Talk:N,N-Dimethyltryptamine/Archive 1

Pineal gland?
My understanding is that it is at least a bit controversial, and there are some scientists who deny that endogenous DMT is secreted by the Pineal gland. Should we provide a source? RadicalHarmony 1 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

You are sort of right RadicalHarmony: To date I am not aware of any study of any kind having evidenced DMT in the pineal gland of any vertebrate. Certainly did Rick Strassman put it forward as an hypothesis in his popular book on DMT. But he himself acknowledged that "no one has looked for DMT in the pineal." (DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Rochester: Park Street Press, 2001, p. 69). In fact it seems no one has looked for endoDMT in any specific brain region of any brain of any animal.

The confusion may arise because of one relatively old study where 5-MeO-DMT was evidenced in vitro in human pineals when a methyl donor was added:

Guchhait, R.B. (1976). "Biogenesis of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human pineal gland". Journal of Neurochemistry, 26: 187-190. Furthermore the method of detection used in this study is considered of dubious accuracy today.

There is thus sufficient lack of evidence of DMT being present in human brain (whatever region) to remove propositions about DMT in pineal. Doctorcito 20 Aug, 2005.


 * As there is a "speculations" section, i'm going to reinsert the pineal gland stuff in there. Not stating it as fact, as before, but rather just mentioning it as something people have proposed about dmt, which should have a place here regardless of its factual accuracy.  good to see you around here, doc, and it was nice to finally meet you.  Heah (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I added some info about Strassman's theory about the pineal glad issue and the results of his research. I added a reference at the bottom of the page as well. I think it is a balanced edit but if others wish to remove or change I'm open to disscusion on the issue. NeoFreak 04:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading materials
Read DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman, M.D. Excellent book on the matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khranus (talk • contribs) 03:08, October 7, 2003 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Pharmacotheon, by Jonathon Ott, is a much better resource. Strassman seems to throw science out the window with his new-age preaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ix (talk • contribs) 23:17, June 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Strassman's book (mentioned above) is merely a summation of his research results for a lay audience. A bibliography of his peer-reviewed journal articles can be found here (relevant entries numbered 18, 19, 20, 22, & 24).  &mdash; Clarknova 10:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Strassman's book is indeed weird. It has some interesting stories to tell, but he does not attempt to formulate an overall explanatory framework. The last time I was reminded of the DMT experience, was during my reading of 'The Art of Dreaming' by Castaneda. Real or fabricated, the book seemed to refer to realms of non-organic beings in a very matter-of-fact way.

Jonathan Ott's other book (can't recall the name now) has some useful recipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.98.3 (talk • contribs) 08:32, August 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ayahuasca Analogues, now out of print. Some of its content can be found here.  &mdash; Clarknova 10:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I felt Dr. Strassman's book was a boring read but he did a legit empirical study of the effects of DMT on the human conscious at the University of New Mexico with a diverse body of human subjects. What freaked him out was the overwhelming and somewhat scary reports a majority of his participants gave of a reptilian race of creatures in rooms with advanced technology, which I think ties into ancient zulu and aboriginie so called mythology of a reptilian race that created blacks to do slave labor. Zacharia Sitchin, a expert in Ancient Sumarian texts and a Hebrew teacher has a series of books that also ties in here. Not to mention conspiracy theorist David Icke's extensive writings on the illuminati reptilian shape shifters that are our worlds ruling blue blood royalty -supposedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.217 (talk • contribs) 02:05, March 6, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_BD_WBg9aA

Lack of neutrality
I state that this article lacks neutrality. Just as mentioned earlier, the "link" section contains many DMT-positive sites, witch is very disturbing considering this is in fact an illegal drug! And the article itself should show the side-effects and the bad reactions your body suffers when taking this drug! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.123.165 (talk • contribs) 20:12, July 26, 2006 (UTC)
 * If you know of any such side-effects or bad bodily reactions, please contribute to the article. __meco 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is lacking in neutrality, there must be some negative effects\addiction for it to be a "Class A" drug Alan2here (I take that back, maybe you are right RadicalHarmony) Alan2here (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) 15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * not really, you might be suprised


 * Alan2here, why must there be? The government(s) have provided very little reasoning for the classification of drugs in their respective categories, especially in the USA, where DMT is schedule 1.  I am not aware of nor does an active search provide any reasoning whatsoever given for the prohibition of this drug or its placement in schedule 1. RadicalHarmony 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sinned
 * yeah once again... please show a reference to any harm or even potential harm from dimethyltryptamine. no scientific literature has ever reported any dangerous or harmful side effects from DMT in humans, monkeys, rats, or mice.

May I add, that the use of DMT is not "illegal" across the whole world. I apologize for not being able to provide a reference and will go and search for one, but its use is allowed in "religious ceremonies" in parts of that vast geographic area known as "The Amazon"˜.

Again, I shall seek out a further reference but there is no reserach which has found DMT to be addictive. See Rick Strassman's 7 year study for example. Indeed, its "negative physical effects - vomiting, sickness, etc - experinced by most users and its very short half life - are condusive against it being addictive. # Rick Strassman, DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, 320 pages, Park Street Press, 2001, ISBN 0-89281-927-8

I do however agree that perhaps the physiological dangers - lack of conciseness, vomiting, etc - need to be emphasized togeather with the "emotional" wellbeing of a "user". In its indigenous use the "user" is always accompanied by an experienced "shaman" (for lack of a better word) or experinced practioner partlly for these reasons. Worth emphasizing perhaps? --Wolfit 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal in the US? Well currently in the US, the church known as Uniao do Vegetal is allowed to legally use ayahuasca tea containing DMT for religious purposes. - FV 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative results? Its not known to be addictive, but can be habit forming, just like anything people enjoy doing. There are no known bad effects other than some people experiencing nightmarish visions. DMT has been used in religious contexts for hundreds of years without any noticed bad effects on the cultures that use it. It seems safer than alcohol in many respects and is clearly less toxic on the body in amounts used religiously. Keep in mind that, unlike alcohol, this chemical occurs naturally in humans, so it can't be all that bad for you. - FV 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On a more general note of neutrality -- this article immediately jumps to DMT's "psychedelic" aspects and use as an entheogen, rather than first introducing it neutrally as a common neurotransmitter and natural component of normal brain chemistry. Take the very thorough article on Cocaine as a good exemplar of how a chemical is first presented scientifically, and then, secondarily, its role in human culture. Surely from the entheogenic perspective, DMT's status as a naturally occurring neurotransmitter is its most powerful statement of legitimacy. To take steps toward neutrality, I'm relocating details about hallucinogenic properties to the section with that title, and emphasizing plain chemistry up front before diving into the psychedelic details. Danielsteinbock 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal issues
Does any one know of any cases applicable to the idea that someone could be arbitrarly convicted for DMT possession based on naturally occuring DMT.

http://www.the-cloak.com/Cloaked/+cfg=32/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dimethyltryptamine&action=edit&section=4

Addiction?
I didn't notice anything in the article saying whether DMT is addictive or not. Is there any info on this? It does say it is similar to serotonin, and I have read that serotonin plays a part in the biology of various addictions, so I would like some info on that. Since it is speculated that endogenous DMT plays a part in natural dreaming, I would specifically be interested in any info on the possibility that dreaming itself can be addictive, causing people to sleep a lot or alter their sleeping habits in order to induce more dreams.


 * I strongly recommend seeking info about DMT through Erowid ( http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/ ). The abstracts and scientific journal articles indexed there will be useful. As far as I know, it still hasn't been proved that DMT can cause addiction. Besides, its rate of metabolism is reported to be surprisingly fast, and the pharmacological tolerance doesn't develop. I also want to point that DMT is a "Class A" drug due to its intense hallucinogenic properties and lack of deeper investigation into the effects of its exogenous use (especially long-term) in humans.
 * The chemical similarity of DMT to serotonin doesn't mean that their pharmacological effects are similar. The role of serotonin in addictions involves the sudden change in functioning of serotonin receptors under the influence of drugs (Read this: http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20030929/parsons.html ). As for possibility that dreaming could be addictive - I must disagree and point that dreaming may act as a kind of psychological and neurological regeneration. It is a natural phenomenon, not a pathology.
 * Here you can find out that elevated serotonin (and its precursors) level can actually improve the vividness of dreams, and even decrease sleep duration - it is rather a sleep/regeneration aid than a potential "dreaming addiction" danger. Dreaming can be insightful, exciting, but I've never heard that it's addictive.
 * http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/pinealstory.htm
 * http://www.erowid.org/smarts/tryptophan/
 * Concluding, if such a potent hallucinogen (entheogen?) as DMT is naturally produced in our body AND there is a fast pathway to metabolize it, AND it shows no risk for addiction, there HAS to be some purpose of such biosynthesis. Still, more research is needed.

Pharmacus 83.20.192.139 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

cold water extraction of M hostilis with out MAOI
I am seeking reliable information on this subject anyone? I heard a story about a person who has tried this twice. Once at 28grams once at 60 grams of M. Hostilis root bark with no noticeable effects. This subject has been bouncing around the net for a decade or more. Personally I would like to get to the bottom of this once and for all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.217.119.210 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

A researcher performed GC/MS on mimosa hostilis crystalline extract which was believed to be n,n-DMT last year. He discovered in addition to the DMT, an unnamed (or unidentified) beta-carboline alkaloid which is assumed to be a potent MAOI. Search bluelight.ru for more information on that. As far as a cold water extraction, that sounds unlikely. Most mimosa hostilis rootbark is orally active though, due to that recently discovered beta-carboline, but you need to boil it in a slightly acidic broth to extract the DMT and beta-carboline effectively if you're only going to use water and not any organic solvents. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that not every variety of mimosa hostilis contains the beta-carboline, so if you happen to have bark that isn't orally active, you might need to find another supplier. Sinned 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The compound that is being discussed here is yuremamine, and it is not a beta-carboline. An extraction of M. hostilis bark will probably have at least some if this in it, in addition to the many other alkaloids produced by this plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Primitive Tribes"
The term "primitive tribes" is very value laden from a "western" perspective. Primitive from who's perspective, etc?

