Lysergamides LSI, Ancient LSD, Secret of the Eleusis Kykeon and Vedic SOMA

[tregar]

Update 2.10.2026, the book is being well received in Australia: [book removed by moderator]

That is nice tregar, post all you want. But no selling. The post was reported a few times. My apologies but continue on.

 

[Skorpio]

1-s2.0-S2212429222000074-main-2.pdf 3.29MB 41 downloads

Assessing the product quality and biological activities of barley Hordeum vulgare L grasses at different harvest times, 2022, see PAGE 5, ALDEHYDE TABLE:

Isovaleraldehyde, Valeraldehyde & Crotonaldehyde levels eclipse the levels of the other 10 aldehydes in young barley, resulting in a triple action LSI, LSV and LSCr experience when simulating the Eleusis Kykeon. Aldehydes strongest at Z21 young growth stage:

Propionaldehyde = 2.18
Isobutyraldehyde = 1.41
Butyraldehyde = 0.69
2-methylbutyraldehyde = 2.28
→ Isovaleraldehyde or Butanal = 7.52 (converts LSA to LSI)
Hexanal = 3.73
Trans-2-hexenal = 1.60
Trans-2,4-heptadienal = 1.17
Benzaldehyde = 1.12
2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde .3
→ Valeraldehyde = 13.40 (converts LSA to LSV)
→ Crotonaldehyde or 2-Butenal = 7.63 (converts LSA to LSCr)
2-hexenal = 1.39

The levels of isovaleraldehyde in AOJIRU young barley grass powder is x100 (one hundred times) the levels found in peppermint, which is what we need (these super strong levels of these 3 aldehydes to form LSI + LSV + LSCr) for a profound triple psychedelic action when the 2oz Sacred Psychedelic Elixir is consumed.

You realize that you are profoundly mis-interpreting the paper that shows aldehyde levels in the barley as all of those numbers are relative measurements of mass spec peaks. These compounds are unlikely to exist at high levels in the barley. The mass spec data in the paper you cited shows silicone grease contamination occurring at higher levels than any of the aldehydes in the gc/ms data set btw, and they don’t recognize it’s not made by the barley.

You are getting the chemical names for the aldehydes wrong (isovaleraldehyde is not butanal) by the way.

 

[Allylbenzene]

These compounds are unlikely to exist at high levels in the barley.

This recent paper seems quite relevant:

Characterization of the aroma in barley leaves from different cultivars
...
Therefore, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) combined with GC-olfactometry (GC-O) were employed to investigate the volatiles in barley leaves from 7 cultivars and 2 tillering stages. According to a quantitative study and odor activity value (OAV), 18 volatile compounds were identified as aroma-active components. Aldehydes and alcohols are the dominant compounds. Hexanal, 2-hexenal, and isovaleraldehyde are the most abundant compounds in the former.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104117

You are getting the chemical names for the aldehydes wrong (isovaleraldehyde is not butanal) by the way.

He does seem aware, from 2023:

The aldehyde in peppermint oil and leaf and lemon juice is Isovaleraldehyde otherwise known as 3-methylbutanal.

 

[Skorpio]

This recent paper seems quite relevant:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104117

The gcms doesn’t quantify them. That paper is focused on the aroma of barley, where extremely low concentrations of these compounds are detectable by smell.

This is the same issue as the paper cited by tregar which I discuss here: https://www.bluelight.org/community...ic-colorful-musical-lsd.951906/#post-16385393

Do you have the paper beyond the abstract? I can’t find it on sci-hub. It isn’t really useful to just read the abstract of papers.

 

[Allylbenzene]

The gcms doesn’t quantify them. That paper is focused on the aroma of barley, where extremely low concentrations of these compounds are detectable by smell.

From the abstract, doesn't this imply quantification?

The objectives of this paper were: (1) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in 7 barley leaf cultivars from 2 tillering stages using headspace solid-phase microextraction-GC-MS (HS-SPME-GC–MS); (2) Determination of key aroma-active compounds in barley leaves through GC-O coupled with OAV;

Do you have the paper beyond the abstract? I can’t find it on sci-hub. It isn’t really useful to just read the abstract of papers.

