3 ms·

It's obvious that you haven't actually read the book and have some kind of prejudice against the substance. Try actually reading it before acting so irrational.

It's obvious that you haven't actually read the book and have some kind of prejudice against the substance. Try actually reading it before acting so irrational. If you're going to present a debate then at least have the decency to know what you're arguing about. The entire thing is about an approved scientific study into DMT. Much of the book actually goes into the legal troubles they faced setting up such an experiment. The entire book is about various patients undergoing experiments in their reaction to the substance and the like. It's not just a bunch of kids in a basement with something they think is DMT. The actual DMT itself is provided with permission from the government and all the findings are thoroughly documented. One can only assume you've just seen the short film and palmed off the book as the same. It's not.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Actually, I'm extremely pro-psychedelics. I'm familiar with the book, and have had to deal with plenty of close friends and family that read it and then go spouting off nonsense. While I'm not against documenting "experiments" as subjective experiences (ala Erowid), drawing out any further conclusions is counter-productive. Strassman, for instance, "documents" things like "Hey, the pineal gland is usually visible around 49-days into a fetus's development. And hey, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says 49 days is how long reincarnation takes!" This kind of mystical tripe is unscientific and reinforces the stereotype that psychedelic users are illogical, new-age hippies. I feel this way about a lot of "drug" researchers. In their zeal, they lack rigour, and they do the community a disservice. A lot of the LSD proponents of decades passed also fall into this category. I get it, psychedelics are awesome, and can be very beneficial. But just cause you tripped really hard, no, you don't suddenly understand the universe.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  That passage you referenced does exist, sure I'll give you that but it's a lot more than that. He actually says something along the lines of 'Its probably a coincidence.' I'm almost certain he doesn't believe there is any correlation. The rest of the book has a lot of useful information

MichaelGG 13y ago

Actually, I'm extremely pro-psychedelics. I'm familiar with the book, and have had to deal with plenty of close friends and family that read it and then go spouting off nonsense. While I'm not against documenting "experiments" as subjective experiences (ala Erowid), drawing out any further conclusions is counter-productive. Strassman, for instance, "documents" things like "Hey, the pineal gland is usually visible around 49-days into a fetus's development. And hey, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says 49 days is how long reincarnation takes!" This kind of mystical tripe is unscientific and reinforces the stereotype that psychedelic users are illogical, new-age hippies. I feel this way about a lot of "drug" researchers. In their zeal, they lack rigour, and they do the community a disservice. A lot of the LSD proponents of decades passed also fall into this category. I get it, psychedelics are awesome, and can be very beneficial. But just cause you tripped really hard, no, you don't suddenly understand the universe.

andyhmltn 13y ago
That passage you referenced does exist, sure I'll give you that but it's a lot more than that. He actually says something along the lines of 'Its probably a coincidence.' I'm almost certain he doesn't believe there is any correlation. The rest of the book has a lot of useful information