Has anyone tried making an Ayahuasca tincture for microdosing?

[Transform]

By the way, after reducing the most recent batch and filtering out the liquid I was left with a small glob of vodka infused SR/ACRB paste. What do you guys think I should do with it? Cut it up and swallow the pieces? Put it in a pipe and smoke it? Dilute it with more vodka and microdose it? Options, options...

EDIT: ooOOooR maybe I could toss it into my dehydrator, grind it to a powder and put it in capsules? Anyone ever try that? Kind of wondering if it would end up being too rubbery to powderize.

You could wash the paste with either more vodka, to collect a dilute tincture, or with water if you had an immediate use for a dilute brew. The dilute tincture could either be used for microdosing as you suggest [although I'm somewhat sceptical of slamming vodka shots for that purpose…] or just use it as pre-loaded vodka for making the next tincture.

Or do both - one small vodka rinse to pull out a more concentrated fraction, and another vodka rinse as a pre-load for the next tincture.

If you have access to vacuum filtration these mechanical losses would be less of a concern, although tannin-rich sludge tends to clog the filter so, meh.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

Great idea! Ended up tossing it into a mason jar with some vodka for use with the next batch.

Anyway I was browsing the other threads and saw someone mention that high tannin content was toxic and unhealthy. I consume a lot of tannins with my brews, so in the interest of not killing myself I decided to do a little research:

Found this study regarding the benefits of the tannins in various types of Ayahuasca brews:
Ayahuasca Beverages: Phytochemical Analysis and Biological Properties

Turns out that the phenols present in the brews give them antioxidant properties similar to green tea or red wine (though maybe not as strong).

Table 3: Antioxidant properties of the samples
From this table we can see that hostilis has the strongest antioxidant effect, followed by viridis then caapi. Harmala(rue) seems to have the weakest effect.

The phenols also have anti inflammatory properties:

Table 4: Anti-inflammatory activity results
This table might be a little confusing because smaller number = better. The takeaway is that hostilis and harmala (rue) have the highest anti inflammatory activity by far compared to caapi and viridis. Basically you can achieve the same anti inflamatory effect with 4.4 times less rue compared to caapi.

Also the conclusion mentions that water was used to extract instead of organic solvent, meaning this study is more likely to reflect what's in your average brew.

TLDR:
Tannins have benefits! Syrian rue is the king of anti-inflammation (with hostilis a close second) while hostilis has the strongest antioxidant effect. For very strong anti-inflammation with strong antioxidation combine rue with hostilis. To emphasize antioxidation at the expense of anti-inflammation combine caapi with hostilis.

Personal note: I haven't had any stomach pains or cramping with my own sediment heavy brews but I always prepare them in a pressure cooker, which might have something to do with that.

 

[blig-blug]

Tannins have benefits!Syrian rue is the king of anti-inflammation (with hostilis a close second) while hostilis has the strongest antioxidant effect. For very strong anti-inflammation with strong antioxidation combine rue with hostilis. To emphasize antioxidation at the expense of anti-inflammation combine caapi with hostilis.

This comes from an LLM, right? The information itself seems correct, but talking about "the king of anti-inflammation", "hostilis a close second", etc. from an in vitro study seems quite unwarranted (and yes, there are other studies that point in the same direction). And even though in this case it's not a problem, one can't just assume that by combining two plants with different properties one will obtain the sum of both properties, interactions can and do happen (Ayahuasca being a good example of it).
This is all to say that it's not a good idea to present practical advice given by LLMs without warning of its origin.

Personal note: I haven't had any stomach pains or cramping with my own sediment heavy brews but I always prepare them in a pressure cooker, which might have something to do with that.

It seems to depend on personal sensitivity. They cause me problems while not to my girlfriend, and we have had the brews made in different ways.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

Nope, that was written by me 100%. Not a single line of that came out of an LLM. But I'll take that as an indirect compliment.

This is all to say that it's not a good idea to present practical advice given by LLMs without warning of its origin.

The links to the tables are RIGHT THERE in the post. What are you talking about? If you really don't want to read the links, then copy and paste the whole thing into GPT and let it read it for you.

And even though in this case it's not a problem, one can't just assume that by combining two plants with different properties one will obtain the sum of both properties, interactions can and do happen (Ayahuasca being a good example of it).

The combined effects are listed in the tables, though table 4 is missing some data. Just read the tables!

 

[blig-blug]

Nope, that was written by me 100%.