Nope, I tried sci-hub also.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

I wrote some of the software for a major HS-SPME-GC–MS engineering and manufacturing firm during R & D phase. HS-SPME-GC–MS is indeed an instrument capable of quantifying VOC's depending on preparation of sample, correct filter and instrument settings.

 

[red22]

Nope, I tried sci-hub also.

The paper is recent: it was published after 2021. Recent papers are mostly unavailable since automatic download doesn't work on them.

What can I do?

You can request such paper through Sci-Net platform. Most papers, except some rare cases, are uploaded on request within a few minutes.

...after request is solved, the paper will become available on Sci-Hub for free to everyone. Therefore, by using the platform you help Sci-Hub grow and increase the amount of research papers available open access.

Copied from Sci-Hub

 

[Skorpio]

The gcms doesn’t quantify them. That paper is focused on the aroma of barley, where extremely low concentrations of these compounds are detectable by smell.

This is the same issue as the paper cited by tregar which I discuss here: https://www.bluelight.org/community...ic-colorful-musical-lsd.951906/#post-16385393

Do you have the paper beyond the abstract? I can’t find it on sci-hub. It isn’t really useful to just read the abstract of papers.

I missed that in the abstract. I still stand by the fact that quantification is an extra step, and that the numbers cited by Tregar in the pos I was originally replying to are not quantities at all.

I found a figure from the 2024 Huang et al paper which does show quantities of aroma compounds.

Google Image Result for https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2212429224005479-gr2.jpg

Two things to note are that the levels of these compounds are measured in micrograms per kilogram, which is equivalent to nanograms per gram.

Crotonaldehyde is absent in most samples, and has a maximum level of ~15 micrograms per kilogram.

Isovaleraldehyde is present at higher levels ranging from 200 to 800 micrograms per kilogram, which again, translates to 0.2 to 0.8 micrograms per gram.

I doubt tregar is using kilograms of barley to make these concoctions, so I do not think this paper supports the hypothesis that there are enough aldehydes in barley to form adducts with LSA. Another thing to consider is that adduct formation is an equilibrium, so to drive adduct formation you need an excess of aldehyde.

 

[red22]

This is a very strong rebuttal. Let me break down why it's so damaging to Stahl's claims:

The Core Problem: Units and Quantities

The rebuttal exposes what appears to be a fundamental error in how Stahl interprets the 2022 barley paper. Stahl cites isovaleraldehyde levels of "7.52" as if they represent meaningful concentrations, but the actual measured units are micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), which equals nanograms per gram (ng/g).

To put that in perspective:

• Stahl uses 3 grams of barley grass powder

• At 200–800 μg/kg, that 3g serving contains only 0.6 to 2.4 micrograms of isovaleraldehyde

• Crotonaldehyde is largely absent, with a maximum of ~15 μg/kg

Why This Matters Chemically

The rebuttal raises a crucial point about reaction equilibrium that Stahl completely ignores. For an adduct formation reaction to proceed meaningfully toward product:

1. You need excess aldehyde to drive the equilibrium forward (Le Chatelier's principle)

2. The reaction competes with hydrolysis — water can reverse the condensation

3. At pH 4 with only nanogram quantities of aldehyde, the equilibrium would be overwhelmingly on the side of the starting materials, not the adduct

For context, even if 100% of the isovaleraldehyde in 3g of barley reacted with LSA, you'd be forming adduct quantities measured in nanograms to low micrograms — far below any plausible psychoactive threshold, especially given that the parent compound LSD is active at ~100 micrograms.

How This Connects to the Chiruta Paper

This rebuttal actually strengthens Chiruta's skepticism from a completely different angle:

• Chiruta doubted bioavailability of the adduct once formed

• This rebuttal questions whether meaningful adduct formation can occur at all given the vanishingly small aldehyde concentrations

Together they form a two-layer critique: even if you could form LSI, you probably can't form enough of it, and even if you formed enough, it might not be bioavailable.

