I could conceivably have predisposed tolerance, but I don't have predisposed tolerance to other 4-sub tryptamines so that's reason to think I don't. My argument is all about what there is more reason to believe. I don't think it makes sense to treat these reports as equivalent "votes" for activity or no activity at this point as Dwayne is insisting he has reason to do simply because there is two for and two against. That notion of equivalence is what I'm arguing against. I'm not arguing for what absolutely must be, but what there is most practical reason to think.
When investigating a new experimental treatment you assume no effect to guard against Type I error, or finding an effect when their is none. That's the worst type of mistake you can make because it leads to further experimentation in vain (in this case people spending money and time on something they hope is effective but isn't). I'm arguing for inactivity because the consequences of me doing so are less negative for others than the alternative. That's why in the legal system innocence is assumed and the burden of prove lies on the prosecution, so they don't find an innocent person guilty. 4-ho-MPT has been bought by enough people already to get sufficient numbers of reports in to reach a conclusion. My position protects people who are debating buying it now from wasting their money when the fact is if it is active it will be restocked and they'll have more opportunities to get it later. Findings of no effect are to be weighed more heavily than findings of effects from the very start for this reason. That's the first reason I don't think our reports should be treated as equivalent "votes" that cancel each other out just because there is two of each.
The second is because the two "experiments" that found no effects are using more of the "treatment" than the other two experiments (100 mg and 50 mg versus 10!). I mean, that's not a small difference. More treatment should be assumed to equal more effect. That's a solid sensible reason that we know is in effect in this instance (we in fact did take much higher doses), while Dwayne's ideas about profound instant tolerance are mere suppositions that we don't know happened and that there is actually reason to assume didn't (my never experiencing variance in effects with tryptamine rectal dosing). There's more reason to assume that what is known to be true has a real effect in this instance than to assume that some anomaly about rectal absorption not working and causing instant exponential tolerance is in effect, or the idea that I have a predisposed tolerance for 4-ho-MPT that has not been displayed for similar 4-sub compounds is having an influence. It's about sticking with what is known for sure about this case and what there are simple reasons for rather than treating suppositions that have no clear support in this instance as if they are equally meaningful counterpoints. I don't deny that alternative explanations are in the realm of possibility, just that there is as much reason to entertain them as the one's I've given in favor of suspecting non-activity.
As far as talking about why 4-ho-MPT shouldn't be active when other 4-sub tryptamines are, there are numerous instances of compounds that look good on paper that don't work out. As fractal fountain notes, Shulgin's report is ambiguous and totally within the possibility of being placebo effect (which is a powerful, physiologically measurable, well-established effect, whereas again, we don't know that tryptamines cause instant profound tolerance such that 10 times the reported effective dose should be rendered inert -- that's not established).
We will indeed find out what the truth is when more reports come in. My point is about what it makes sense to assume and treat as quality evidence in assessing the reports at hand right now.
Last edited:
