• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto

Owsley's wife and James Fadiman (inventor of microdosing) don't seem to approve of MDMA

red22

red22

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
2,061
MAPS, that works on what it calls “the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana”, claims that marijuana and MDMA are psychedelics in the same way any other mind-altering substance or activity is. “Dreams are psychedelic, meditation can be psychedelic. Non-drug techniques like Holotropic Breathwork, hyperventilation, ecstatic dancing — all sorts of things are psychedelics,” says Rick Doblin, the MAPS founder, in a video clip.

Fadiman does not agree. He insists that MDMA is not a psychedelic. “It is not even a borderline psychedelic,” he says, “[but] is often confused or classed with psychedelics because most of the work done with it, therapeutically, is done by MAPS that also works with psychedelics.”

"In pursuit of altered states of consciousness". Momina Manzoor Khan and Manal Khan. The Herald. Originally published as "Mind over matter" in December, 2018.


With LSD, you take microdoses, not even one milligram. I don’t think people get that you need to only take so little LSD to get a psychedelic effect. It’s tiny, and therefore it doesn’t have a negative effect like MDMA and ketamine. It doesn’t raise the blood pressure like MDMA and doesn’t cause cardiac arrhythmias. MDMA is not a psychedelic, it’s an amphetamine. The “A” in MDMA stands for “amphetamine.”

Rhoney Gissen Stanley. The Secret History of the LSD Trade. Annie Oak Harrison. 2023-04-15. Lucid News.


MDMA is certainly damaging after 25 years of empirical research: a reply and refutation of Doblin et al. (2014). Parrott, A. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 29(2), 109–119. DOI: 10.1002/hup.2390

 
Last edited:
MDMA is one of the most worthless quasi-psychedelics.

@Metahewpiedawg (Harrison Pendergrass). 2025-09-05. twitter.

May as well do speed.

twitter
 
"With LSD, you take microdoses, not even one milligram. I don’t think people get that you need to only take so little LSD to get a psychedelic effect. It’s tiny, and therefore it doesn’t have a negative effect like MDMA and ketamine. It doesn’t raise the blood pressure like MDMA and doesn’t cause cardiac arrhythmias"

This is clearly false. Having high potency at target receptors doesn't mean having no side effects, or even necessarily a lower incidence of side effects. And LSD does raise blood pressure to a degree. Furthermore he says that "people don't get" how tiny the doses are. Everyone who takes LSD knows that. What a pathetic instance of self-aggrandization.

There are lethal poisions active and deadly in the microgram range.

Also he's confusing microdosing (sub threshold dose) with the low amount required due to the potency of the molecule. A dose of say 500 mcg LSD is indeed "not even one milligram" but it's a dose twenty-fold higher than an actual microdose.

This amount of blatant misinformation is enough to discredit anything this guy has to say about the subject. Also microdosing is bullshit and if he's the "inventor" (lmfao) of that, this should diminish his credibility further. Especially in conjunction with his own extreme confusion about the concept of microdosing.

I'm not a fan of MAPS but this guy is bullshit.
 
Last edited:
red22 said:
MDMA is not a psychedelic, it’s an amphetamine. The “A” in MDMA stands for “amphetamine.”
Click to expand...

There are plenty of amphetamines that are also psychedelics.

I agree that MDMA is not a psychedelic, but it is an entheogenic entactogen/empathogen , it's somehow similar to a stimulant but also different.
 
Last edited:
Phobos said:
There are plenty of amphetamines that are also psychedelics.

I agree that MDMA is not a psychedelic, but it is an entheogenic, it's somehow similar to a stimulant but also different.
Click to expand...
Entheogenic refer s to psychedelic, as you wrote a stimulant but different.
Didn t you rather refer to Entactogen [or emphatogen].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entactogen

That s how i would describe MDMA, a different class as psychedelic s.
And Amphetamine s. Bk-MDMA even more, it s stoney.
And almost guaranteed euphoria.
 

I do find it funny when people who aren't medicinal chemists claim to understand HOW a drug works. Because in truth - often we don't REALLY know. It's safety and effacacy that matter. The exact mechanism is interesting, but not vital. Quite often new research will uncover the fact that our previous understanding of even common medicines was in fact wrong.

Of course, these are people deeply invested in the concept of 'microdosing' and I feel sure have a business model with them at the top.

But could I ask one simple apposite question? If someone takes 200 'microdoses' of LSD, isn't that just the same as taking LSD? Which last time I looked, was a Schedule 1/Class A drug.
 
Last edited:
BTW as long ago as the 1970s a Japanese (?) team tritiated LSD by simply reacting BOL-148 with tritated sodium borohydride so we 100% CAN see where a 'microdose' actually ends up in the body - especially with the huge advances in PET.

Kind of odd that such a well known fact somehow eludes people who one assumes would benefit the most from KNOWING rather than just claiming.
 