What Stahl Would Need to Refute This

To salvage his hypothesis, Stahl would need to demonstrate:

1. Analytical confirmation (GC-MS or NMR) that LSI/LSV/LSCr actually form in detectable quantities under his exact conditions

2. Quantitative yield data showing how much adduct forms from nanogram-level aldehyde inputs

3. Pharmacokinetic evidence that the adduct reaches the brain in sufficient concentrations

4. An explanation for why the 2022 paper he cites actually contradicts rather than supports his claims

The Bigger Issue

This rebuttal highlights a pattern in Stahl's book: citing scientific papers without carefully reading the units and concentrations. The 2022 paper he presents as the key evidence for his theory, stating confidently "I have the 2022 scientific study to back up my claim," appears to actually undermine it when the numbers are examined carefully.

This is unfortunately a common problem in fringe science — selectively citing papers for their qualitative findings while ignoring the quantitative data that would falsify the hypothesis. Combined with the absence of any analytical chemistry verification from Stahl despite his claimed lab background, the rebuttal raises serious doubts about the scientific validity of the entire LSI hypothesis.


Written by Claude. This is the second analysis done by Claude. The first one is here.

 

[Skorpio]

Also just for the record, crotonaldehyde is a Michael acceptor, and really fucking nasty.

It is a lachrymatory agent and really reactive and nasty, you don’t want to deal with the pure stuff (honestly, aldehydes in general are pretty chemically nasty, hence acetaldehyde being a major contributor to hangovers and formaldehyde being used to preserve bodies).

 

[iom]

Also just for the record, crotonaldehyde is a Michael acceptor, and really fucking nasty.

It is a lachrymatory agent and really reactive and nasty, you don’t want to deal with the pure stuff (honestly, aldehydes in general are pretty chemically nasty, hence acetaldehyde being a major contributor to hangovers and formaldehyde being used to preserve bodies).

In very tiny amounts, however, some aldehydes smell and/or taste quite nice. According to Wikipedia, crotonaldehyde has a "pungent, suffocating odor". It also mentions the lachrymation. Isovaleraldehyde also has a super strong smell but is an essential component of many smells and flavors and has utility (in very small quantities) as a flavoring additive.

I was a little bit stumped when @tregar indicated that pure isovaleraldehyde could only be obtained from a chemical supply house which would not ship to customers without a verified business because a quick Google revealed that it's used extensively in food and aroma manufacture and thus ought to be available in food-grade form from a variety of sources.

Giving @tregar the benefit of the doubt and considering the evidence as presented, I am curious to know what could cause individual experiences with HWBR and MGS to vary so much. I think most people who experiment with these things and their extracts report mostly non-psychedelics effects---vasoconstriction/coldness, lethargia, apathy, and possible nausea and vomiting. That's basically what I got from my one trial with HWBR, yet a few people report full psychedelic effects from one or both of these. I don't doubt their stories, but it remains a mystery to me why this is so.

Certainly we all know that plants are not necessarily well understood and can produce very different alkaloids in the same species depending on genetics and environmental factors. We also know that plant analysis is frought with difficulties which can lead to any number of false positives and false negatives and even heated controversy over what they actually contain.

My best cactus trips have been from dried T. Terscheckii, even though a great many experts on cacti regard the species to contain little if any mescaline. Of trip reports I've seen, some get results from Terscheckii as I do. Others describe it an extremely speedy and high anxiety experience instead of or in addition to the trip. I won't argue against the fact that my T. Terscheckii provides a speedy trip (albeit not really more than something like 2C-I) and can be very mentally and emotionally challenging, but pure mescaline is quite speedy too, is it not? For me this cactus is also absolutely profound, despite these things. My sense is that most Terscheckii is very weak, but somewhere in South America where my material presumably came from, there are crops of Terscheckii that possess the right genetics tended by people possessing the right lore to grow, harvest, and process it into a very powerful medicine.

