A wonderful new form of 5-MeO-DMT has allegedly been created and this ushers in an ingestible form of the sacrement, 4-HO-5-MeO-DMT. It is produced by introducing 5-MeO to pscilocybe cubensis mushrooms, although the 5 is wholly predominant What a beautiful synthesis! I've yet to be anointed but it is very exciting news. Some really good folks had created a church and support network for it's members. I just wanted to share the info with you all. Their website is: [Redacted because we don't source on this forum] _/|\_ _/|\_
Do not trust the Church. A bunch of criminals with false promises. GCMS and other analytical techniques DO NOT DECOMPOSE 4ho5meodmt. All analysis at the moment show no 4ho5meodmt present in their shrooms. A lot of mycologists tried do this years ago and failed. Only base tryptamines were successful.
If they can send a sample that shows 4ho5meodmt in the analysis. Only then believe them.
I've spoken to several reliable folks who confirm the presence of 5-MeO-DMT in these shrooms, most notably Martin Ball. And yes, I do share your trepidation about churches and such organizations. But so far these folks are loving and informative. I have joined the church, as only members are able to purchase the mushrooms and will report back when I consume the sacrament. Be well and shine brightly. _/|\_ _/|\_
Please don't promote this church until there is GCMS evidence. We have submitted a sample of the sacrament for testing and will post an update once we have an analytical report available.
Quote from: famine on March 27, 2023, 05:39:40 AM
Do not trust the Church. A bunch of criminals with false promises. GCMS and other analytical techniques DO NOT DECOMPOSE 4ho5meodmt. All analysis at the moment show no 4ho5meodmt present in their shrooms. A lot of mycologists tried do this years ago and failed. Only base tryptamines were successful.
If they can send a sample that shows 4ho5meodmt in the analysis. Only then believe them.
Do you have any analyses you can post to the forum?
Definitely interested to see results from GCMS as well.
Lots of good anecdotal reports especially at the microdose level
Quote from: HumbleVoyager on March 28, 2023, 07:53:53 AM
Please don't promote this church until there is GCMS evidence. We have submitted a sample of the sacrament for testing and will post an update once we have an analytical report available.
Understood... and I am quite eager to know the test results. Thank you for your endeavors. _/|\_ _/|\_
I have attached to this post, a friend who sent the powder to a lab. This should be enough to STAY AWAY FROM THE CHURCH. They are a group of chartalans.
I personally talked to their chemists, they do not know chemistry, they are amateurs who are following recipes. They do not know basics of analytics and just say bullshit claims like 4ho5meodmt decomposes during analysis.. such a joke.
All anecdotal reports cannot be taken seriously. Even taking 5meodmt before changed shrooms for me completely. I can get full on 5meodmt experiences on them. Let alone if I believe it will give me that.
Thank you for sharing this important report, famine.
We have sent a sample for analysis as well and will be publishing it here as soon as it becomes available.
Am eager to see analytical results as well.
Interesting that Martin Ball appears to be completely sold on it...
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
New analysis and article just published:
Fungi Fiction: Analytical Investigation into the Church Of Psilomethoxin's Alleged Novel Compound Using UPLC-HRMSQuoteAbstract
The Church of Psilomethoxin claims to produce a novel tryptamine by adding 5-MeO-DMT to the substrate of cultivated Psilocybe mushrooms, which is then biosynthesized into psilomethoxin, the church's sacrament. In this study, we investigate the validity of this claim using comprehensive analytical techniques, namely ultra-performance liquid chromatography with high-resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS). Authentic reference standards for structurally related tryptamines were used for comparison. Our findings revealed no evidence to suggest that the compound psilomethoxin is present in samples of material that the church is offering to their members online. Psilocybin, baeocystin, and psilocin, were, however, unambiguously identified in the sample, suggesting that the claims regarding the biosynthesis of psilomethoxin may be misguided. The implications of these findings should be critically considered within the context of public health and safety.
https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/64358de9736114c96352edf9
Wouldn't a reference sample of psilomethoxin be needed to verify or refute presence the same way that reference samples for psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin, etc. were used?
Good question. This is what Dr. Sherwood had to say about that question:
"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)."
The Church of Psilomethoxin has issued a statement on their website in response:
https://psilomethoxin.com/psychedelic_capitalism/
Although the statement says that the church has never claimed their sacrament to contain psilomethoxin, there is content on their website to suggest otherwise [see attachment].
I will eventually do a more in depth analysis of what the Church of Psilomethoxin wrote in response to the Usona paper. These are my initial thoughts.
Their whole endeavor is predicated on the assertion that they are producing, distributing and using psilomethoxin. That is the name of their church. Their legal claims for being able to use it are based on its alleged legality because it is not specifically listed as a scheduled substance (though this is highly dubious given that it's pharmacological structure and phenomenological effects are so similar to other scheduled substances that it would likely be covered under the Analog Drug Act).
Their claim that a reference sample is needed to affirm or deny the presence of psilomethoxin appears to be sketchy. Here is how one of the papers authors answered that:
"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)."
The argument that the presence of psilomethoxin in their sacrament is a religious belief is specious and incredible. This is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of chemistry. Religious beliefs have to do with a wide range of metaphysical, theological and existential assertions. Whether or not a specific molecular configuration is present in a given substance is not in the domain of religion. It is the domain of physics and chemistry.
While no psilomethoxin has been found, psilocybin, psilocybin and baeocystin were found (this is at least the second analysis that has shown this). Their response was to call these "trace" amounts. I will have to look into what these levels are. People sometimes say there are only trace or small amounts of DMT in ayahuasca. This may be true in terms of absolute weight yet not in terms of efficacy.