Sorry in that case. The presence of links means nothing by the way, they have no issues searching and summarizing from links. The reason I assumed it was a LLM was because those jumps from some preliminary evidence in a study to listicle-like practical recommendations are typical of them.

Just read the tables!

I did, and most of the paper itself. The paper is talking about potential therapeutic effects, so those dosing recommendations aren't supported.

The main point is not that it was written by an LLM, but that it makes unwarranted assumptions (and gives practical advice!) based on an in vitro study. For example, you can't jump from "the combination of B. caapi and M. hostilis shows better scores in an in vitro radical scavenging test" to "to emphasize antioxidation, take B. caapi and M. hostilis".

The authors say as much themselves. About the anti-oxidant potential test:

This colorimetric assay is widely used because it is quick and easy, consisting in the evaluation of the potential for free radical scavenging of the samples

About the anti-inflammation potential test:

Although this method is not a direct test, it is often used to assess the anti-inflammatory potential of plant samples

So it's a good idea to also read the text surrounding the tables.

It's an interesting paper about evidence for some potential effects. To go from there to the king of this and that, combine X and Y to get effect Z at the expense of effect W, is unwarranted. Regardless of whether an LLM or a human wrote it.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

I did, and most of the paper itself. The paper is talking about potential therapeutic effects, so those dosing recommendations aren't supported.

Yes, after I called you out on not having read it the first time

The main point is not that it was written by an LLM, but that it makes unwarranted assumptions (and gives practical advice!) based on an in vitro study.

It was not, and yes the fact that the testing didn't involve actual people is a valid criticism.

Seems like what happened here is that you initially glossed the paper over, went straight to an ad hominem attack, got offended when I called you out on that, then went back and trawled the paper for more ways to attack me. The only way this makes sense is if you interpreted the initial post as a personal attack, which it was not.

(and yes, there are other studies that point in the same direction)

Instead of flinging spit balls, you could have directed that energy into collaboratively helping me get to ground truth by citing the other studies that point in the same direction. Like this IN VIVO rat study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016643282500107X

The presence of links means nothing by the way, they have no issues searching and summarizing from links.

Well, hop to it then! Shouldn't take much effort. Are we done flexing now?

 

[blig-blug]

Seems like what happened here is that you initially glossed the paper over, went straight to an ad hominem attack, got offended when I called you out on that, then went back and trawled the paper for more ways to attack me.

Not really. If you read my first comment, you'll see that I point out exactly the same issue, something that it's not really possible to do without taking a look at the paper. Also, my comment wasn't meant as an attack.

you could have directed that energy into collaboratively helping me get to ground truth by citing the other studies that point in the same direction

I already mentioned that there are more studies that point in the same direction.

My main interest was in pointing out the unwarranted reasoning. I would have bet money what I was quoting had been at least partially LLM generated, and I was wrong. I should have omitted it, as it was not integral to the point I wanted to make, and has made you very defensive.

If you read my posts, you'll see that attacking people or "flexing" is not something I usually do. In this case, I made a wrong assumption. As I already said, I'm sorry about that. You can put the sword back on its sheath.
The main point I wanted to make still stands, and if I understand correctly you do agree with it.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

I should have omitted it, as it was not integral to the point I wanted to make, and has made you very defensive.

You can put the sword back on its sheath.

You know this kind of gaslighting is why people dislike reddit right? Okay, we've struck an accord. The peace treaty has been signed.

 

[blig-blug]

You know this kind of gaslighting is why people dislike reddit right?

That's not what I'm trying to do. My obvious impulse is to respond back in the same way you wrote, but I don't think that will lead anywhere good. Do you think that would be better? How do you suggest I respond in a way that acknowledges the part where I was wrong while pointing out what I meant to say?

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

you could have directed that energy into collaboratively helping me get to ground truth by citing the other studies that point in the same direction. Like this IN VIVO rat study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016643282500107X

Well that's a start. I actually would appreciate it.

 

[blig-blug]

That doesn't convey any of what I wanted to say, though. I'm not against helping you compile info on the antioxidant or antiinflammatory effects of huasca brew plants, I've been quite interested myself on the topic (mostly about harmalas). It's just orthogonal to what I wanted to say.

Just to be clear, in my previous comment I wasn't saying that you were defensive as some kind of accusation. It's not unreasonable to be so after my erroneous assumption, to which I was too quick. I was saying that it's unnecessary because nothing was meant as an attack on you. That's it.