I can't help but wonder if HWBR and/or MGS are capable of a similar outcome if only we could reliably access the correct genetics and lore. Otherwise, one relies on luck. Of course even very experienced trippers seem to struggle to reliably analyze via bioassay, so unless this work is undertaken by someone extremely gifted (as many of the ancient cultivators of plant psychedelics undoubtedly were), it will need to be supported by a lot of hard work in an analytical lab. I know I'm not the only one who would be delighted to find a renewable plant source for an LSD-like trip to compliment the other classics, but obviously we aren't there just yet.

 

[Allylbenzene]

I was a little bit stumped when tregar indicated that pure isovaleraldehyde could only be obtained from a chemical supply house which would not ship to customers without a verified business because a quick Google revealed that it's used extensively in food and aroma manufacture and thus ought to be available in food-grade form from a variety of sources.

There are dozens of aldehydes sold OTC to the public, including valeraldehyde & propionaldehyde, but I haven't found isovaleraldehyde. You could theoretically make it using leucine-enriched water kefir (via strecker degradation of leucine to isovaleraldehyde). Water kefir grains and leucine are fairly common. This would produce a mixture of aldehydes with isovaleraldehyde as the main component.

I am curious to know what could cause individual experiences with HWBR and MGS to vary so much.

I imagine this is due to different preparation methods, variation in the seeds themselves and the trippers internal environment. For example not all MG seeds contain the relevant lysergic & clavine alkaloids.

I propose that there is a possible biosynthesis step which plays a role in the HBWR/MG effects. It would likely involve aldehydes, either endogenously produced or introduced (barley grass, ethanol etc). Acetaldehyde is afaik the most common (and is known to react & condense with amines like dopamine). This quote from downwardsfromzero outlines the idea:

This was one of the more visual attempts with natural lysergamide-containing seeds. The experience followed a night involving the consumption of a significant amount of brandy, thus there was an incontestable residue of acetaldehyde in my body.

The seeds themselves, being HBWR, were much more likely to have contained LSA as the principal alkaloid; they will not have been particularly fresh. Although the inference counts as purely anecdotal, I feel it supports at least one of these ideas:
*that the 1-acetaldehyde adduct of LSA (or, possibly from what we've learned so far, iso-LSA) is likely to be more of a visionary entheogen than plain LSA itself.
*that post-alcoholic acidity in the body promotes the formation of the more visionary iso-LSA from the LSA equilibrium mixture in vivo.
*that, under physiological conditions, acetaldehyde inhibits the breakdown of LSH such that - in the aforementioned instance - sufficient LSH reached the appropriate receptor sites to produce a mild but significant entheogenic experience.
and/or
*that, under physiological conditions, acetaldehyde reacts with LSA at the amide nitrogen to (re-)form LSH.

While I consider the last option the least likely, and in the past I have argued against the possibility of it happening, it's still not something I would discount entirely. Still, I wouldn't bank on it and would advise all readers that acetaldehyde conversion of seed extracts containing lysergamide are best carried out in vitro as ethanol and acetaldehyde present health hazards when ingested!

His report of the actual experience:

All I would add here is that, quite a few years ago, HBWR seeds provided me with a spiritual experience that was most definitely psychedelic.

The prior night I had been drinking brandy . I chewed and swallowed a few seeds largely on a whim, after searing off the hairy coat with a piece of hot charcoal. Soon afterwards I fell asleep. I awoke shortly after sunrise. This was at midsummer so I'd been asleep for three or four hours. It took me a while to work out what was going on because at first I thought it was just a hangover.

The experience proper began only after (induced) vomiting - on what seemed like the advice of the plant itself. The neon-electric zingyness of LSD was all but absent, although there was a fractal overlay with eyes open. The overall feel was more earthy and organic. A wise, stern-but-kind voice within gave me most useful advice for several hours. This also contrasted with the 8 hours solid 'LMAO' that LSD so often provides. The divinatory use of this type of material makes absolute sense.

I count this among the more significant entheogenic experiences of my life.