Would the term "native indigenous users" be less value laden and neutral? Or could anyone suggest a far better alternative?--Wolfit 17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology?
There is no information on the pharmacology of DMT in this entire article! That is important information, and I'd personally like to know. If there is anyone here who can write about it, please do, as the pharmacology of any drug is one of the most important things about it. Jolb 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DMT is a (partial) agonist at the 5-HT2A receptor, that is responsible for the hallucinogenic activity. DMT is degraded by monoamine oxidase very fast, that is responsible for the short action. Cacycle 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

DMT and 5-MeO-DMT Rumors on Wikipedia!
Sophisticated modern tests have proven over and over again that both DMT and 5-MeO-DMT appear in such small amounts in the beans of Anadenanthera peregrina and Anadenanthera colubrina used to make Yopo and Vilca snuff that they have little or no effect in the snuff. Please don't add anymore false claims of DMT or 5-MeO-DMT being the main active compound. I've seen dozens of tests that show that bufotenine is by far the main active compound and that the beans contain very little DMT and 5-MeO-DMT. Even modern tests performed by the DEA in the US report this to be the case. I haven't seen a single study done with modern equipment that proves otherwise. The Wikipedia article on DMT had this false claim in it for quite some time. I fixed it. If there is any other place with this false claim, please fix it! --Ron Delipski 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reports on bad or confusing writing/formulation
I can't figure out whether this sentence (from the bottom of the "speculations" chapter of the article) is incomplete or whether words are mixed or misplaced. Perhaps "that" should be "so"?

"It's possible Strassman thought that because DMT falls in the large class of chemicals called Tryptamines, which includes Serotonin, LSD, Melatonin (a hormone the Pineal Gland does produce), and Psilocybin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.38.88.168 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pinchbeck
I think this article should make some note of Daniel Pinchbeck. He has a chapter called "I smoked DMT" in his book Breaking Open the Head. He theorizes not only the possibility of naturally occurring DMT found in our bodies regulating dreams, but also that DMT opens doors to multi-dimensional realms... I think that's interesting enough to include in this article. - 144.118.49.140 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * McKenna said it years before and wasn't a Leary-esque prick like Pinchbeck. But thank you for the addition. I didn't see anything by McKenna there so it will work just as well. :) JRDarby (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Check Erowid for more info
This is not an advertisement, but rather a suggestion to use [erowid.org] for verifying information, because they have experience with researching and compiling info on psychoactives/psychedelics and drugs.

The part where citation is needed is called for, because there has been no true evidence to support the idea that you have "true hallucinations" or even euphoria from using the drug; one of Erowid's effects listed for DMT is a "Short duration" and judging by that I came to the conclusion that many users have unpleasant experiences with the drug.

If there is no further evidence, then please delete said sentence, or edit it to it's proper understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.234.94 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this. Why would short duration imply a negative experience? By short duration it doesn't mean voluntarily short (i.e. -- individuals only use the drug for a short time because they don't like it), it means the effects don't last very long. Reidlophile (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture
In this section, the following is stated:

"União do Vegetal (Vegetable's Union). Another Christian ayahuasca religion, with a more Masonic tone. Today it is divided into at least three sects."

Does anyone have a reference to support the last sentence? As far as I know, the União do Vegetal (which is correctly translated into English as the Union of the Vegetal, where vegetal is another term for "ayahuasca" in Brazil) is a single organizational structure. This is why they call it a union.

If there is no comment, objection or discussion, I will eventually make these corrections accordingly.(Jace1 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Other questions and comments:

This section also contains the following:

"Santo Daime ("Saint Giveme") and Barquinha ("Lil Boat")"

To be more correct, and a bit more respectful, perhaps Santo Daime would better translate as "Give unto Me" in English. And Barquinha is "Little Boat". I honestly do not know if it correct to say that the Barquinha is an off shoot of the Santo Daime or not. Does anyone know the origins of this sect?(Jace1 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

OK, the was no objection, and I made these changes today.Jace1 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in the Chemistry Section
The Chemistry section says that DMT was originally discovered in 1946 but originally synthesized in 1931. I imagine it's a typo and it was discovered in 1846 but I can't find any information on the original discovery so I'll just leave this comment here and hope that someone familiar with DMT's origin will fix the mistake.

Djdoobwah (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No error! The first laboratory synthesis of DMT was reported in 1931, but it wasn't until much later that it was found in some psychoactive plants, and even later as a natural neurotransmitter in animals. Normally alkaloids are found in nature, and then re-created in the lab. DMT is a rare exception in this regard.Jace1 (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects?
currently the effects DMT has on a human are touched on in a section titled Side Effects. It seems weird to list side effects without listing primary effects and it also seems to make a judgement call on what effects are the primary and which effects are in addition to primary. I suggest a section labeled "Effects and Health Issues" like the article on cocain and put all effects from psychedelic hallucinations to rectal temperature in there.--96.233.247.136 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status
This section currently claims that DMT is not dangerous, non-toxic, and non-addictive, but doesn't include a cite for any of these. Including this without a citation is at best NPOV and at worst dangerously misleading. It seems to me that this whole paragraph should be removed or backed up with some legitimate scientific studies.96.240.1.196 (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you can find some reference(s) to its putative toxicity and addiction potential, please post it in the article. Otherwise, it would be NPOV to paint devils on the wall. It is, however, probably a bit reckless to claim that a powerful psychoactive agent like DMT is not dangerous, yet despite a considerable amount of medical and pharmacological research, DMT is surprisingly lacking in toxicity and addiction potential.Jace1 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to it right now, but the Wallach article cited elsewhere, as well as a couple Halpern articles make it clear that there is little or no known toxicity to DMT. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Nobody is trying to write devils on the wall but if no legitimate sources are available maybe it should just be noted that it hasn't been proven one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.209.76 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It also wasn't proven one way or another whether Strawberry is toxic. You can't assume any substance is toxic "by default" - if a substance was tested and wasn't found to be toxic than it can be considered safe to assume it isn't. 89.138.215.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC).
 * With psychoactives one should always assume toxicity unless proven otherwise, look at the halogenated amphetamines for example. In DMT's case, it has been shown to be of no significant toxicity. C6541 (T↔C)  17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable hypothesis
The Wallach reference has been repeatedly reinserted. This is not a non-notable hypothesis by a non-notable author in a scientifically non-reliable source (in addition of being cutter nonsense - but that is not the point here), please see Notability. Wikipedia is not a forum to make non-notable theories notable (see What Wikipedia is not. I kindly ask you not to reinsert that section. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What precisely is non-notable about it? For that matter, what makes the source non-reliable? It's just as valid as any other information in the article, if not more (I mean, it's better than erowid, from which half of the information in the article seems to be taken). I'm not the author of this section, but I think it's definitely worth keeping. A dullard (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please could you explain why you think this is a notable hypothesis by Wikipedia standards? The journal Medical Hypotheses lets anybody publish original ideas without any professional oversight, making it a scientifically non-reliable source. The ideas presented in that article are at least as whacko as the rest of the section - the difference is that the other ideas are well known and widely circulated and/or have some historical relevance. Cacycle (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I didn't know that the journal (or any journal, for that matter) was so lax; I apologize for what might have been considered a curt comment. In that case, feel free to remove it, but also realize that the reference immediately before it is also from Medical Hypotheses (although I think it might be more notable without necessarily being more reliable). I should have known that something written so plainly couldn't be true-- compare, for example, with this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9768567?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed. Apologies. A dullard (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference by Wallach may or may not be a "non-notable hypothesis", and the author may be non-notable. However, to characterize Medical Hypotheses as a scientifically non-reliable source of information is just an opinion, and not fact. But, perhaps someone could take the time to compile a list of the journals they think we should consider as medically valid, and those that are not (?). I just checked, and Medical Hypotheses is (still) abstracted in PubMed, and is (still) peer reviewed. I personally think it would be a pity for us to discard any potentially useful information on this interesting topic. However, the citation of the article by Wallach currently appears twice in the reference section, while once should suffice.Jace1 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First, WP:NOTE is only applicable to the article as a whole. To quote: "...notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." (emphasis my own) Second, Medical Hypotheses is a peer-reviewed scientific publication, which is by definition WP:Reliable. Finally, on a different note, what do we think about creating a separate heading under which to group scientific hypotheses like those of Wallach to distinguish them from the pure speculation of folks like McKenna (and I mean Terence no disrespect, but there is a difference). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but unless I'm utterly mistaken, Medical Hypotheses is in fact not a peer-reviewed journal, or at least has not been until very recently. This has been the subject of considerable controversy lately, as the journal has been put under pressure by the publisher to adopt peer review. The chief editor and several members of the editorial staff have resisted this greatly and, according to news stories, resigned in response. I'm not sure what the situation is right now, but I'm quite certain that a paper from 2008 would not have been peer reviewed.Avaricius (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...you're right about Medical Hypotheses not being peer reviewed. My mistake. Still, it is a scientific journal and if I'm not mistaken Wallach is a respected researcher, so I think we should consider his hypotheses valuable--and of course the factual accuracy of his information apart from the speculative hypotheses I think is still quite valid. What I'm staying is that I think publication in Medical Hypotheses may warrant caution when considering inclusion of the hypotheses themselves, but any background information and factual claims in the articles should be treated as any other scientific publication...which is to say, Medical Hypotheses may be speculative, but not nearly so speculative as, say McKenna's publications. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini
I think its worth mentioning the role DMT may play in kundalini energy phenomenon, as described in the works of Ganapathy and Dixon. Kundalini energy phenomenon are recognized by psychoanalysts, tranpersonal psychologists, and are mentioned in the DSM - so this is a legitimate subject and a legitimate hypothesis regarding this DMT-Kundalini connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zergshaman (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still seems pretty fringe-like to me. Also it's still only a hypothesis.  Has this research been published in peer reviewed journals?  Is this something more than just a hypothesis? I'm beginning to think that the whole speculations section needs rewriting as a lot of it seems to be speculation and fringe.TheRingess (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seems fringe-ish. I just tried to search for connections between Ganapathy, Dixon and Kundalini, and came up with nothing. If DMT is involved in Kundalini, then I suspect many other neurotransmitters are as well. Speculations on the putative endogenous function(s) of DMT should be primarily limited to those that are visual and psychedelic, like dreams and some forms of visual hallucinatory psychosis.Jace1 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's by psychologists in the DSM-IV-TR: Diagnostical Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the bible of therapists and psychiatrists alike) it is not on the fringe. The book is not written by one person, it's written by the heavy hitters in areas of expertise and usually people with at least one Ph.D. from a Top 30 University. Very very smart people combing over very dense statistics, maybe you guys didn't know what the DSM was or didn't read the introduction about what separated the DSM-IV from the DSM-IV-TR, I would recommend you do if you are questioning the fringe status of the DSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.223.250 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not the DSM-IV, the DSM-IV-TR, or even Kundalini that I would consider to be peripheral to this article, but the putative DMT-Kundalini connection. However, if you think it is important, please do start a new article on that and add a link to this one. Otherwise, there does not seem to be any evidence or even an existing hypothesis to support this speculation.Jace1 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The DSM does not recognise "kundalini energy", nor could it. It would be akin to the DSM recognising the holy spirit. Ninahexan (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested indefinite semi-protection
Since this article is about a recreational drug, - and has been seeing constant minor vandalism, - from a wide range of IP addresses, - few or none of which are contributing, - while valid editing is in progress, - and this article is a popular b-class article, - of a type for which Wikipedia is reputable, I have requested indefinite semi-protection.

