SassysShrooms
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2026
- Messages
- 5
I guess I meant "hypothesis" then I'm sorry. If you take notice I did mention im not an English professor.
I know there's no hard evidence in that patent. It just has a lot of interesting stuff to look at it all from a different angle.
Most of the tests they did were with psilocybin and different herbs. But a lot of those herbs match the classic ones people use with the "adduct theory" or "adduct hypothesis"
I know there's no hard evidence in that patent. It just has a lot of interesting stuff to look at it all from a different angle.
Most of the tests they did were with psilocybin and different herbs. But a lot of those herbs match the classic ones people use with the "adduct theory" or "adduct hypothesis"
Well by all mean, provide hyperlinks to the supporting academic papers. Do you mean theory or in fact hypothesis, because a theory does at least have a weight of evidence and after a decade of research one tends to assume someone might provide something a little more well... vaguely related, if you see what I mean.
We tend to apply Hitchen's Razor.
You provide them and they WILL be read top-to-tail, not just the 'results' section as methodology matters.