I think most people who experiment with these things and their extracts report mostly non-psychedelics effects---vasoconstriction/coldness, lethargia, apathy, and possible nausea and vomiting. That's basically what I got from my one trial with HWBR, yet a few people report full psychedelic effects from one or both of these.

This might be another clue as to why HBWR can sometimes cause issues:

LSD decomposes into other active alkaloids, and so as it ages it loses its "magic" and starts taking on a more mundane effect. In this way it's sort of like LSH. LSH degrades into LSA. LSA is just a sedative. LSA further breaks down into other alkaloids, but I don't know what they are. Very old LSA that has decomposed is quite unpleasant.

 

[Skorpio]

@Allylbenzene

I’m confused on why you still say that barley grass is a sufficient source of aldehydes, when that paper you cited showed otherwise.

 

[tregar]

From post #73 from Skorpio: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212429224005479 (view abstract)

Aldehydes and alcohols are the dominant compounds. Hexanal, 2-hexenal, and isovaleraldehyde are the most abundant compounds in the former.

Please refer to last post here from Shaman Australis where the book has taken off in Australia: https://www.shaman-australis.com/fo...e-steps-a-more-euphoric-colorful-musical-lsd/

My discovery of isovaleraldehyde and valeraldehyde relates directly to Dr. Nichols (scientist who studies LSD at Purdue University) discovery:

1) This aldehyde: isovaleraldehyde discovery that works has 5 carbon groups and 11 hydrogens just like 3-aminopentane which was found by Dr. Nichols to have activity very similar to LSD in the rat assays, as the rats reacted to it as if they had been given LSD. Anything beyond this, like cinnamaldehyde with a very high molecular weight has way too many carbons and hydrogens (almost double) and will result in weak effects, as it does not fit into the receptor.

2) The important thing to note from the Dr. Nichol's table, in the far right column, is the fact that LSD has a potency in rats in the drug discrimination behavioral assay of 48 nanomoles per kilogram of rat body weight. Only two other compounds have comparable activity: entries 6 and 16. Entry 16 is 3-aminopentane, and has a potency in rats in the drug discrimination behavioral assay of 52 nanomoles per kilogram of rat body weight.

3) Isovaleraldehyde looks identical to the tail end of DMT and psilocin once it condenses onto the amide (NH) of LSA with the exact same number of carbons and hydrogens with the same chemical formula of CHO CH2 CH2 2(CH3).

4) BOTH have exact same molecular weights of 87 similar to diethylamine molecular weight of LSD at 73g/mol.

See table 3, entry 16 for 3-aminopentane which is extremely similar to my discovery of the aldehyde: isovaleraldehyde and valeraldehyde in young barley grass:

chap6.pdf

I promise everyone, this LSI + LSV + LSCr is the most incredible psychedelic that I plan to respect once a month for the rest of my life, she is absolutely incredible:

I have taken 40 seeds (equivalent to 160ug of LSD) x twice now, spaced 1 month apart, and she is my all time favorite psychedelic, that I will respect for the rest of my life: She is even better than LSD imho: No anxiety, hours and hours of closed eye colored visions just like LSD, extreme mescaline like euphoria all night, just as colorful and music enhancing as mescaline, tracers as powerful as lightning strikes, whereas LSD can have choppy visuals, the visuals are flowing with LSI, continuous diamond like shimmering of all visuals, LSI is the most bad ass psychedelic equal to mescaline and Ayahuasca that I've ever had the pleasure of trying, yes, she is that good, and she is super cheap to make, with no nastiness to the 2oz brew, down in 2 gulps.

As there is zero or no anxiety with LSI + LSV, I plan on even taking her at 40 seed dose converted to LSI + LSV and walk down the street and trip all morning and early afternoon long at one of the world's largest waterparks, which we live down the street from. I know this will be absolutely incredible! As I used to take zero nausea bridgesii cactus tea at least 20 times at the waterpark. This LSI + LSV is just as incredible as mescaline, my other all time favorite psychedelic.