It is most likely that administrators will immediately grant a limited period (hopefully a long one), but this is precisely the sort of article that will attract random vandals forever, so if the protection granted is temporary and random vandals start up again afterwards please request indefinite semi-protection again. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Harshness of Inhaled DMT Smoke
I added a snippet about eliminating the 'razor-blade' sensation commonly experienced with inhaled DMT. This sensation is caused by contaminating hydroxyl ions left over from common acid-base extraction techniques and can be neutralised by a splash of a weak acid (e.g. lemon juice) into the bong chamber and mouthpiece. Other methods, such as adding a sodium carbonate wash have been discussed on forum sites. My contribution was reversed as it was unsourced, however it is already known that hydroxyl ions will contaminate any preparation made from an acid-base extraction; it is also obvious that breathing in (effectively concentrated) hydroxide will burn the upper respiratory tract. The facts I have stated are verifiable and within the remit of A-level/high school chemistry knowledge, although they are arguably from too many sources to support a single snippet. I think it's important to accurately and unbiasedly document how irritating DMT is to the respiratory tract - it is possible to (wrongly) infer that it is quite harsh indeed with the currently included and *unsourced* subjective reports of DMT inhalation. MaxwellEdisonPhD (talk) 17:36, 02 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you still have not provided a verifiable source for this uncommon knowledge, there is also the fact that Wikipedia is not a manual or a how-to guide. See WP:NOTAMANUAL. Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dangers
WHY HAVE THIS SECTION BEEN DELETED?!! DMT IS DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE DANGERS!

DMT bears the full range of dangers known from LSD. A person may not come back from the trip which externalizes itself in drug psychosis, flashbacks and Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD). These dangers are often underestimated, since the duration of DMT effects last for minutes, in contrast to LSD effects which last for many hours. There is a lethal dose of DMT. However, it is hard to reach lethal dose by inhaling DMT because the person loses control of the body. In the majority of cases a person may die not directly of DMT but on the after effects DMT may cause in the psyche of the person. In the community of LSD consumers there is a popular example that a person believes he could fly and jump out of the window. DMT, just like LSD, may activate dangerous beliefs causing a person to do dangerous things. In the movie Inception it is well demonstrated how psychosis may externalize itself: the woman believes her life is a dream and she can awake from that dream by committing a suicide. On DMT, people report that their consciousness transferred to another dimension. Some start to believe that their whole body has moved to another parallel reality and they can come back by committing a suicide, which is very close to the plot of the named film! Just recently (July 2010), a seventeen year old Danielle Jacobsen drowned after having consumed DMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.32.88 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you click the "Article" tab and then click "View History" you can see why the section was deleted. Hopefully you can understand those directions even if English is not your first language. Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be like removing an article about water because water can be fatal if you drink too much. Your describing tired cliches, no offense but those have no place here unless you have actual proof and if you do they should be in the article but saying the article needs to be removed is just silly. I feel the need to point out, how do you know these beliefs are crazy? How do you know your consciousness doesn't go to another reality when you die? These are not beliefs caused by acid and DMT, they are beliefs that many people have and some people (without the use of drugs) act on. Please stop with the "sky is falling" speech until you educate yourself on a few subjects. 209.40.209.76 (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @209.40.209.76 Agreed.--206.28.43.119 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Added revised “Dangers” section from existing references based on feedback from Doctorcito and Pontificalibus. Content is based on references, other Wikipedia articles, mathematical logic (e.g. If a=b and b=c, then a=c) and common sense. Please let me know where you need reference help or have confusion. Please try to be specific. ----Raypurdy (talk) 10:35, 31 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your conjecture that DMT in gum arabic causes serotonin syndrome and cancer amounts to original research and is not suitable for inclusion. Where are your references that discuss this theory in reliable sources? Wikipedia is not a place for publishing your own ideas or original thought.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Questionable title: Raypurdy created twice a section entitled "Dangers". There is no need nor relevance to create a section with such a title, that departs from NPOV and Project Pharmacology Guideline: all can be said either under "Side effects", an enlarged "Side effects and complications" section or a separate "Complications" section.


 * Questionable content: Much of the content brought by Raypurdy is speculation about Gum Arabic, and unrelated to the subject of the article which is DMT, not Gum Arabic. No reliable source reporting presence of DMT in Gum Arabic has been provided. For mention of Gum Arabic to have any meaningfulness in the article, it is necessary to provide credible citations reporting:
 * that DMT is present at biologically significant levels in samples of commercially available Gum Arabic;
 * that biologically significant levels of DMT have been detected in plasma of humans or test animals after oral administration of Gum Arabic.
 * Meanwhile, all content about Gum Arabic will be edited. --Doctorcito (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, first comes qualitative analysis followed be quantitative analysis. Qualitatively, I need to show:
 * That DMT is in Gum Arabic. DMT is found in Acacia Senegal gum          .  Another name for Acacia Senegal gum is Gum Arabic. Done
 * Identify groups that consume Gum Arabic (e.g. children, beer and spirit drinkers)
 * Look for symptoms of DMT exposure as a result of receptor stimulation from these groups.
 * The “Dangers” section, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimethyltryptamine&oldid=399734510 that has been deleted, identifies this qualitative information that represents a “Danger”. Now, if you want to explain to parents, beer and spirit drinkers why they shouldn’t worry about consumption quantity of an illegal psychedelic drug, more powerful than LSD, then keep me out of it.  It’s against the law to distribute and consume DMT. -- Raypurdy (talk) 11:45, 06 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right that in the industry Gum arabic is derived only from Acacia senegal material. Now let's examine your citations:
 * Link of your citation #1: "Species not found in database". A query about Acacia senegal on Duke's database returns "DIMETHYLTRYPTAMINE Plant: DUKE1992A", with Duke's Handbook (1992) as sole reference (which is a secondary source. So the webpage is a tertiary source, with no mention of a primary one. In addition, Duke's database and Handbook are not particularly reliable when it comes about psychoactive plants. Ott is a much more reliable source).
 * Link of your citation #2: Webpage in Polish without any reference, mentioning Acacia senegal and DMT in the same line.
 * Link of your citation #3: Webpage of a vendor indicating "DMT in leaf" (italics added) of Acacia senegal and referring without precision to Shulgin's PIHKAL.
 * Link of your citation #4: A Wikipedia article with "multiple issues" and no citations.
 * Link of your citation #5: A paper by Indian researchers mentioning that "The alkaloids found in Acacia senegal include less than .1% DMT and NMT in leaf" (italics added). Two secondary sources included (so its a tertiary one), from 1980 and 1981.
 * Link of your citation #6: Page of a webforum citing Ott's Ayahuasca Analogues (1994) as reporting "trace amount" of DMT in Acacia senegal "leaves" (italics added).
 * Link of your citation #7: Another page from a webforum mentioning, without reference, "DMT, in the leaf" (italics added) for Acacia senegal.
 * Link of your citation #8: Webpage in Italian where "DMT" is put besides Acacia senegal. No reference.
 * Link of your citation #9: Webpage reproducing without permission a table from Ott's Ayahuasca Analogues, listing Acacia senegal with DMT in leaves (the reference given by Ott is omitted, though).
 * Link of your citation #10: Webpage mirroring the Wikipedia article on Acacia. States this: "Less than 0.1% DMT in leaf, NMT, other tryptamines. DMT in plant, DMT in bark". Citations are your citations #1, #2 and #3. Circularity, someone?
 * Link of your citation #11: Another webpage mentioning DMT "in the leaf" (italics added) for Acacia senegal, without reference.
 * Results : Hint that low concentrations of DMT may have been detected in leaves of Acacia senegal. Not a single primary source cited in all these documents. So I checked Jonathan Ott's Ayahuasca Analogues (1994). There is in fact one paper that reported detection of DMT in Acacia senegal. In the leaves . And you know what? Gum arabic is not made with leaves : it is "is a natural gum made of hardened sap" (Gum arabic) "obtained from the stems and branches" (FAO). There is thus NO known direct or indirect evidence of DMT presence in industrial Gum arabic. Case closed. Please stop now posting your sourceless speculations. --Doctorcito (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference Dr. James A. Duke's, CRC Press, “Handbook of phytochemical constituents of GRAS herbs and other economic plant” (1992) is excellent reference. Other Wikipedia articles have used this reference.  CRC Press publishes reference standards for mathematics and science professionals.  The Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases were commissioned by the USDA.  Dr. Duke has a PHD in botany and has authored many books.----Raypurdy (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote here (with page number) Jim Duke's Handbook passage where he mentions DMT being present in A. senegal gum, and the reference to at least one primary source/s he provided to support this claim . Unlike you, I have provided the existing primary reference on DMT finding in A. senegal (heck, I even made your homework), which was in leaves . As it is the sole existing, it is the only one cited by all authors who compiled the literature. Good luck with Jim Duke's Handbook to find another. Meanwhile your edit is suspended-reverted. --Doctorcito (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Questionable content II: That DMT can cause alone noticeable serotonin toxicity (aka serotonin syndrome) at average psychedelic doses is at best a hypothesis in need of empirical support. Neither Sternbach's criteria for serotonin syndrome, nor Hunter serotonin toxicity criteria are satisfied in the clinical observations and data collected in the thorough study of Rick Strassman, even with the highest dose, judged "overwhelming" by most test persons. In particular, none of the neuromuscular signs that are the hallmark of serotonin toxicity were noted. Serious empirical, clinical data is thus required to allow to speak of serotonin toxicity in direct relation to DMT alone. Without one or more citation/s bringing such hard evidence, it is mere speculation. That will be edited. --Doctorcito (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rectal Administration
I think that this should be removed. It's not using a reliable source. Also, it doesn't even say the same thing as the source says as far as duration. I'm going to remove it. If anyone wants this to remain, please explain how an individual report is considered a reliable source. There should be something talking about rectal administration, but it should be accurate and using a reliable source of information. Five- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC).


