The issue here is quite simple: we have a person stating they are an absolute authority on Curandero's, and that people have to either take their word as gospel or get lost.
The DMT-Nexus is all about exploring and sharing ideas and we love new information. With this new information however, also comes to responsibility to validate it's content, and people posting this new information should be willing to answer questions in reasonable terms backed by solid evidence. So when a person states that other people cannot question their words, it factually destroys this validation process, and as such we cannot allow that to propagate on our platform.
This brings me to your "the only reason we know about DMT is because of the Curandero's preserving the knowledge", that is quite a statement and therefor needs an extensive explanation complemented by solid evidence and reasoning, else it just reads as another buzz-phrase trying to stick on a wall.
The Traveler
Traveler . . . respectfully, you suggest notions and words I have
NEVER used in any of my posts. I am going to call you to account for this by asking that you prove your assertions to me and all in this forum, in
actual posts where I have expressed any of the following . . .
> I'm an
"absolute authority." Never said it. I have stated that I possess twenty years of collaborating with many Elders and Curanderos, and that's way different.
> I have never said my contributions are
"gospel" and never once have told people to
"get lost." I've pushed back and tried to explain but never this.
> I have never once said people
"cannot question my words." Show me. Yes, to "validate the content" is important, but for non-scientific data, the validation process is different than proving Quarks exist, (which by the way is not proven at all). I shared my contributions as hypotheses, not theories or facts.
> So ancient methods tested for eons by masters of plant medicine have no merit here? That's like saying because consciousness is not measurable, by exploring it we are destroying the scientific validation process. I think not.
> And your last false assumption, and put down of one of your long-standing members, that he had better prove his statement and back it up with solid evidence, is simply appalling. . . and my friend, as time goes on, if you maintain this rigid and all-knowing empirical stance here, you will find yourself "traveling on" to a different means of employment . . . which honestly I do not wish upon you.
Back up, take a breath, and reflect for a moment here because you're digging yourself a hole, which for us Travelers just ain’t good news.