Last edited:
red22 said:
With LSD, you take microdoses, not even one milligram. I don’t think people get that you need to only take so little LSD to get a psychedelic effect. It’s tiny, and therefore it doesn’t have a negative effect like MDMA and ketamine. It doesn’t raise the blood pressure like MDMA and doesn’t cause cardiac arrhythmias. MDMA is not a psychedelic, it’s an amphetamine. The “A” in MDMA stands for “amphetamine.”
Click to expand...
The context its written, i am no scientist so leave it to actual more knowlagable to check. OK i am a lazy ass today. Might that indeed indicate a micro-dose 10 mcg.

"not even one milligram" so not even 1000 mcg. That is at least Ime 10 trip s,
so is 100 mcg. Even 75 mcg my threshold dose a micro-dose, :greencookoo:
technically according this writing it seem s. A moron wrote it or mis-interpenetrated it.

While 100 mcg [1/10 mentioned] you trip.

Ps they should investigate that @4DQSAR microdosing is weird
 
emkee_reinvented said:
Ps they should investigate that @4DQSAR microdosing is weird
Click to expand...

Yeah - I posted a link to a meta-analysis of all the studies. And in no case was a formal double-blind study conducted although there are case reports of people intentially blinding by mixing up trips with paper containing just tiny doses... and they were not convinced.

The placebo effect is powerful. There were even trials where patients were given one or two placebo pills... and the ones who took two reported larger improvements.
 
James Fadiman has done so much work with lsd. He promotes micro dosing or has given seminars on it. MDMA definitely has psychedelic effects felt, along with stimulate effects

It’s the one drug that I may be genetically affected by more than others,like lsd ,so Im a lot more cautious with it and it’s used less and less frequent than I used to
 
Last edited:
BTW Owsley had almost NOTHING to do with any LSD production. It was Melissa Carghill who was the chemist and was smart enough to take her cut and leave. Owsley was the PERFECT patsy as he WANTED the cache of being 'the worlds largest LSD producer'. What SANE person would want that on their CV?

The successful LSD chemists are the ones who not even law enforcement can name.
 
Innerpeace said:
James Fadiman has done so much work with lsd. He promotes micro dosing or has given seminars on it. MDMA definitely has psychedelic effects felt, along with stimulate effects

It’s the one drug that I may be genetically affected by more than others,like lsd ,so Im a lot more cautious with it and it’s used less and less frequent than I used to
Click to expand...
I often don't feel making distinction is important in many practical reference frames in ordinary life of drug user, particularly because we could even go balls deep into ethymology of psychedelic and make everyone different interpretation from there on. Brain go brrrr whatever.
 
It's pretty weak. If they thought pointing out that the A in MDMA stands for 'amphetamine', they are clearly forgetting that Owsley took credit for the production and distribution of DOM (2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl amphetamine) which is, wait for it, an 'amphetamine' discussed in a paper by Shulgin in 1965. In that case it's on record that Owsley handed the paper to Nick Sands and asked the latter to find a facile synthesis and it was Sands and Skully who made it.

But once again, Owsley was more than happy to recieve the cache of being the mastermind. I suppose he MAY have been the one to disguise what it was by naming it STP.

But I think it shows just how sketchy he was because I SUSPECT he mis-read the Shulgin paper and instead of producing 1.5mg dose units (which would have been sensible), they produced 15mg dose units... with very bad outcomes for the end users. You know, if you are so dim that you get the dose wrong by an order of magnitude, it's just lucky people weren't killed. When such mistakes are made with the NBOMes, peope are.

I hope I'm getting across the fact that I went into some detail reading about Owsley and I can't find a single example when it's certain that he EVER synthesized a psychoactive on his own. I'm sure he was a great character and certainly had a skillset i.e. networking and social engineering - but that's not organic chemistry.
 
Last edited:
emkee_reinvented said:
Entheogenic refer s to psychedelic, as you wrote a stimulant but different.
Didn t you rather refer to Entactogen [or emphatogen].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entactogen

That s how i would describe MDMA, a different class as psychedelic s.
And Amphetamine s. Bk-MDMA even more, it s stoney.
And almost guaranteed euphoria.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right I meant to say Entactogen and got confused, thanks.
 
Without having any chemistry background, I don't think it's a stretch for anyone who has solid experience in both traditional psychs (LSD, Psilocybin, DMT, etc) as well as MDMA, to confidently class them as different types of compounds.

I would consider them in the same "family', as in they both dramatically affect your baseline state of mind and bring about an altered state, but they have very different mechanisms of action as well as effects.

MDMA is my first love, and deep down, will always be my favorite, but traditional psychs are far more powerful, deep, and challenging than MDMA. That is not to say that MDMA cant provide dramatic positive benefits when used intentionally (it can), but psychs can get in touch with aspects of ourselves and the world around us that take things to a much, much, deeper level.
 
I loved speed, (amphetamine), MDMA has some of that, but something else too, kinda raunchy like speed, but cleaner too, cleansing even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top