 * I agree, but for future reference, please leave an edit summary. For instance, here I would leave "Removed unreliable information. See talk page for details." I almost undid your change because I thought it was vandalism. Thank you. Mutinus (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Endogenous DMT sources
In case anybody needs more citations for the presence of DMT in the body, here are a few...

Quote: “Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is an endogenous hallucinogen with traditional use as a sacrament in the orally active preparation of ayahuasca.” 2010. V. Cakic et al. Dimethyltryptamine (DMT): Subjective effects and patterns of use among Australian recreational users. In: Drug and Alcohol Dependence 111 (2010) 30–37

Quote: “Identification of N-alkylatedtryptamines, such as DMT,as endogenous agonists for the Sig-1R based on the loss of DMT-induced hypermobility responses in the Sig-1R homozygous null knockout (KO) mouse has additionally added to the knowledge of agonist pharmacology at the Sig- 1R.” 2010. T-P. Su et al. The sigma-1 receptor chaperone as an inter-organelle signaling modulator. In: Trends in Pharmacological Sciences xx (2010) 1-10.

2010. J.A. Fishback et al. Sigma receptors: Potential targets for a new class of antidepressant drug. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 127 (2010) 271–282 Quote: “The endogenous ligand(s) for sigma receptors have yet to be conclusively identified. However, a number of candidates have been proposed including some neuroactive steroids, sphingolipids (Su et al., 1988; Ramachandran et al., 2009), and most recently N,Ndimethyltryptamine (DMT) (Fontanilla et al., 2009).”

Quote: “Endogenous hallucinogenic neurochemicals, in particular N,Ndimethyltryptamine (DMT), have recently been shown to activate a small subgroup of receptor sites called the trace amine associated receptors (Wallach, 2009).” 2010. B.A. Killinger et al. Salvinorin A fails to substitute for the discriminative stimulus effects of LSD or ketamine in Sprague–Dawley rats. In: Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 96 (2010) 260–265.

Quote: “There are two main pathways for the metabolism of the amino acid, tryptophan: the serotonin (5-HT) and kynurenine pathways. Of these, the 5-HT pathway has received the most attention in studying the pathophysiology of schizophrenia (SCH), initially, by formation of an endogenous hallucinogen, e.g. N,N-dimethyltryptamine, a 5-HT2A receptor agonist (Strassman et al., 1994)” 2010. M. Lee et al. Decreased plasma tryptophan and tryptophan/large neutral amino acid ratio in patients with neuroleptic-resistant schizophrenia: Relationship to plasma cortisol concentration. Psychiatry Research xxx (2010) xxx–xxx. --User:Aelffin 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the legwork: You've provided an interesting list of papers that propagate sloppy information about endoDMT. But unfortunately the point isn't to find papers citing other papers about INMT (EC= 2.1.1.49; the enzyme catalyzing biotransformation of tryptamine into DMT) and/or DMT detection in human and non-human organisms. It is to find papers actually reporting and detailing such detection, i.e. reliable quantitative analytical studies. The most recent and reliable ones are the following:
 * - J. Kärkkäinen et al. (2005) "Potentially hallucinogenic 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor ligands bufotenine and dimethyltryptamine in blood and tissues". Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 65/3: 189-199.
 * - T. Forsström, J. Tuominen & J. Kärkkäinen (2001) "Determination of potentially hallucinogenic N-dimethylated indoleamines in human urine by HPLC/ESI-MS-MS". Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 61: 547-556.
 * - Michael A. Thompson et al. (1999) "Human indolethylamine N-methyltransferase: cDNA cloning and expression, gene cloning, and chromosomal localization". Genomics, 61: 285–297.
 * - Richard M. Weinshilboum & Michael A. Thompson  (1998) "Rabbit lung indolethylamine N-methyltransferase. cDNA and gene cloning and characterization". Journal of Biological Chemistry, 273: 34502-34510.


 * While these papers do confirm presence of INMT and trace amounts of endoDMT in organs like lungs and kidneys of humans and rodents, their results about the brain do not support the assertion, as currently worded, in the article discussed here ("DMT is naturally produced in small amounts in the brain and other tissues of humans and other mammals"). If on the one hand DMT traces were found in rat brain by Kärkkäinen et al. (2005), confirming thus older studies, on the other hand INMT was found to be lacking in human brain (Thompson et al. 1999) and neurons (Kärkkäinen et al. 2005), results also confirming a couple of older studies.


 * To summarize: Currently available evidence a) does not support DMT production in human brain, and b) does support presence of DMT traces in rat brain (but biosynthesis in rat brain still remains hypothetical). --Doctorcito (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Three points. First, I'm not posting these articles in order to endorse any particular wording found in the current article, merely to provide source material for others to use to determine the best wording. Second, you are correct that DMT has not been detected in the human brain, but it has been detected in other human (and mammalian) tissues, thus it is an endogenous compound, regardless of where in the body it is produced. Finally, you say that "...the point isn't to find papers citing other papers..." but according to Wikipedia policy, that is preciesely the point. The sources you supplied are primary sources, while the sources I supplied are secondary sources, and as I understand it, WP:Secondary indicates that these should be the main source of information for our articles. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Manifestly we do agree about DMT being an endogenous substance in mammals, humans included, and that's certainly the most important. My point in fact is about authors who propagate in the peer-reviewed literature the mis-information that DMT has been evidenced or is produced in human brain.
 * About your last point, even if I may have sounded a bit harsh to your ears (sorry for that), you shouldn't invoke Wikipedia policy here: only two of the articles you cited would qualify as secondary sources ("Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis"), and none of those 2 is dedicated to the topic discussed here. In fact, since the famous review article "N,N-dimethyltryptamine: an endogenous hallucinogen", made by researchers from the Alabama group (Steven Barker, John Monti and Samuel Christian), which was published in 1981, there have been no peer-reviewed review article dedicated to endogenous DMT. And the proposition "survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary" wouldn't be of any real help either: The most relevant surveys of previous works on detection of endogenous DMT or on INMT assays precisely are to be found in the articles I cited (they obviously also do cite other papers). If you had to select accounts about results of studies on oranges, would you prefer narratives of people presently working on apples, or reports of people currently doing research on oranges? ----Doctorcito (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your last question...it depends upon what I'm trying to establish. If the simple fact that DMT is an endogenous substance is the point being made, then I agree the most relevant sources would be those for which eDMT/INMT is the focus. However, if the point being made is that eDMT/INMT is widely accepted in the pharmacological community, then a broad range of sources would be valuable. On the subject of secondary sources, we may have to agree to disagree since--if I recall correctly--at least some of the articles I quoted treat eDMT in their field survey sections, and since primary reliance on "the most relevant" sources would seem not to exclude auxilliary reliance upon less relevant sources. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't recall reading in those papers any propogation of the myth of eDMT in the brain. Although admittedly, I only skimmed them. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive, well thought-out contribution to this discussion. I do agree with with the points you made.
 * In case you would wonder, I did train in neuroscience, with specialization in neuropharm research ;-) and do actively follow developments about endoDMT since more than two decades (I also made a survey of the topic in a peer-reviewed review article - alas not in English). This to indicate that I have a rather comprehensive knowledge of the topic, and explain why I sometimes seem to overreact :-)
 * In the expanded "Biosynthesis" section, which will include results of analytical studies, I think it is crucial to stick to relevancy and accuracy, as one of its functions will be to provide a reliable database of sort, useful both to readers and to contributors who deal with endoDMT in the rest of the article.
 * Your remarks make me think that it would possibly be interesting and useful to write an endnote, or a subsection, on the contrasted ways the endoDMT topic is treated in recent peer-reviewed literature, mostly in regard of the sources they cite (the "DMT-in-human-brain" myth is propagated by people who cite outdated sources - And you were apparently right that the articles you listed don't fall into this category). If you're interested... ----Doctorcito (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to have you here too. It's nice to see some neuroscientists keeping track of things here on Wikipedia. What language did you publish your survey in? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In French, which is my first language. ----Doctorcito (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Biosynthesis (and detection in mammals)
I've started to -hopefully- improve the "Biosynthesis" section. My proposal is to expand it: It is obviously the right place in the article to summarize the results in mammals of analytical studies that have evidenced DMT and the enzyme tryptamine-N-methyltransferase (well, at least since 1999 everybody in the primary literature call it "indolethylamine N-methyltransferase", a convenient move as it allows use of its acronym: INMT). To include there such a summary would provide a sound and relevant basis for subsequent mentions of or allusions to endogenous DMT production. ----Doctorcito (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In order to further improve this section, I made a more detailed and accurate image of the biosynthetic pathway. It now includes all steps, with the relevant details (enzymes, cofactor, products), highlights changes (in red), and figures the methyl groups (more telling when about a transmethylation!) The size of this image was tailored to fit as a thumb without reduction (-> optimal resolution), and to visually interfere as little as possible with the global layout of the article. I will of course welcome suggestions to ameliorate this image (NB: size cannot be reduced without losing resolution).

The part of the section directly dealing with the image has been adapted accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorcito (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for expanding (a little) on technical history and details
In a couple of recent scientific papers, including Wallach's one (published in Medical Hypotheses) which is cited in the article and already discussed above in this page, one can find the referenced statements that DMT has been shown to "occur" or to be "produced" in human brain. It is thus fair to give here potential readers of these papers enough accurate and verified information to allow them to 1) appraise the relevancy of the references backing those statements, and 2) evaluate the overall credibility of the latter. ----Doctorcito (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the Wallach paper, but I don't have access to it right now. Does he cite any study backing this claim up? Since you seem to be familiar with this topic, where does this myth (if indeed it is a myth) originate? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * • About Wallach, here is the first phrase of his introduction:
 * "N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-hydroxy N,N-dimethyltryptamine(bufotenine) and 5-methoxy N,N-dimethyltryptamine(5-MeO-DMT) have long been accepted as naturally occurring components of human blood, brain and cerebral spinal fluid." (italics added)
 * The 4 references he put to back this are the following:
 * Axelrod T. Enzymatic formation of psychotomimetic metabolites from normally occurring compounds. Science 1961;134:343.
 * Corbett L, Christian ST, Morin RD, Benington F, Symthies JR. Hallucinogenic Nmethylated indolealkylamines in the cerebrospinal fluid of psychiatric and control populations. Br J Psychiat 1978;132:139–44.
 * Franzen Fr, Gross H. Tryptamine, N,N-dimethyltryptamine, N,N-dimethyl-5-hydroxytryptamine and 5-methoxy tryptamine in human blood and urine. Nature 1965;206:1052.
 * Angrist BS, Gershon G, Sathananthan RW, et al. Dimethyltryptamine levels in blood of schizophrenic patients and control subjects. Psychopharmacology 1976;47:29–32.
 * None of these studies can back the statement that DMT has "long been accepted as a naturally occurring component of human brain".