I'll note too that on social media they are referring to the Usona paper as being AI generated. Of course, they are not backing that assertion up with any clear reasoning much less evidence!
Beyond this their claim to be a church with members who express sincere beliefs is also very shaky. Anyone will be sent the capsules as long as they answer the questions in an appropriate way. It is not required to have one on one much less face to face discussions and relationships to procure the capsules. And, of course, those who obtain them can store, use and distribute them in any way they want. If nothing else this would never fly with the likely federal regulations that may evolve (and this is a federal matter since they are using interstate mail).
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 characterised 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 characterise 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 and amazing medicines, sacraments, agents....
More to come.
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.
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 (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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
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. 🤔
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.
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....
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.
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]
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.
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 (https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/entheogenic/episodes/2023-04-24T10_00_00-07_00)
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 (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?
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?
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.
Really good analysis by David Nickles of Psymposia
https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/church-of-psilomethoxin-part-1-sacramental-skepticism-is-the-church-in-denial-church-of-the-sacred-synthesis/ (https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/church-of-psilomethoxin-part-1-sacramental-skepticism-is-the-church-in-denial-church-of-the-sacred-synthesis/)
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]
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?
Quote from: Handshake on June 03, 2023, 10:43:07 PMQuote from: famine on April 05, 2023, 06:56:12 AMQuote from: rainbowbody on April 04, 2023, 10:00:10 AMAm 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?
It was rubbish. Just plain shrooms
While I agree 100% this looks awful for the church, and it's hard to imagine not labeling it as proven bunk after the lab tests and church back-peddling, I do have to add myself amongst the group that believes the experience is different from regular mushrooms. To me it was like three times more potent by weight and it did have a quality that's reminiscent of 5-MeO-DMT.
It's interesting that myself and a number of others are reporting similarly. If it is somehow legit, I wonder how seemingly so much contradicting evidence exists. Though in my case, it's not really relevant anyway because I found 5-MeO-DMT to be superior and would always pick it when given a choice. Just my two cents on the matter.
Quote from: Inquirer on June 13, 2023, 12:03:19 PMWhile I agree 100% this looks awful for the church, and it's hard to imagine not labeling it as proven bunk after the lab tests and church back-peddling, I do have to add myself amongst the group that believes the experience is different from regular mushrooms. To me it was like three times more potent by weight and it did have a quality that's reminiscent of 5-MeO-DMT.
It's interesting that myself and a number of others are reporting similarly. If it is somehow legit, I wonder how seemingly so much contradicting evidence exists. Though in my case, it's not really relevant anyway because I found 5-MeO-DMT to be superior and would always pick it when given a choice. Just my two cents on the matter.
I do believe the placebo is very strong. And honestly after doing 5-MeO-DMT, I don't think you are an unbias opinion. For me even regular shrooms after 5-MeO-DMT give me full on 5meo reactivations. Extremely strong. I would think it could same to others, especially if they believe they are going into a shrooms + 5meodmt experience.
I am a member of the Church (now called the Church of the Sacred Synthesis), and used an ounce of sacrament over the course of a month or two before I had my first inhaled 5-MeO-DMT experience.
While I agree that it is a shame that the science is at best inconclusive so far, and that they were too enthusiastic to claim that their sacrament was psilomethoxin, experientially I can understand their enthusiasm and sincere belief.
The experience induced by sacrament IMO is markedly different from psilocybin; less visual, for starters. And unlike psilocybin, church sacrament builds up NO tolerance, regardless of frequency of use or dosage.
In my opinion, while sacrament may not be psilomethoxin, experientially it clearly is not identical to (only) psilocybin, even to someone who is relatively immune to placebo and had no previous experience with inhaled 5-MeO-DMT.
Peace and love :)
Interesting news coming out of the Church of the Sacred Synthesis camp today..
They are claiming they have found 4-HO-5-Meo-DMT in their mushroom fruiting bodies and findings have been independently confirmed.
Man, what a twist lol. If this turns out to be legit, it'd make a lot of sense since I'd never experienced mushrooms that felt like that before.
Quote from: rainbowbody on March 07, 2024, 05:22:10 PMInteresting news coming out of the Church of the Sacred Synthesis camp today..
They are claiming they have found 4-HO-5-Meo-DMT in their mushroom fruiting bodies and findings have been independently confirmed.
All reputable third party labs confirmed only psilocin and psilocybin presence. No psilomethoxin to be found at all.
Quote from: famine on March 08, 2024, 03:05:36 AMQuote from: rainbowbody on March 07, 2024, 05:22:10 PMInteresting news coming out of the Church of the Sacred Synthesis camp today..
They are claiming they have found 4-HO-5-Meo-DMT in their mushroom fruiting bodies and findings have been independently confirmed.
All reputable third party labs confirmed only psilocin and psilocybin presence. No psilomethoxin to be found at all.
I also have heard that psilomethoxin has not been proven and is entirely a speculation/rumor or at worst a flat out lie/scam. No proof has risen as of yet. If any does please post it.
In this recent podcast the "churches" chemist explains his process of investigating the substance and what he has found so far. He is more circumspect in his descriptions than the PR the church put out. Though he feels he really may have found it. I can't comment on his chemical analysis. Perhaps others who are more molecularly fluent here can?
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/entheogenic/episodes/2024-03-25T10_00_00-07_00
Would love to see the substances tested by a third party again, my understanding is that all previous times turned up nothing when this was done.