  a fraudulent or at least a theoretical, hypothetical sacrament?  Frankly, I am completely flabbergasted and quite mystified by this whole phenomenon.

Color me naive but I expected that the Church had done their due diligence, that they had definitive results and really were providing an edible form of 5-MeO-DMT.  While I joined for the express purpose of purchasing the sacrament, which only members are permitted to do, I began to have my doubts, so I have only invested $55.55 for the annual membership fee.  These new reports only strengthen and confirm my growing doubts.  Mmm...  nope, I don't think I need to pursue this path at all.


The Church has officially frozen it's web site and it's FaceBook page and this doesn't look good at all.   🤔
There is no self to which I cling, for I am one with everything.

ayalight

Hi Rising,

I don't think they are intentionally being fraudulent. I think they, more or less, believe their misguided and misinformed views though I also think this entails a lot of avoidance and denial on their part. I'm somewhat familiar with the principals in the "church" and want to discuss this with them in a way that is considerate of where they are at while also being honest, clear and accurate. Of course, as in any dialog, it takes a willingness on both parts to engage and see ones blind spots and how strongly held positions may be in error.  This may not be possible with them. 

ayalight

ABOUT THE CHURCH OF PSILOMETHOXIN CONTROVERSY

[The views expressed below are my personal opinions. They do not represent those of any organizations I may be associated with]

There has been considerable controversy about the Church of Psilomethoxin since the publication of a study (pre print) by researchers at Usona who determined that samples of the churches sacrament contained psilocybin, psilocin and baeocytin but no psilomethoxin.

Some people believe this indicates that the Church of Psilomethoxin and its principals have been engaged in fraud. I don't think this is the case. I think they believe what they have been asserting though I also feel this has been mixed with avoidance, denial and a lack of critical thinking. Yet, this is not necessarily mutually exclusive with being sincere.

While the researchers have only found psilocybin and not psilomethoxin I can't discount the reports of people who are very experienced with tryptamines who say the churches sacrament seem qualitatively different from psilocybin. These are anecdotal reports and they could be influenced by suggestion. Yet, it's also possible what they experience is due to a novel tryptamine or variant of psilocybin.

These are speculations of course. And I believe they underscore one reason why it was a serious misjudgment to publicly promote this church until these questions were resolved. If you can't be clear what substance you are using how can you know it is safe? For instance it took a number of years to get a handle on the what the safe dosage and frequency of use for MDMA might be. And in that case it was at least clear what the substance was.

I'm a bit taken aback by the churches claim that the have "never, at any time, laid claim to the fact that Psilomethoxin has ever been positively identified in its sacrament." This rings hollow in my ears. They are called the Church of Psilomethoxin. They clearly maintain that psilomethoxin is contained in the mushroom fruiting bodies that they dry.

The alleged legality of the church is based on the notion that psilomethoxin is not specifically scheduled in the Controlled Substance Act. Though even this is questionable since its pharmacological structure and its alleged phenomenological effects are close enough to other scheduled substances to be covered under the Analog Drug Act.

Likewise the churches assertion that: "Our claims to the existence of Psilomethoxin, at this time, are solely based on faith, bolstered by our and our members' own direct experiences with the Sacrament" seems specious at best. The presence of a particular molecular structure in a compound is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of chemical analysis. And people can't evaluate through their "direct experience" the pharmacology of a substance that neither they nor anyone to our knowledge has used before.

Sending this substance through the mail to members also raises a host of issues. As already noted it's not clear what the substance is and whether it would be considered a controlled substance (given that it appears to contain psilocybin it certainly would be considered a controlled substance).

To be a member one needs to fill out a simple online questionnaire, pay a membership fee and then pay the cost of procuring the substance. This hardly seems to constitute an actual membership in a  religious congregation.

The fact that the church has no control over what happens to the substance once it leaves their premise would never accord with the case law we have for least restrictive means for RFRA if, as is likely, it is considered a controlled substance.

The actual production of the substance itself raises other legal questions given that both psilocybin and 5 Men DMT are illegal. Again to my mind it seems premature to create and promote a church when so many outstanding questions need to be considered and resolved. In my view it's best to be patient, do research and quietly build a community instead of marketing it to a wide public.

I believe the principals involved with the Church of Psilomethoxin are basically good people who got carried away with their enthusiasm. I hope they can navigate through this in a way that has integrity, is sensible and understands the social, legal and spiritual complexities they are facing, and that we all are, with the unfolding of psychedelics in our culture.

FYI, I feel people should be, more or less, free to use psychedelics as they wish with whom they wish regardless of how that use is characterized as long as it is done in a safe and ethical manner.

Yet, we are far from that social and legal reality. I think it is incumbent that we characterize our beliefs, use and engagements in an honest, authentic and integris way as we move forward in claiming our full freedom to use these powerful healing and illuminating medicines, sacraments, agents....

Handshake

These are all excellent points ayalight.

It's especially concerning that a church would argue for not being sure what exactly is in their sacrament, as that opens up all kinds of possibilities for exploitation. It's a violation of consent to give someone something that is misrepresented. For example, if someone thought they were drinking ayahuasca that contained caapi and chacruna but it also had datura. This takes agency away from the vulnerable person (in this case the one who is receiving the sacrament).