 * • About the "myth".
 * I am glad you asked this question because it makes me realize that this also can be an interesting topic to cover in the article.
 * I do in fact currently distinguish two aspects in the phenomenon:
 * One is mere mis-information spread in the scientific literature by people who either 1) just don't properly do their homework (even with generalization of the Interwebs, a serious, in-depth survey of the literature still takes time), or 2) cherry-pick or misrepresent citations seemingly fitting their a priori convictions. Just common everyday bad science in both cases :-D
 * The second aspect is the myth proper, in an anthropological sense (I also did train in anthropology, at a postgraduate level ;-) ): Propagated in the popular literature (Strassman's DMT book comes to mind) and on the Interwebs, it is embodied (the mark of a true myth) by people who seclude themselves during days when not weeks in total darkness to live the myth of altered consciousness experiences triggered by 'enhanced DMT production and release by the pineal gland' (it is obvious and a well established fact that altered consciousness experiences do happen in such settings; and it is also obvious that there are no reliable scientific bases to 1) support the claim that DMT is produced in human brain (pineal gland included), and 2) to causally relate those experiences to endogenous DMT).
 * The myth feeds upon every bit of info that appears to give it credence in the scientific literature (i.e. on aspect #1). A reason why I think it is important for Wikipedia to be the repository of reliable, relevant and accurate information on this topic (hopefully, it will become the best in town) :-) ----Doctorcito (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm splitting hairs here (after all, isn't that what sicence is about? :D)...but there is a difference between "occurring in the brain" and "produced by the brain". I'll agree that there isn't a shred of evidence for the latter statement (and while there are significant issues with Strassman's work, IIRC, he was careful to point out that pineal eDMT was speculation on his part). As for the former statement...if we are agreed that DMT is a naturally occuring component of blood and (presumably) we are agreed that blood is naturally occuring in the brain, then does it not follow that DMT occurs naturally in the brain, as Wallach states? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, your biosynthesis draft looks pretty good. What seems to be the trouble with the table? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your positive appreciation. If the table looks centered, with a visible border of 1 px, the caption at its bottom, and no text wrapping, then situation is normal (it's how it's coded for, and is displayed when I edit/preview the subsection). Currently I see it aligned to the left, with no border, the caption at its top, and text wrapped in several cells (that's how I see it when I edit/preview the whole page, and save it).


 * About DMT "occurring" in the brain via blood transport, well, 1) that's not how Wallach worded it, 2) it may sound logical but the statement would nonetheless remain a hypothesis and not something "accepted" by the scientific community (that's how authors of the 2005 study present it, a hypothesis, to explain their finding of DMT in rat brain), and 3) the main problem is that it can hardly be said that we have reliable, robust evidence that DMT "occurs" in human blood, hence is transported by it: The 2005 study found absolutely no trace of DMT in human blood despite using the most sensitive and selective analytical method ever used to do the job (it's 12 to 200 times more sensitive, and much more selective (thanks to a preparative HPLC purification step), than those used in the 1970s). And older studies didn't yield consistent results either.
 * Robust evidence of DMT occurrence in CSF (i.e. a replication of Smythies et al. 1979 findings with a modern method like the one of the 2005 study) would be a more direct and less fragile piece of evidence (significant levels of INMT mRNA were found in the spinal cord) that DMT can "occur" in human brain.


 * As to Strassman... well, if on the one hand he was indeed careful not to present his hypothesis of DMT production in the pineal gland as a proven fact, on the other hand what he presented as credible bases for it, and how he worded this passage (his "methyltransferases" mumbo jumbo, p. 69), clearly is a gross misrepresentation of the facts available when he wrote his book, and verges on myth. -- Doc t or c i t o  03:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorcito (talk • contribs)

Done! --Doctorcito (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The rabbit is going to fall asleep on the sofa after eating a large turkey dinner, not have psychedelic hallucinations. The referenced articles only address conversion of tryptamine to dimethyltryptamine. Your most recent reference from Thompson (1999) concludes, “However, the functional role of INMT in vivo remains unclear. Even though this enzyme was originally discovered as a result of interest in the possible generation of methylated metabolites of tryptamine and serotonin that might be psychoactive, our observations make that possibility less likely.” This does not validate Mandel’s earlier work. Why would Mandel use non-radioactive N-methyltryptamine when he had access to C14 N-methyltryptamine? Look, I know your trying to justify (or cover-up) why GC/MS shows DMT in the urine of non-drug users. But biosynthesis is not the answer. People are consuming DMT in the food additive Gum Arabic or Acacia gum. Please refer to the “Dangers” section, dated 11/23/2010 for further details. Suggest renaming this section to “Plant Biosynthesis”. Would be interested in references and details on how plants biosynthesis DMT. ----Raypurdy (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit referred to above. Your assertion that "Many processed sugar products contain Gum Arabic where science has identified DMT as a biochemical cause for cancer" is simply fallacious. Further, your claim that certain alcoholic drinks don't simply make people drunk through alcohol, but rather through causing in them a serotonin syndrome due to DMT contained in gum arabic found in those drinks is ludicrous. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you (Raypurdy) please rephrase this clearly as I find it rather confusing. And please have the decency to avoid speculating about my intentions. A biosynthetic pathway for DMT in mammals has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated since Axelrod's seminal study. The conclusion of Thompson et al. (1999) you cited has been discussed since then, notably by Jacob & Presti (2008) who noted that: "'the meaning of Km values, especially for in vivo biochemical pathways, is still open to interpretation. Although Thompson et al. argue that high Km values signify an enzyme–substrate combination that is not biologically meaningful, a meta-analysis of recent research has shown that high Km values are significant in biological systems'."
 * I am going to undo your first edit in the article as it made baseless changes (edit: Pontificalibus apparently already did it - Edit#2: only the second was undone): I did clearly explain in the "Biosynthesis" first part that I was detailing lines of scientific research on endogenous DMT in mammals (not only humans). Hence the "Endogenous DMT" title of the subsection summarizing studies that explicitly looked for endogenous DMT in mammals (and found some, thus plainly justifying the title. Not all humans do eat "Gum Arabic or Acacia gum" (you'll have to provide credible citations showing that DMT has been detected in those products). Nor rats and rabbits do). This is not about danger or not danger, this is about presenting scientific research and data about a particular aspect of research on DMT. Furthermore your edit did also suppress other corrections I made in other sections, unrelated to your apparent point: An improved reference to Strassman's book, and rephrasing of the presentation of his hypothesis of pineal DMT.
 * You wrote in this edit that "Without a MAOI, the body quickly metabolizes orally administered DMT, and it therefore has no hallucinogenic effect unless the dose exceeds monoamine oxidase's metabolic capacity." Makes sense, but you are aware that oral doses up to 12 fold the mean fully psychedelic intramuscular one were determined to be inactive in a published study, aren't you?  --Doctorcito (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC) You can of course reinstate this phrase with a normal, simple edit. No need to revert. --Doctorcito (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted Thompson (1999) reference because their conclusion does not support biosynthesis. Insert Jacob & Presti (2008) as a reference if they duplicated Thompson’s 1999 work and proved biosynthesis or Thompson’s retraction that his conclusion was wrong. Mandel reference should be deleted due to suspect procedures reflecting bias.  Did Axelrod detection of DMT utilize GC/MS in 1961?  Axelrod results also conflicts with DMT detection issues identified in the “Endogenous DMT” section. Neither, Mandel or Axelrod controlled all variables, namely that the test subjects were not exposed to DMT.
 * Biosynthesis is at best a hypothesis unless a quantitative relationship can be shown between tryptophan consumption and DMT levels. The number of people showing DMT in the table is more consistent with DMT/Acacia/Gum Arabic consumption than the tryptophan biosynthesis hypothesis.  Most people eat tryptophan, so they should all show DMT, especially with the sensitivity improvements of LC-ESI-MS/MS. -- Raypurdy (talk) 12:08, 06 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop editing content you clearly have no expert knowledge about (and check your talk page where the number of warnings should incite you to be more prudent).
 * I am not here to give you basic training in pharmacology, which you manifestly are lacking. All citations I did put in the article about biosynthesis do bring evidence supporting different aspects of DMT biosynthetic pathway, and some are reviews. Don't edit them because you believe to understand better (in fact what you just wrote means that you even didn't properly read or understood the content of this section: "As qualitative determination of the radioactively tagged product of the enzymatic reaction is sufficient to characterize INMT existence and activity (or lack of), analytical methods used in INMT assays don't require to be as sensitive as those needed to directly detect and quantify the minute amounts of endogenously formed DMT"). --Doctorcito (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m unable to find a single reference that has tested a relationship between tryptophan and DMT. Piecing research papers together to draw a conclusion is original research.  .  Endogeneous DMT from tryptophan is therefore unproven.  All that can be said is that DMT is occasionally found in mammals but we don’t know how it ultimately got there. If this reference doesn’t exist then biosynthesis and endogeneous DMT content will need to be removed.-- Raypurdy (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, no one is here to teach you basic biochemistry. Please go learn the basics of tryptophan metabolism (this interactive graph might be a good start). And please stop this kind of ignorance-based threat of edition. --Doctorcito (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the pharmacokinetic data in humans
In order to improve the "Pharmacology" section according to the Project Pharmacology Guideline, I re-read it carefully before any modification and noticed that there is a couple of problems with the pharmacokinetic data in humans brought by Nvcozzi (talk):

Questionable use of data from ayahuasca studies
The 3 references from which those data are excerpted are studies on ayahuasca or freeze-dried ayahuasca, not on DMT proper. It is highly questionable if not incorrect to put in an article on DMT pharmacokinetic data from studies where DMT is mixed with a cocktail of potent β-carbolines. Notably the apparent volume of distribution (Vd): It is extremely highly likely that, among other potential confounding variables, the known vasorelaxant actions of these β-carbolines (see refs below) modifie DMT Vd.


