Talk:4-Hydroxy-5-methoxydimethyltryptamine

Untitled

Nice job whoever cleaned up this page 71.52.51.151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.51.151 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The article states "it has been used successfully for changing DPT and DIPT into 4-HO-DPT and 4-HO-DIPT" but it cites no sources for this claim. It is important because this DPT/DiPT biotransformation concept continues throughout the article. On the other hand DET conversion into 4-HO-DET and 4-PO-DMT has been produced according to Gartz J. successfully via the same route of adding synthetic drug (DET in this case) to "Mycelial cultures of Psilocybe cubensis". If a source is not added to the claim(s) I will replace them with the DET--->4-HO-DMT/4-PO-DMT biotransformation along with the Gartz reference.--Astavats (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pasteur Institute citation is wrong. This compound is not discussed in that article. 129.137.151.184 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Pasteur Inst. Article referencing the process.

Julia M, Melamed R, Gombert R. Research on the indole series. XVI. On

aryl-2-tryptamines and homologous amines. Annales de l'Institut Pasteur

(Paris). 1965 Sep;109(3):343-62. TuckerMaximus (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/4-Hydroxy-5-methoxydimethyltryptamine.html TuckerMaximus (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for Shulgin claim

This statement lends a credibility to the article, and so should be cited: "However, Alexander Shulgin has explained that it could be possible to cultivate 4-HO-5-MeO-DMT in psilocybin mushrooms by adding 5-MeO-DMT to the growing substrate of the fungus". This has been echoed on social media but I have yet to see an actual source of this information. Pineapplepiranha (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the enzymes that are responsible for the 4-hydroxy group of psilocin are indifferent to what it is they choose to 4-hydroxylate. He has taken things like DPT or DIPT and put them in the growth media and the fruiting bodies that came out contain 4-hydroxy-DPT or 4-hydroxy-DIPT instead of psilocin. In fact, he has a patent on the process. These active compounds are made by the mushroom so they really are natural and yet they never have been observed in nature. I'll give you even odds that if you put spores of a psilocybe species on cow droppings loaded with 5-MeO-DMT you would come out with mushrooms containing 4,5-HO-MeO-DMT. This way you avoid a 10 step synthesis by growing a psychoactive mushroom that contains no illegal drug."

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/ccle1/shulgin/blg/2005/12/4-hydroxy-5-methoxy-nn_07.html TuckerMaximus (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

citation of shulgin is his own book, here is entry 16 check the third paragraph into comments. ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

https://isomerdesign.com/PiHKAL/read.php?id=16&domain=tk ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No Psilomethoxin or 5-MeO-DMT found in The Church of Psilomethoxin material + Vandalism from the church on this wiki

Because members of the cult keep vandalizing this Wikipedia with incorrect information I'm posting a copy of this here.

On April 12th, 2023 a study was published that analyzed the claimed sacred sacrament mushroom material that is sold by The Church of Psilomethoxin and did not contain any Psilomethoxin or any 5-Meo-DMT and appears to be typical Psilocybin mushroom material containing psilocybin and psilocin, with a trace amount of baeocystin. In a response to this study, The Church of Psilomethoxin published a response saying "the Church has never, at any time, laid claim to the fact that Psilomethoxin has ever been positively identified in its sacrament." and "The individuals attacking and attempting to discredit our Church, seemingly operate off the erroneous assumption that the Church has made the claim that Psilomethoxin has been positively identified in its Sacrament" and "Our claims to the existence of Psilomethoxin, at this time, are solely based on faith".

Gettinglit (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are intentionally citing this out of full context, further intentionally ignoring the "anonymous donation of material (no chain of custody) and citing this as a study in which there is absolutely zero peer review and complete bias in testing. Further it was written with AI, and would be a travesty if accepted as Science. This is paper does not follow the scientific process, therefore is not a "study". TuckerMaximus (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Was received as is from The Church of Psilomethoxin.

Wasn't "written by ChatGPT", read the ending of the study again.

No bias in testing.

Also no 5-MeO-DMT detected meaning they're not even attempting to make Psilomethoxin.

Also the church switched to using their registered name of church of the sacred synthesis for marketing. And they've announced they're trying to synthesize Psilomethoxin in a lab for distribution which is kinda weird if you would have a mushroom that produces it in relevant amounts.

Meanwhile the church: WE HAVE FAITH IT'S THERE! NOTHING ELSE.