QuoteThe actual production of the substance itself raises other legal questions given that both psilocybin and 5 Men DMT are illegal. Again to my mind it seems premature to create and promote a church when so many outstanding questions need to be considered and resolved. In my view it's best to be patient, do research and quietly build a community instead of marketing it to a wide public.

This was my first concern long ago when I first heard about the church. The possession of TWO illegal substances puts everyone at risk and muddies the waters in determining what the sacrament is. If they need to grow psilocybin mushrooms and they need to feed mushroom substrate 5-MeO-DMT, then it requires quite a bit of backend preparation to make the sacrament.

I am all for freedom of religion and spiritual practice but it should be done ethically, with an understanding of power dynamics involved and keeping the best interests of church members in mind.

Rising Spirit

#21
Quote from: ayalight on April 18, 2023, 02:08:59 PM
Hi Rising,

I don't think they are intentionally being fraudulent. I think they, more or less, believe their misguided and misinformed views though I also think this entails a lot of avoidance and denial on their part. I'm somewhat familiar with the principals in the "church" and want to discuss this with them in a way that is considerate of where they are at while also being honest, clear and accurate. Of course, as in any dialog, it takes a willingness on both parts to engage and see ones blind spots and how strongly held positions may be in error.  This may not be possible with them.

I've been Facebook friends with Jenna first, and shortly afterwards, with Greg Lake, having met from one or more of the 5-MeO pages.  Good folks.  And I can vouch for the quality of their vision and dedication to spiritual awakening.  So naming the Church after the molecule, it seemed pretty clear that the sacrament was indeed stated to be 4-HO-5-MeO-DMT, AKA Psilomethoxin. That said, it was always implied and even directly stated the sacrement was essentially, an orally activate form of 5-MeO-DMT, or at least a hybrid molecule which had supplanted the psilocybin and psilocin contained within the cubensis mushroom hosts, leaving no trace of them.  And there's no need for a MAOI to allow for digestion and psychedelic activity.  Providing a slower onset and a longer lasting journey.


I had always believed that they had a team of qualified chemists doing the work and that isolating the highly promoted Psilomethoxin molecule had been likewise, completely conclusive.  I have seen their demo 3-D molecular model and assumed there was definitive science involved.   It's rather disappointing to hear that blind faith is a part of the Church's modus operandi.  Could this point to the possibility of a 5-like placebo effect fueled by psilocybin/psilocin?  I wish Martin Ball would comment about this issue of growing concern.  His personal experiences would potentially shed some much needed light herein.  Be well and stay high but do maintain critical thinking, everyone.   _/|\_ _/|\_


Bellow are 2-D models of the molecules 5-MeO-DMT and 4-HO-5-MeO-DMT  [redacted to save space]
There is no self to which I cling, for I am one with everything.

Handshake

Martin Ball should not be trusted as an authority on this subject for many reasons, but one of them being that he was advertising their sacrament.

rainbowbody

Speaking of Martin Ball!
Here is a new podcast in which he responds to various aspects of the Usona study, among other things.


https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/entheogenic/episodes/2023-04-24T10_00_00-07_00

Handshake

#24
Quote from: rainbowbody on April 24, 2023, 02:49:13 PM
Speaking of Martin Ball!
Here is a new podcast in which he responds to various aspects of the Usona study, among other things.


https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/entheogenic/episodes/2023-04-24T10_00_00-07_00

May be time for bingo...

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

But in all seriousness, care to summarize some of the main points you found compelling?

rainbowbody

#25
I find flaws on both "sides" FWIW.

I do think Martin makes some interesting points that bring pause for reflection. I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to assess the full breadth of information currently available and form their own opinion based on where things are currently at. I believe there is still much to be revealed and do not believe the Usona report to be final word by any means.
I also remain skeptical as to the interest of Usona and Promega who are both for profit companies with interests in novel tryptamines.


One question that was raised in the podcast that I find to be particularly interesting is
Why is it that no one has attempted to work collaboratively with the Church in regards to research or study?

ayalight

#26
Rainbowbody,

It would be illegal to work collaboratively with them (other than them sending a sample to a lab) because one way or another they are engaged in an illegal enterprise. Psilocybin and 5 MeO are illegal and both are used in their attempted biosynthesis to make their alleged psilomethoxin. I have no issue with people transgressing the law to practice their religious and cognitive freedom. Yet, to do so publicly without a clear strategy and with a lot of, IMO, lack of discernment and clear thinking is foolish and dangerous. 


Handshake

I liked the article too, but want to encourage for the sake of discussion that we share not only links to external articles but that we also share excerpts that are meaningful or of particular note. Or giving some summary/context of the link that's being shared.

For example, I might say the following:

I just read this article that I think covers well the full picture surrounding the Church of Psilomethoxin, especially the way it presents information in a well-organized format and includes interviews with multiple involved parties. In particular, I found it did [insert detail(s) here] well.

[insert link]

Handshake

Quote from: famine on April 05, 2023, 06:56:12 AM
Quote from: rainbowbody on April 04, 2023, 10:00:10 AM
Am eager to see analytical results as well.
Interesting that Martin Ball appears to be completely sold on it...


I will have analytics on a different batch too shortly. Will keep you updated

Any updates on this famine?