 * The volume of distribution of drugs, including DMT, is not affected by vascular tone. The main factors affecting Vd and their effects are as follows:


 * uremia, burn patients, liver dysfunction → ↓ albumin binding → ↑ Vd
 * pregnancy, ascites, edema → ↓ plasma concentration → ↑ Vd
 * dehydration → ↑ plasma concentration → ↓ Vd
 * heart failure, end-stage renal disease → ↓ clearance of drugs excreted by kidney, variable effects on Vd depending on drug.


 * The data obtained from the papers cited clearly demonstrate that DMT administered peripherally is accumulated into tissues, including brain tissue. The absolute plasma or blood concentrations alone are not predictive of the brain concentrations.  The only reasonable access to human brain concentrations is via the apparent volume of distribution.  The DMT Vd data obtained from ayahuasca studies is not likely to differ significantly from DMT given intravenously, and it is the best data available at present.  Note that the active blood concentrations exhibit a wide range, and the Vd will also exhibit a range depending on which data one uses.  Therefore the Vd for DMT is in the approximately 35-55 L/kg range and this will not change except under the conditions I listed above.

--User:nvcozzi(talk) 00:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. You are right that β-carboline-induced vasorelaxation was not the best argument under the sun to question insertion of Vd values from Callaway et al., and Riba et al. studies.
 * The gist of the argument is elsewhere (it is just much longer to write):
 * The Wikipedia DMT article is about, well, DMT, i.e. pure DMT, not about ayahuasca or freeze-dried gel-capped ayahuasca.


 * OK, point taken.Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And pure DMT is either injected (IM or IV in clinical research settings), or inhaled (in other settings). So pure DMT proper Vd values would be relevant, i.e. those calculated after intravenous (IV) dosing.
 * Yet Callaway et al. (1999), and Riba et al. (2003) gave respectively Vss/F, and Vz/F values, i.e. figures for DMT oral apparent volume of distribution (Vd), and furthermore when mixed with β-carbolines which pharmacology is rich and complex (both kinetics and dynamics).


 * Right, but that's why they reported Vd/F; they divided Vd by F (bioavailability) to account for the lower apparent Vd obtained from oral administration. F, if I recall, was ~ 0.50 (i.e. bioavailability ~ 50%).  This commonly used approach normalizes the Vd.  It takes into account all other variables for the route of administration (in this case oral) e.g. the presence of beta-carbolines, incomplete intestinal absorption, metabolism by nonMAO routes, etc.  The Vd/F should be very close to the Vd obtained from IV data.Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Drug-drug interactions resulting in change in the volume of distribution of one of them is not unheard of (e.g. penbutolol increases lidocaine volume of distribution ). These differences (oral Vd vs. proper Vd, with or without β-carbolines) do matter:
 * Even if pure DMT oral absolute bioavailability has never been formally determined in humans (AFAIK), it is expected to be very low (oral doses up to 10 fold the plainly psychedelic 35 mg intramuscular one were determined to be without noticeable effects ), due to extensive intestinal and hepatic (first-pass) metabolism.


 * Agree.Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Consequently, without the β-carbolines the 36-57 mg range of average DMT doses ingested in Callaway et al., and Riba et al. studies may well have resulted in null Vd figures because DMT would have been completely metabolized before reaching systemic circulation.


 * Agree. It would be as if no DMT was given at all → Vd = 0Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference with Vd calculated from IV injection (or from IM injections of the exactly same range of doses) would then be aptly characterized as 'extremey highly' significant.


 * In other words, it is glaringly obvious that ayahuasca β-carbolines do influence DMT oral Vd (and pharmacokinetics more generally).


 * Glaringly! ;-) Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Another evidence is provided by a comparison of the range of blood concentrations between injections of pure DMT, and ingestion of standard ayahuasca tea. In the case of injections (IM and IV) range is indeed wide, with max and min blood concentration values differing by a factor of 6.4 (IV) to ≈11 (IM). In contrast, with ayahuasca the range is much narrower: Plasma levels max/min ratio is only 2.2 in Callaway et al. (1996) (ranges of plasma levels aren't indicated in Riba et al. papers).
 * Still another evidence, and a hard one, is Riba et al. (2003) finding of a statistically significant difference in oral Vd values between the low and high doses of their freeze-dried gel-capped ayahuasca; a result they interpreted as a nonlinear increase of DMT plasma levels, and bioavailability, with the high dose.
 * It is thus very likely that DMT oral Vd values from ayahuasca and freeze-dried gel-capped ayahuasca studies do significantly differ from proper Vd figures computed from DMT IV administration study.


 * I'm not in complete agreement with this. To be sure, the Vd calculated from IV dosing is the "gold standard", because F (bioavailability) is by definition "1" for drugs given IV, i.e. Vd/F = Vd.  However, the whole point of dividing by F is to normalize so that one can derive an accurate Vd from various routes in the absence of IV administration.  I will concede that, due to physiological complexities, the Vd/F for various routes is probably never exactly equal to Vd from IV calculations, but I contend that it will be "close".Nvcozzi (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do fully agree that Vd would be a good predictor of DMT brain concentration, and that published pharmacokinetic data on pure DMT aren't informative in this respect (incidentally, Rick Strassman may possibly still have the raw data of his study, which could be used to compute Vd and other interesting pharmacokinetic parameters). But I do maintain that it is questionable to include Vd values from Callaway et al., and Riba et al. studies to fill the void. Mentioning that oral Vd figures from these studies are suggestive of DMT concentration in brain, without actually citing the figures, could be a possibility. --Doctorcito (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, there are a couple of human studies on pure DMT reporting blood or plasma levels after intramuscular or intravenous administration (I'll cite them). Unfortunately, there were no other pharmacokinetic data in these studies. Not a reason to use those on ayahuasca to fill the void.

Refs on vasorelaxant actions of β-carbolines that are present in ayahuasca: Refs on DMT blood and plasma levels after im and iv administration, respectively: --Doctorcito (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Berrougui et al. (2006) "Vasorelaxant effects of harmine and harmaline extracted from Peganum harmala L. seed's in isolated rat aorta". Pharmacological Research, 54(2): 150-7.
 * Shi CC et al. (2001) "Comparative study on the vasorelaxant effects of three harmala alkaloids in vitro". Japanese Journal of Pharmacology,85(3):299-305. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorcito (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kaplan J et al. (1974)"Blood and urine levels of N,N-dimethyltryptamine following administration of psychoactive dosages to human subjects". Psychopharmacologia 38(3):239-45.
 * Strassman RJ & Qualls CR (1994) "Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. I. Neuroendocrine, autonomic, and cardiovascular effects". Archives of General Psychiatry 51(2):85-97.

Irrelevant comparison with synaptic dopamine concentration
Nvcozzi (talk) wrote: "Similar active uptake processes in human brain may plausibly concentrate DMT within neurons by several-fold or more, resulting in local concentrations in the micromolar or higher range. Interestingly, the concentrations of DMT required to occupy a significant fraction of any of its known receptor binding sites are between 1,000 and 1,000,000-fold lower than the calculated synaptic concentration of other neurotransmitters. For example, using amperometric measurements, the synaptic concentration of dopamine was estimated to reach about 75 mM." This is not unlike comparing mass of apples contained in a 1 L bag to mass of oranges used to make 1 L of juice concentrate: Studies measuring blood or plasma levels in humans, and studies evidencing DMT accumulation in rat brain (e.g. in cortex) give concentrations for tissues where the cited estimation of dopamine (DA) concentration is about DA release from vesicles into synaptic cleft. Spatial/volume scales are here several orders of magnitude apart. Furthermore, as DMT dominant pharmacodynamic action is attributed to interaction with serotonin 2A receptor subtypes, comparison with serotonin (5-HT) concentrations would be more relevant. 'Interestingly', 5-HT tissue concentrations in various brain regions have been consistently determined to be in the 1.5-4 &mu;M range. Unsurprisingly these concentration values are pretty close to those of DMT measured in blood and plasma levels in humans after i.m or i.v. administration of fully psychedelic doses; even without postulating an active transport mechanism through the blood brain barrier and concentration in brain. Taking into account such a highly plausible mechanism would mean that brain average concentrations of DMT after fully psychedelic dosing can be higher than those of serotonin. --Doctorcito (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More problems with this passage: It is reproduced without attribution
Compare: In humans, effective hallucinogenic doses produce peak DMT plasma concentrations ranging between 12 and 90 µg/L and with an apparent volume of distribution of 36 to 55 L.

The corresponding average molar plasma concentration of DMT is therefore in the range of 0.060–0.500 µM. However, the relatively high volume of distribution of DMT indicates significant movement of the drug from plasma into tissues and several reports have described the active accumulation of DMT and other tryptamines into rat brain following peripheral administration. Similar active uptake processes in human brain may plausibly concentrate DMT within neurons by several-fold or more, resulting in local concentrations in the micromolar or higher range. -Nvcozzi (talk)

To this passage from Nicholas V. Cozzi et al. (2009) "Dimethyltryptamine and other hallucinogenic tryptamines exhibit substrate behavior at the serotonin uptake transporter and the vesicle monoamine transporter" Journal of Neural Transmission 116 (12), p. 1597: In humans, effective hallucinogenic doses produce peak DMT plasma concentrations ranging between 12 and 90 &mu;g/L and with an apparent volume of distribution of 36–55 L/kg (Callaway et al. 1999; Riba et al. 2003; Yritia et al. 2002). The corresponding molar plasma concentrations of DMT are in the range of 0.060–0.500 &mu;M and this range is lower than the KI values that were derived in the present study. However, the relatively high volume of distribution of DMT indicates significant movement of the drug from plasma into tissues and several reports have described the active accumulation of DMT and other tryptamines into rat brain following peripheral administration (Barker et al. 1982; Sangiah et al. 1979; Sitaram et al. 1987; Takahashi et al. 1985; Yanai et al. 1986). Similar active uptake processes in humans may plausibly concentrate DMT by severalfold or more, resulting in micromolar concentrations in the brain. A possibility is that contributor Nvcozzi (talk) is one of the authors of this paper, which would be both great and not so good news:
 * Great to have another member of the psychedelic research community contributing
 * Not so good to see what could be considered self-plagiarism (from a copyrighted source, but fair use is in order here), and questionable utilization of ayahuasca pharmacokinetic data (see above).