About the effects of huasca brew plants, you may find interesting the book "Harmal: the genus Peganum", by Lansky and others. It has some sections on the antioxidant and antiinflammatory effects of both rue and harmala alkaloids, plus other effects such as anti-tumor. It's a good starting point.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

That doesn't convey any of what I wanted to say, though. I'm not against helping you compile info on the antioxidant or antiinflammatory effects of huasca brew plants, I've been quite interested myself on the topic (mostly about harmalas). It's just orthogonal to what I wanted to say.

Just to be clear, in my previous comment I wasn't saying that you were defensive as some kind of accusation. It's not unreasonable to be so after my erroneous assumption, to which I was too quick. I was saying that it's unnecessary because nothing was meant as an attack on you. That's it.

About the effects of huasca brew plants, you may find interesting the book "Harmal: the genus Peganum", by Lansky and others. It has some sections on the antioxidant and antiinflammatory effects of both rue and harmala alkaloids, plus other effects such as anti-tumor. It's a good starting point.

Yes I know what you wanted to say: The study was in vitro and thus drawing conclusions from it was premature.

Anyway I'm glad we were able to sort this out. I'll have to check out that book. Thank you.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

After giving it some thought, this exchange has really opened my eyes to the fact that this forum seems to prioritize social clout over exchanging information. Since I have no interest in participating in a popularity contest, I'm requesting to have this entire thread deleted. There's really nothing in here that an AI couldn't tell you anyway. Thank you very much.

 

[northape]

After giving it some thought, this exchange has really opened my eyes to the fact that this forum seems to prioritize social clout over exchanging information. Since I have no interest in participating in a popularity contest, I'm requesting to have this entire thread deleted. There's really nothing in here that an AI couldn't tell you anyway. Thank you very much.

Why delete it? I think it's a decent thread. You two went on a tangent at the end of it, but the whole idea goes beyond personal differences.

Look past small Nexus idiosyncrasies and see the core of this forum. Why jump to conclusions and create black and white ideas? We're here to learn. Facing others is part of learning. No need to agree with anyone; test everything yourself first. I thought it was a given. You're quite popular, btw

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

Why delete it? I think it's a decent thread. You two went on a tangent at the end of it, but the whole idea goes beyond personal differences.

Look past small Nexus idiosyncrasies and see the core of this forum. Why jump to conclusions and create black and white ideas? We're here to learn. Facing others is part of learning. No need to agree with anyone; test everything yourself first. I thought it was a given. You're quite popular, btw

Okay, let's put it this way. I'm not yet liberated enough to not eat a bag of candy if I was holding it in my hand. Let's put it a little higher on the shelf okay?

The process isn't exactly rocket science. You take traditional ayahuasca, reduce it down and add just enough alcohol to preserve it. If you want to preserve the formula you can take credit for it after this post is deleted, or transform, or blig blug for all I care.

Doesn't matter who disseminates it. If someone with DID invented something, who does the patent go to?

 

[northape]

I see. You're in your own story about what is what in the world. Sure, you're free to do anything you want, as is anybody else.
My advice would be to take a deep breath and let it all be, whatever bit you are where to look. It's not even about this thread or any person involved.
Look at what is bothering you and why. A small hint: no one else is in your mind besides you. Forget liberation; be a mature person first.
Written with as much love as I'm capable of gathering at the moment

 

[blig-blug]

Doesn't matter who disseminates it

Then there's no need to delete the thread.

Misunderstandings and arguments happen, that's a fact of life. The Nexus is not an exception, and participation here is not mandatory.

Deletion of threads is done at the moderators' discretion. If you want this deleted contact one of them, and they will do it if they deem it fit.

 

[TranscendentalOctopus]

@Varallo You're a moderator aren't you? Please delete this thread.

 

[Varallo]

@Varallo You're a moderator aren't you? Please delete this thread.

At this moment, I see no reason to remove this thread. What I read here is a thoughtful discussion that may have had a few difficult moments, but throughout, everyone responded with sincerity, care, and respect. Any misunderstandings were addressed and clarified in a constructive way.

In fact, I think this thread is a good example for others of how we communicate here at the Nexus, with honesty, kindness, and a willingness to listen. Written communication can sometimes blur the line between what is said explicitly and what is meant implicitly, and some nuances may get lost. Still, I believe that in this case, everyone managed to express themselves clearly and respectfully.

I hope that you therefore understand that I’ve decided to leave the thread as it is.