-->I started out with just 5 seeds converted to LSI + LSV + LSCr and noticed it felt about like 20ug LSD, then I went up to 25 seeds which felt like (25 x .04mg per seed) = 100ug LSD, then I moved up to 30 seeds which felt exactly like (30 x .04mg LSA per seed ) = 120ug LSD, then I moved up to 40 seeds (40 x .04mg LSA per seed) = 160ug LSD.

 

[red22]

This response from Stahl doesn't actually address the rebuttal's core criticism about aldehyde concentrations. Let me analyze his arguments:

What Stahl Claims

1. The "Dr. Nichols Discovery" Argument

Stahl argues that isovaleraldehyde (C₅H₁₀O) has similar carbon/hydrogen count to 3-aminopentane (C₅H₁₃N), which showed LSD-like activity in rat discrimination assays. However, this argument has serious problems:

• Chemical structure matters more than atom count: Just because two molecules have similar molecular formulas doesn't mean they behave the same way. Isovaleraldehyde is an aldehyde; 3-aminopentane is an amine. They have completely different functional groups and reactivity.

• Missing the point: The Nichols paper was testing various LSD analogs with different substitutions at specific positions on the ergoline scaffold. Stahl is conflating this with aldehyde adduct formation, which is a different chemistry entirely.

• Molecular weight comparison is misleading: Yes, isovaleraldehyde (86 g/mol) and diethylamine (73 g/mol) are similar in size, but that doesn't mean the resulting LSI molecule would bind to 5-HT2A receptors with similar affinity to LSD.

2. The "DMT Tail End" Argument

Stahl claims isovaleraldehyde "looks identical to the tail end of DMT and psilocin" with formula CHO-CH₂-CH(CH₃)₂.

This is extremely speculative:

• Different binding modes: DMT binds as a complete molecule; LSI would be LSA with an adduct modification. These aren't comparable.

• Receptor fit: Even if there's structural similarity in one fragment, the entire 3D shape of the molecule determines receptor binding, not just one fragment.

3. Anecdotal Dose-Response Claims

Stahl provides a progression (5 → 25 → 30 → 40 seeds) claiming linear dose-response relationships.

Problems:

• No blinding: All experiences were unblinded, creating massive expectation bias

• No analytical data: Still zero evidence that LSI/LSV/LSCr actually formed

• Circular reasoning: Using subjective effects to "prove" the mechanism, then using the mechanism to explain the effects

What Stahl Doesn't Address

Critically, Stahl completely ignores the rebuttal's central point:

The aldehyde concentrations in 3g of barley are measured in micrograms (0.6–2.4 μg isovaleraldehyde), not the amounts needed for meaningful adduct formation.

Instead of addressing this quantitative problem, he:

• Links to his book forum posts

• Makes structural analogies without supporting data

• Provides more subjective trip reports

• Plans future experiences at a waterpark

The Equilibrium Problem Remains Unsolved

The rebuttal correctly noted that adduct formation is an equilibrium. For the reaction:

LSA + isovaleraldehyde ⇌ LSI + H₂O

With only micrograms of aldehyde present but grams of water in the aqueous medium, the equilibrium would heavily favor the left side (starting materials). Stahl would need:

1. Excess aldehyde (he has trace amounts)

2. Removal of water (he's working in aqueous solution at pH 4)

3. Or strong catalysis (liver enzymes aren't present in his extraction)

Independent Verification Needed

What would actually settle this dispute:

1. LC-MS/MS analysis of Stahl's final brew showing presence and concentration of LSI/LSV/LSCr

2. Control experiment: Same procedure without barley to see if effects differ

3. Double-blind testing: Give participants LSA alone vs LSA+barley without them knowing which

4. Quantification: Measure actual aldehyde content in his specific barley product

5. Reaction kinetics: Demonstrate that 20 minutes stirring at pH 4 with microgram quantities produces detectable adducts

The fact that Stahl continues to cite structural analogies and subjective experiences while never addressing the fundamental concentration problem is telling. His appeal to the Nichols paper appears to be cherry-picking data that superficially supports his hypothesis while ignoring the quantitative chemistry that would falsify it.