Discussion with Nvcozzi (talk) is warranted... --Doctorcito (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional problem, this time with pharmacodynamics
Here's the first assertion about DMT pharmacodynamics: "DMT acts as a non-selective agonist at most or all of the serotonin receptors (including 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C)," I've checked theses sources and more: If taken together they show that DMT has roughly comparable binding affinity at "most" (not "all") serotonin receptors, its efficacy as an agonist has been evaluated only at 3 serotonin receptor subtypes (5-HT1A, 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C). The quoted assertion is thus erroneous, probably stemming from a basic confusion between affinity and efficacy. --Doctorcito (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

DMT is a qualitative agonist of 5-HT7 based on Ray TS (2010) Psychedelics and the Human Receptorome when it’s stated that DMT “is the only drug to have its best hit at the 5-HT7 receptor”. It also explains my calcinosis cutis from handling DMT and calcium found in Acacia. Quantitative determination of efficacy is TBD. -- Raypurdy (talk) 11:04, 06 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop editing content you manifestly have no expert knowledge about (there is nothing as "qualitative" agonist). In Ray's study only affinity was determined at 5-HT7 receptor, and activity (i.e. efficacy) was evaluated only at 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors. No one is here to provide you with basic training in pharmacology, which you are clearly lacking, so please stop your disruptive edits. --Doctorcito (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctorcito has misrepresented a reference. The reference "Dimethyltryptamine and other hallucinogenic tryptamines exhibit substrate behavior at the serotonin uptake transporter and the vesicle monoamine transporter" (2009), found that “All of the tryptamines tested inhibited 5-HT uptake via SERT and VMAT2…”. The author noted a different finding with Nagai (2007), showing serotonin release, and speculated the difference that Nagai, “studied 5-HT uptake and release in rat brain synaptosomes, while we used human platelets …”. Medical studies have shown that changes in serotonin transporter metabolism appear to be associated with many different phenomena, including alcoholism, clinical depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), romantic love, hypertension and generalized social phobia. -- Raypurdy (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you conscious that you are ridiculing yourself in attributing to me what was originally written by contributor Nvcozzi, as anyone can verify with the history? I'll check this edit of yours later.
 * As to your other edit, changing the wording of DMT being hypothesized to shown to be an endogenous ligand for σ1 receptors (something also brought by Nvcozzi, BTW), you've just demonstrated one more time that you don't properly understand what you read: The huge differences in DMT concentrations between those determined to activate σ1 receptor, and those measured thus far in mammalian organisms preclude this to be anything else than a hypothesis (and moreover a not very plausible one). There is no mention of any measurement of endogenous DMT in the Fontanilla et al. paper. Doctorcito (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've carefully read Cozzi et al. (2009) and Nagai et al. (2007) in order to check Raypurdy's edit on transporters (a content originally brought by Nvcozzi). Despite Raypurdy displayed one more time a lack of proper understanding (manifestly ignoring that a substance may be both a serotonin uptake inhibitor and a serotonin releaser, and that as Cozzi et al. did not assay serotonin release their study couldn't contradict any results on DMT as a releaser), the edit may be justified on other grounds: While Nagai et al. 2007 showed that, among 7 tested substituted tryptamines, α-metyltryptamine was a relatively potent serotonin releaser and uptake inhibitor, they didn't test DMT. Now Cozzi et al. used this result to suggest in passing that DMT is a "potential" serotonin releaser. I'm unsure such fragile and peripheral a hypothesis is worth mentioning.
 * Taking all this into account, the passage on transporters has been reworded and more precisions added. --Doctorcito (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, no original research. Just capture the reference. Please excuse the editor owning mistake. I should have checked. -- Raypurdy (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is ample evidence in this discussion page and in the history of the article of your deliberate attempts to make uninformed and disruptive edits. Despite multiple warnings you are continuing. It may then be considered vandalism.
 * This edit of yours just add evidence: There is no original research when reporting what has been presented as a hypothesis in a couple of peer-reviewed papers, together with reliable and sourced data directly related to this hypothesis (and already discussed, at least partially, in two papers). No unpublished original conclusion is drawn, nor are they commented in an original way. --Doctorcito (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvement of the article step by step: A better breakdown
To pursue improvement of the article, a step will be better adherence to Project Pharmacology Guideline. I thus plan to create a "History" section right after the Intro, and break down the "Pharmacology" section into "Pharmacokinetics" and "Pharmacodynamics". Existing content will be adapted accordingly, and improved where necessary (notably considering previous section on pharmacokinetic data). --Doctorcito (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Can of course be improved, but hopefully it is already an improvement, and will facilitate future edits. --Doctorcito (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On the content of Franzen & Gross paper (1965)
On 18 January 2011, the following edit was made about the content of Franzen & Gross paper (1965): "'However, this report is often inaccurately interpreted as being evidence of N,N-DMT in the human body, for whatever reason, even though the report clearly states in the abstract, 'There is no information about an occurrence of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human beings.'" I have a copy of Franzen & Gross paper (which, incidentally, is a very short one). It is obvious that a misunderstanding misleading abstract was at the base of the above-cited edit (Edit: I just watched the "abstract" and I understand how it can easily mislead a reader. I've never seen an abstract so confusing and badly made). The statement "There is no information about an occurrence of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human beings" is located in the introduction-review part of the paper, i.e. it is a statement about the situation before Franzen & Gross study. After this introduction-review part, they do present their results, which unambiguously suggest "occurrence of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human beings": "'After the elaboration of sufficiently selective and quantitative procedures, which are discussed elsewhere, we were able to study the occurrence of tryptamine, N,N-dimethyltryptamine, N,N-dimethyl-5-hydroxytryptamine and 5-hydroxytryptamine in normal human blood and urine. (...) In 11 of 37 probands N,N-dimethyltryptamine was demonstrated in blood (...). In the urine 42·95 ± 8·6 μg of dimethyltryptamine/24 h were excreted.'" This should suffice to explain why the edit has been reverted. --Doctorcito (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha, thanks. I don't have the full article so it really sucks trying to figure this out. I'll add that quote to the actual citation. --Notmyhandle (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ingredient in Polyester?
Is this the same as the polyester ingredient? If so, please create a section, if not we should have a disambiguation page that links it to the proper DMT Mstefaniak (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Dimethylterephthalate. --Notmyhandle (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Dimethyl terephthalate I do not know how to create the reference, "for the chemical see Dimethyl terephthalate" Mstefaniak (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you type "DMT" in Wikipedia's search you end up at DMT which is the disambiguation page listing Dimethyl terephthalate and Dimethyltryptamine. People who end up here via search instead of at DMT are unlikely to want Dimethyl terephthalate.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Dimethyltryptamine origin
I suggest that someone who knows something about this subject visit Dimethyltryptamine origin and take from that article anything that can improve this one, then replace that page with a redirect. I don't know the first thing about this topic, so that's why I didn't do so myself. Thanks! --Mblumber (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I'll check this new page and report on its discussion page. --Doctorcito (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of that stuff is speculation - unproven hypotheses of Rick Strassman and the resulting urban myths surrounding the mysteries of the chemical and its subjective psychoactive effects. This article could discuss beliefs surrounding the pineal gland, but it seems unnecessary. --Notmyhandle (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is anything useful to be gleaned from the OR at Dimethyltryptamine origin, it would be better merged to Rick Strassman, since it seems to be essentially a re-phrasing of his work with a bit more speculation thrown in. Yunshui (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It reads like a pure OR essay at the moment. Brammers (talk/c) 09:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rereading it, I can't really find anything that could be usefully added to either this page or Strassman's. I'm going to PROD it. Yunshui (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychedelic properties
the article read: "DMT can produce powerful entheogenic experiences including intense visuals, euphoria, even true hallucinations (perceived extensions of reality)." -- 'true hallucinations' as opposed to 'false hallucinations'? -- bearing in mind that for Wikipedia verifiability trumps truth, i changed it to "...intense visuals, euphoria and hallucinations (perceived extensions of reality)." -- perhaps 'full hallucinations' or 'complete hallucinations' was the intended meaning? but methinks it's still a can of worms -- Oniscoid (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your edit is fine. What I suspect the original writer meant was that DMT actually causes hallucinations, whereas some other drugs are claimed to but actually do not. As if hallucinations are some kind of selling point. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As if hallucinations are some kind of selling point. -- You'd be surprised.
 * FWIW, I also agree with the edit. One minor point though, the distinction made was most likely between hallucinations and pseudohallucinations. --195.14.220.207 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Businessman's Lunch" or "The Businessman's Trip"
For quite awhile now there is always some sort of confusion whether DMT is referred to as "The Businessman's Lunch" or "The Businessman's Trip" resulting in countless editing of the sentence. I'd like for us to achieve a solution now to be used indefinitely. I have no opinion on this matter and am of an indifferent stance. Please state which one is the true form. ' Epicurus B. (Don't talk) ' 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On Google Books, lunch gets 71 hits, trip gets 249, and high gets 125. On GScholar, lunch gets 6, trip 12, high 4. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as "trip" gets more attention in the links you provided I propose the following solution:

"...reportedly referred to DMT as "the businessman's trip" —sometimes as 'the businessman's lunch'—..."

Or something of that pattern, different formulation of the individual words perhaps. I'm open to ideas. ' Epicurus B. (Don't talk) ' 07:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of content that breaches WP:OR and WP:RS
Content repeatedly inserted by is sourced to non-authoritative blogs and personal testimony from various web fora. The material also seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In my view this material should be removed, as it is non-encyclopedic and and contains claims that are inadequately sourced. - MrX 00:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced and poorly sourced content
I have removed some of the unsourced and poorly sourced content from this article per WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:V. If anyone objects, please discuss it here. - MrX 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How is what i edited in, and put links referring to, in any way unsourced or poorly sourced content? What i wrote, was merely a summary, one which correctly details existing knowledge circulating around the DMT community. If you "create and edit articles of which I have some subject matter interest, or that I believe could benefit from my help", then SURELY if you're managing the Dimethyltryptamine article then you are or should be aware that what i am simply trying to edit into the article is very well true. If you believe it's not true, then prove me wrong (when there is undeniably proof to back up a smokable herb containing DMT to be smoked instead of vaporized, that is either smoked on it's own or mixed with an MAO-A containing herb.

The reason i include what references i do, is because it's not like Changa/Enhanced herb has a lot of reference points and studies done on it like with Ayahuasca or pure DMT, but just because it has no scientifically based paperwork, doesn't mean it's not an actual thing. If you're a reasonable guy, then surely, you know what i'm saying is true. If there was a part of an Encyclopedia for DMT, then surely one would include the fact that while it can be extracted into crystal form, it doesn't necessarily have to be smoked in crystal form and can be put onto herbs for smoking in a regular pipe. From there, if one mixes in Harmala alkaloids, it is referred to as Changa, however if it contains no Harmala alkaloids, it is simply called Enhanced Leaf. Everyone who has a particular interest in DMT, after looking into it, would def. agree with what i just said.