No internal analysis, can't even produce evidence they have their substrate 5-MeO-DMT tested or 3rd party tested. Gettinglit (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph of paper states clear as day ". ChatGPT -4 was utilized throughout this manuscript for formatting and editorial input." TuckerMaximus (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Question is how much of it? TuckerMaximus (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thu church has states they hired a Chemist who will create a synthetic Psilomethoxin molecule in a lab. Doing is more accurate than trying. TuckerMaximus (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

but it is a verifiable fact that they have hired a chemist, why is that not permitted information? ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they have edited the article with enough free advertising for their legal high marketing group Gettinglit (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the jig is up about their mushrooms being normal mushrooms so now they need to synthesize it to attempt to sell it, just look at how this "church" has attacked the wiki article. Gettinglit (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References

"Church" continues vandalism

Seems like the church has continued its vandalism, not only by inserting its own beliefs and perceptions, but also by (presumably) incompetence and/or simply not knowing how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written and formatted. The quality of this article as it stands now is very low – dare I say unacceptably so. Someone with higher privileges than me might want to request temporary editing protection for this article. Adrianpip2000 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adrianpip2000: I've removed the eleven edits by ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk · contribs) as unsourced, and also added a {{connected contributor}} banner among the Talk headers at the top of this page, as implied by their username. See also the discussions recently added to their Talk page. Further edits to the article by this user are discouraged by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing guideline, but they are welcome to post here at the Talk page to request edits to the article; template {{Requested edit}} may be used for this purpose. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

why did you remove the cited melting point with the reference listed from the Julia paper, as well as other chemical identifiers with their sources? It must be that a preference here beats a fact there. Please double check and replace the melting point- that is important information on a compounds wikipage. ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably because wikipedia isnt for you to advertise your legal high store marketed as a church group Gettinglit (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I have triggered this emotionally charged outburst and hope you do not feel too embarrassed. Asking about the re-addition of a measured physical property on the compound's own page referenced by the published synthesis from the Julia group which is still referenced on the article does not sound very much like a legal high store. Hexyltryptamine (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You realize you responded to this from your alt account Hexyltryptamine instead of the one I replied to ChurchofSacredSynthesis indicating you're the same account?

Yeah sorry you're right it's not a legal high store since the psilocybin mushrooms they openly sell are still illegal (sadly). I have nothing against it. It's the way it's being done, the lying, the editing wikipedia for marketing. Gettinglit (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

ChurchofSacredSynthesis is my username that was requested to be changed, I chose hexyltryptamine. You seem very upset about everything. I thought keyboard warriers chilled on weekdays? I'd check the definition of marketing first off, for whatever you havent even specified was marketing. Also see the page stats for the several dozen people it made an impact on. No one ever actually pointed out what was wrong besides the username by the way. Put those brain cells to use outside of the hype bandwagon. If the page were being edited for "marketing" it'd actually try and describe the effects, not just update chemical identification numbers and summarize the julia paper. lie is a funny word. You just lied calling it an alt account when its the same one updated per policy, so I hope you get some psilomethoxin for your issues ;) Hexyltryptamine (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just confirming that Hexyltryptamine is a renamed account per WP:USERNAME policy, and not an alt account. To the extent this may have been influenced by having both names in the {{connected contributor}} banner at the top, I have altered it to make the relation clearer. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for taking the time to handle this. I've added back some of the accurate edits they initially made but refused to request in an appropriate manner (melting point and IUPAC name). Adrianpip2000 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the update. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

For edification's sake as well as not allowing the dangerous precedent of declaring low quality to instantly mean it is low quality, can you detail the reasons for the mass removal of edits. My history shows over half were referenced while removed claimed to be unreferenced. Most notably the melting point from the paper still referenced on this wiki fell victim to this. ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If there's something concrete like a melting point, I see no reason why that couldn't be added back, along with the citation for it. Going forward, as you are a WP:connected contributor, you will get the best reaction to your concerns, if you would kindly use the {{Edit request}} template below, including the use of {{Textdiff}} within it in order to very clearly specify the change(s) you wish to bring to the article. Beyond that, there is no requirement for editors here to respond to endless questions about why this or that was removed, or why something else was added, as long as they are adhering to Wikipedia policy and guidelines of good editing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable Data

Why was all the clearly sourced and verifiable data, such even the IUPAC name, a literal systematic title based on structure- removed? Its was referenced properly through chemical databases as well as other identifiers. It seems that care was not taken when deciding nothing was good enough after, perhaps hastily, or perhaps sincerely finding something worth removing. I can accept an edit may have not fully risen to the standards- but taking away even the literature published melting point cited properly and even the actual IUPAC name was a bit extreme, although comical. ChurchofSacredSynthesis (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please make a specific WP:Edit request below, using template {{Textdiff}} to specify your desired change(s). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ahh so there is a systematic method that shifts accountability when a ranking member garners enough attention they wish not to reciprocate. Fair enough, you certainly seem to have navigated the internal procedures quite well. I have no wish to fill out the forms leaving this matter finished for now. I will return to this talk page in with the upcoming synthesis publication after submission to a journal when it is released. I'll just leave it here in a comment for those who prefer information curation over creation. My contributions will be done after the submissions approval and reporting to various databases. Thank you for...the overall collection of correspondences here? Hexyltryptamine (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a link to the article below, after it has been published. Best of luck with your forthcoming publication. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)