Bottom line: Stahl's counter-argument doesn't refute the rebuttal's mathematical demonstration that there aren't enough aldehydes present. The reference to Nichols' work on LSD analogs, while interesting, is a red herring that doesn't address the core issue of whether LSI can actually form in sufficient quantities from trace aldehyde levels.

 

[Skorpio]

From post #73 from Skorpio: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212429224005479 (view abstract)

The figure I posted in post 73 is from that paper. It demonstrates levels of aldehydes in the nanogram per gram range.

Please refer to last post here from Shaman Australis where the book has taken off in Australia: https://www.shaman-australis.com/fo...e-steps-a-more-euphoric-colorful-musical-lsd/

Please stop posting links to your book. You have already been asked this by a moderator.

My discovery of isovaleraldehyde and valeraldehyde relates directly to Dr. Nichols (scientist who studies LSD at Purdue University) discovery:

1) This aldehyde: isovaleraldehyde discovery that works has 5 carbon groups and 11 hydrogens just like 3-aminopentane which was found by Dr. Nichols to have activity very similar to LSD in the rat assays, as the rats reacted to it as if they had been given LSD. Anything beyond this, like cinnamaldehyde with a very high molecular weight has way too many carbons and hydrogens (almost double) and will result in weak effects, as it does not fit into the receptor.

2) The important thing to note from the Dr. Nichol's table, in the far right column, is the fact that LSD has a potency in rats in the drug discrimination behavioral assay of 48 nanomoles per kilogram of rat body weight. Only two other compounds have comparable activity: entries 6 and 16. Entry 16 is 3-aminopentane, and has a potency in rats in the drug discrimination behavioral assay of 52 nanomoles per kilogram of rat body weight.

3) Isovaleraldehyde looks identical to the tail end of DMT and psilocin once it condenses onto the amide (NH) of LSA with the exact same number of carbons and hydrogens with the same chemical formula of CHO CH2 CH2 2(CH3).

4) BOTH have exact same molecular weights of 87 similar to diethylamine molecular weight of LSD at 73g/mol.

See table 3, entry 16 for 3-aminopentane which is extremely similar to my discovery of the aldehyde: isovaleraldehyde and valeraldehyde in young barley grass:

chap6.pdf

You never provide evidence that these compounds are formed by the methods you promote.

I have taken 40 seeds (equivalent to 160ug of LSD) x twice now, spaced 1 month apart, and she is my all time favorite psychedelic, that I will respect for the rest of my life

for anybody reading this, this is a massively high dose, please don’t follow this harmful advice.

 

[tregar]

For the record: I am not ingesting any seeds, I am extracting the pure LSA from the seeds in 2 super simple steps, then stirring the LSA with the barley in acidic water to form LSI + LSV.

We don't need much isovaleraldehyde and valeraldehyde at all as we are dealing with just 1mg or so of LSA converted to LSI + LSV + LSCr.

Allylbenzene said:

I'm thinking that people using high doses have been either ingesting the seeds themselves or using extracts which have included the more problematic substances. Imo neither of those approaches are appropriate.

Allylbenzene is correct, it's the crushed seed shell fragments that cause nausea, follow the instructions in my book in Chapter 5, illustrated with pictures...we are leaving behind the nausea causing seed fragments from the HBWR seeds at the bottom of the shot glass, these dust like fragments STICK to the bottom of the shot glass and get throw away, 100% eliminating nausea and any side effects, as the 1oz everclear (95% grain alcohol spirit) contain the active alkaloids which we pour off into the brownie dish and evaporate the everclear (or other high proof alcohol you want to use) leaving behind the pure LSA extract which we then scrape up with two razor blades, add this pure LSA extract to 2oz water, pour in your 3g of AOJIRU young barley grass powder from the individual nitrogen sealed packet (come 46 to a box) and stir for 10 minutes using a magnetic stirrer (cheap from amazon) and consume for a profound psychedelic experience even better than LSD imho, like a combination of ALD-52 (anxiety free version of LSD also discovered by Dr. Hoffman) and mescaline combined, my absolute favorite psychedelic.