And when i say there are other things on the page that contain no references, i am specifically referring to anything that says "Citation Needed" or "Clarification Needed" beside it. If something says that yet is allowed onto the page (or any of the many other pages that also have that), then a simple summary of smoked herbal DMT can be put onto the page. If you don't like how i'm wording something, then by all means, word it how you like. But we are talking facts here, so please help share the facts, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and also, THIS IS INCORRECT!!!! Which is WHY i keep removing it. "Use of DMT was first encountered in the United States in the 1960s, when it was known as a “businessman's lunch” because of the rapid onset of action when smoked (2 to 5 minutes) and short duration of action (20 minutes to 1 hour)". DMT when smoked most CERTAINLY does not last 20 minutes, not even 10, it lasts about 7 minutes (or so most say). However, when it is mixed with Harmala alkaloids, like i have been trying to edit into the article from the get go, that the Harmala alkaloids potentiate and extend the DMT, and one can stretch the DMT duration out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's better to bring your issues here to the talk page before edit warring. It is disruptive behavior. The proper thing to do here is to allow discussion of the sources you used for the content that you provided. A couple of policies: WP:OR and WP:MEDRS are relevant here. has explained why the information you added and the sources you used are inconsistent with those. Online forum threads are not considered reliable sources. Also, you cannot add content in a way that is not directly in the sources you provide.  Teammm  $talk email$ 05:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, i took out the sources and left the text. That shouldn't be a problem since, like i have stated previously, there are things on this article AND many others that contain no references but are STILL on the page. If you and i can not agree on the information itself, WHICH IS TRUE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS ARTICLE, then i shall continue re-adding what needs to be on there, and if you must block me, then so be it. But you're being HYPOCRITICAL, and are basically saying you say what is put on Wikipedia, and that you allow your personal bias to get in the way of FACTS.

IT IS A FACT DMT CAN BE EVAPORATED ONTO HERBS TO BE SMOKED IN A TOBACCO PIPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What effing part of that do you not understand? Facts deserve to be on Wikipedia, right? Then why not allow them? If the sources are too shitty for you, then leave the sources out but leave the main message on there. That's it. I am done arguing with you stupid editors here at Wikipedia that apparently are so uptight about what is put on a PUBLIC encyclopedia which people goto to get a brief rundown on a certain subject. What i said deserves to be on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.83.49 (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take some time to read our core policies about sourcing, collaborative editing, original research and civility. Links have already been provided. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore them when you edit here.


 * We require facts to be verifiable in reliable sources. Let me suggest that we take each purported fact that you wish to add to the article, and it's corresponding source, and discuss whether or not the fact is supported by a reliable source. If you see material in the article that is unsourced, you can remove it as well, but please use an edit summary so that others know why you removed it.


 * With respect to "Use of DMT was first encountered in the United States in the 1960s, when it was known as a “businessman's lunch” because of the rapid onset of action when smoked (2 to 5 minutes) and short duration of action (20 minutes to 1 hour)" that you removed, that material is sourced to a book. If you wish to refute the reliability of that source, then please present your reasons here, or at the reliable source notice board.


 * Please try to communicate calmly. Rants tend to gain very little traction here and only discredit your arguments. Also, please use edit summaries and sign your posts by typing four tildes like this: ~ after your posts which will insert your signature automatically. - MrX 13:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More original research
I would like to invite to explain why they believe that unsourced, original research content should be included in this article over the protests of other editors. - MrX 19:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...that is when they get back from their break. - MrX 19:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Concern over neutrality/clarification request
I'm not sure where to start, but I have concerns that there may be neutrality issues with the current article. In particular the following:

"It is originally derived from the essential amino acid tryptophan and ultimately produced by the enzyme INMT during normal metabolism. "

This claim does not correlate with the given referance, which makes a far more modest claim.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the substance can clarify or point to a more conclusive reference?

Thank you.

Anaffen21 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
We've cleaned the parapsychology and related articles of pseudoscientific claims that violate the laws of physics. On the grounds that this article proposes several times that these hallucinations are real, and that real entities are being met, one should ask if this is getting a free pass due to the source which people might find likable (Terence McKenna), or due to the article being co-opted by DMT users. The mainstream scientific belief is that these are hallucinations inside the brain, and involve no "parallel dimension" hogwash, and the article should reflect that, not extravagant claims by DMT trippers. --Mindwedge (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please be bold and make the changes you think are necessary.  ChemNerd (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article and rushed to the Talk section to see if someone had pointed this out. I am glad to see that there was already consensus for this, and I took the necessary measures to improve this article.Risentheft (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Two out of three of these accounts appear to have been created very recently... Suspicious... As has been noted in the revision history, DMT is not a dangerous drug, and is better described as a psychedelic than a hallucinogen. CloudDriver (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't contribute to Wikipedia, but this article was so bad that I felt the need to join the endeavor. It was unscientific and full of superstition. It was disgusting for a page about a chemical compound.--Risentheft (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that experts in most civilized countries deemed it dangerous enough to be illegal.--Risentheft (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of these "experts" also consider psilocybin, LSD, and cannabis to be "dangerous enough to be illegal," but not the same of alcohol. Alcohol is far more dangerous and destructive than any of these. See Drug harmfulness. CloudDriver (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your user page looks surprisingly well-thought-out to have been made only ~30 minutes ago. Again, suspicious... TonerCartridge2 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't grant for a second that it isn't dangerous. Experts all over the world have deemed it dangerous enough to be illegal. Perhaps, alcohol should be illegal too, but that isn't relevant here. When you revert back the whole edit, you're also restoring mysticism and pseudoscientific claims that violate the laws of physics and have no place in an encyclopedia. Conspiracy theories and superstition have no place here.--Risentheft (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should only remove those parts of the article, then. A better idea, however, would be to add in opposing viewpoints (cited, of course) which you find more suitable. TonerCartridge2 (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps, alcohol should be illegal too, but that isn't relevant here." It is absolutely relevant, because it calls into question the judgement of these "experts." Many other experts, such as the ones cited in the article I linked, suggest alcohol is far more dangerous than any psychedelic, or so called "hallucinogenic" drug is. One might begin to wonder if the "experts" who made these substances illegal either knew what they were talking about or had good intentions in doing so. DMT is not dangerous. CloudDriver (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

These claims are more often than not part of the same sentences. The paranormal claims have absolutely no place here and that isn't disputable. Regarding the claims that it is safe, an encyclopedia should err on the side of caution and trust the countless experts who deemed it dangerous enough to be illegal, and not the view of a handful of enthusiasts. It is clear that this edition should stand until proven otherwise.--Risentheft (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is clear that this edition should stand until proven otherwise." I wouldn't say so, Moishe. You should at least provide a citation saying that DMT is dangerous. I have already pointed to an article suggesting it isn't. CloudDriver (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Numerous panels of experts in dozens of countries with countless experts supersede one or two articles by a handful of enthusiasts. And what's the meaning of calling me "Moishe"? I hope it's not antisemitic drivel.--Risentheft (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a citation. "I hope it's not antisemitic drivel." What does "Moishe," or any of this have to do with antisemitism? It's similar to calling someone "buddy," is it not? Very weak tactics, seriously. CloudDriver (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Refer to the legal status section.--Risentheft (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the legal status section suggests DMT is dangerous - only that it is illegal. Refer to the article linked by CloudDriver ElfMatrix (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Things aren't made illegal at random. DMT is illegal because it's dangerous and noxious.--Risentheft (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, just read your question about antisemitic drivel above. Ask yourself this, Moishe: Were things in Nazi Germany never made "illegal at random?" What makes you so sure nothing could be made "illegal at random" today? Provide a citation suggesting DMT is dangerous, or quit saying it is. Also, it is a joke that you consider this version to be "less controversial" than the previous one, considering the debate that has been sparked by this revision. I'm beginning to think maybe you are Jewish... Haha just kidding. ElfMatrix (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your jokes are tasteless. We aren't talking about irrational fascist authoritarian regimes. We are talking about democratic regimes basing their decisions on the opinions of qualified experts. Follow the citations on DMT being illegal, and the citations on the classification DMT receives, and what those classifications entail. DMT is illegal because it's considered dangerous by qualified experts.--Risentheft (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits are tasteless. Following, Controlled Substances Act, we can read that the criteria for a substance being placed in Schedule I are as follows: (1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. ... That DMT has a potential for abuse is outright false (it has potential for use), but even if it did, that is not the same as a drug being dangerous. Still, I find no citation stating how exactly DMT is regarded as being dangerous. If you could provide me that, everyone here would be pleased, especially you. "DMT is illegal because it's considered dangerous by qualified experts." You need to make a case for DMT being dangerous rather than this talk of "qualified experts." What do you consider makes a "qualified expert" anyway? ElfMatrix (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What you quoted proved me right, just as I said. And just like that, which is just for the United States, there is something similar for every other country that made it illegal on the basis of expert opinion.--Risentheft (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I quoted does not prove you right. ElfMatrix (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"(1) [DMT] has a high potential for abuse. (2) [DMT] has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of [DMT] under medical supervision" --Risentheft (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those things mean dangerous. DMT is not dangerous by any measure. ElfMatrix (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, DMT does not even match those criteria. ...unless you (or anyone) can provide evidence that it does. ElfMatrix (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Countless experts in most civilized countries already did, thus the classification.--Risentheft (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Provide a citation to the studies that were done on the substance which show that it matches the criteria, let alone that it is dangerous. ElfMatrix (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Refer to the citations on its legal status and classification.--Risentheft (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * These citations do not lead to any evidence of DMT meeting these criteria let alone being dangerous. ElfMatrix (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The world's foremost experts disagree with you, "ElfMatrix". Your theory that it is merely a conspiracy against DMT is asinine. It has been classified as illegal and dangerous by multiple independent panels of pertinent experts all over the world. These experts based their decision on studies and other scientific criteria. These experts clearly surpass your level of expertise. You are the one who is in the wrong, not them.--Risentheft (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "You are the one who is in the wrong, not them." No, I am right, and both you and these "experts" are wrong. Provide a citation for any one of your claims, rather than just make the claims. If you are in the right, this should not be difficult, so just do it, ffs. ElfMatrix (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: Contributions from the extensive sockfarm of a blocked user struck for context. DocFergus (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)