I promise you even with 40 seed extract converted to LSI + LSV (equivalent to 160ug LSD) there are ZERO side effects, no nausea, cramping or vasoconstriction at all, complete infinite euphoric psychedelic bliss for the entire night: 8 strong hours with 10 hour duration.

-->I started out with just 5 seeds converted to LSI + LSV + LSCr and noticed it felt about like 20ug LSD, then I went up to 25 seeds which felt like (25 x .04mg per seed) = 100ug LSD, then I moved up to 30 seeds which felt exactly like (30 x .04mg LSA per seed ) = 120ug LSD, then I moved up to 40 seeds (40 x .04mg LSA per seed) = 160ug LSD.

Listen, nobody else has tried this, I have tried this a half dozen times, the proof is in the pudding, she works. People will eventually find out.

 

[iom]

There are dozens of aldehydes sold OTC to the public, including valeraldehyde & propionaldehyde, but I haven't found isovaleraldehyde.

Oh come on! I just Googled for "isovaleraldehyde food grade" and a bunch of potential sellers is returned.

I imagine this is due to different preparation methods, variation in the seeds themselves and the trippers internal environment. For example not all MG seeds contain the relevant lysergic & clavine alkaloids.

Perhaps, but are we even certain which alkaloids are actually relevant? Oh, I mean people who are reasoning with actual evidence as supposed to a long chain of wild speculations?

I propose that there is a possible biosynthesis step which plays a role in the HBWR/MG effects. It would likely involve aldehydes, either endogenously produced or introduced (barley grass, ethanol etc).

As already noted, the evidence provided to support this hypothesis is very weak. The math doesn't check out at all with regard to barley grass. A most generous reading of the data suggests barley grass contains 0.8 micrograms of isovaleraldehyde per gram. To react and completely consume 1 mg of LSA requires at least 0.33 mg of isovaleraldehyde or 330 ug, which would require using at least 420 g (approximately 1 pound) of barley grass. This is an absolute minimum amount required even under absurdly ideal conditions, and I guarantee those conditions are not even close to being achieved by the in vitro method described here.

I want to also point out that these aldehydes have very strong odors. Some sources suggest an isovaleraldehyde odor threshold under 1 part-per-billion. The tiny amounts in barley grass are enough to give the grass a nice fresh smell, but nowhere near enough to react to create LSI/etc.

 

[Allylbenzene]

Oh come on! I just Googled for "isovaleraldehyde food grade" and a bunch of potential sellers is returned.

If you actually look at the results they're either F&B industry standards (£50/?ml) or wholesalers like Vignon, various chinese companies and DeMonchy. There is a vendor from Thailand who sells a 1% solution to the public. I would've thought the UK perfumery vendors would stock it but apparently not. The UK public can buy acetaldehyde and heliotropin but not isovaleraldehyde (somewhat ironic).

DIY isovaleraldehyde seems fairly straightforward anyway, eg leucine + water kefir (strecker degradation).

The math doesn't check out at all with regard to barley grass. A most generous reading of the data suggests barley grass contains 0.8 micrograms of isovaleraldehyde per gram. To react and completely consume 1 mg of LSA requires at least 0.33 mg of isovaleraldehyde or 330 ug, which would require using at least 420 g (approximately 1 pound) of barley grass. This is an absolute minimum amount required even under absurdly ideal conditions...

You're assuming that it contains no other sources of isovaleraldehyde or other relevant aldehydes, and that the barley grass used was suitable.

There are many unknowns here which makes hypothetical scenarios for criticism interesting for sure, but also background noise. I call it interesting because it's led to a few discoveries including a preprint article on a certain drink made from barley and Claviceps purpurea. Funnily enough they didn't consider the aldehydes, why would they!

 

[xdrc]

I can't say anything about North America, but isovaleraldehyde can be bought without much troubles in Europe to private individuals if you know where to look.