When they come with referencesđ„
11 Likes
Appreciate the effort you put into that. Clearly youâre passionate, but youâre still operating off assumptions and textbook logic, not applied field chemistry or real world execution.
- âNo species produces both psilocybin and muscimolâ
Correct and irrelevant. We never said they did. We start with real psilocybin. What youâre detecting isnât muscimol or ibotenic acid, itâs a âpsilocybin derived analogâ that shares a similar chromatographic fingerprint under certain conditions. This happens through in situ transformation, a recognized method in pharmacognosy and organic chemistry, where structural analogs emerge within a botanical extract due to controlled shifts in heat, pH, and solvent polarity. We donât extract from Amanita. There is no muscimol in the product. What youâre seeing is retention time overlap and fragmentation similarity, not compound identity. Labs without advanced resolution tools often misread these overlaps, this is a known problem when reference libraries are outdated or incomplete.
Reference:
- Tsujikawa et al. (2003). Development of an analytical method for new tryptamine derivatives by LC MS. Forensic Science International.
- RomĂĄn, G. C. (2016). Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. Journal of Natural Products.
-
California Ag Labs
Yes, they had issues. So have many early stage psychedelic labs, because this field is still maturing. That does not invalidate every report they publish. But letâs be honest: Any lab not running LC MS MS with fragmentation and full NMR cannot reliably identify analogs or subtle modifications. This is exactly what weâve stated from the beginning. Most COAs lack the RESOLUTION or REFERENCE data to verify what we produce. Thatâs not deception, itâs transparency about âthe limits of the tools currently availableâ in commercial lab testing. -
Chemical breakdown
Your demethylation analysis is solid, in a controlled academic context. But this isnât a cleanroom process. We work with live botanical matrices, where active compounds interact, shift, and evolve under carefully tuned conditions. Youâre looking for static purity where we are guiding âdynamic transformationâ. Thatâs why one batch may show slightly different compound profiles than another. Itâs not contamination or inconsistency, itâs evolution, engineered on purpose.
We donât use 4 AcO DMT. We donât touch amanita. We donât need to. We begin with natural cubensis and guide it through âin situ reactionsâ that yield safe, functional analogs. These analogs retain âtryptamine backbonesâ, activate the âsame serotonin receptor pathwaysâ, and are in some cases more stable and effective than raw psilocybin alone. Thatâs not theory. Thatâs been field tested across thousands of experiences.
Reference:
- Nichols, D.E. (2004). Hallucinogens. Pharmacology & Therapeutics.
- Halberstadt, A.L. & Geyer, M.A. (2011). Serotonergic hallucinogens as translational models relevant to schizophrenia. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience.
You can keep quoting from theory and trying to connect dots from the outside. Meanwhile, weâll keep doing what works. What you call confusion, we call innovation. This is what happens at the âbig boy tableâ
Anyone can pull references, the question is did you actually read the references and understand/extract truth backed by data?
And with that saidâŠIâm done here. You all make me bored with your low level conversations and shit attitudes. I need something higher frequency for sure.
Yes your shills do in the dm. Shall I provide the receipts of them claiming its genetics from H&J grown at fungal boys. Despite that claim.
Ok space cadet
I know, that coa looks pretty synth
3 Likes
Do you mind linking these directly or was this an AI hallucination?
The second paper exists & was published in 2012. Has been cited thousands of times. Definitely not the author.
Gotta appreciate the holier than thou mindset when you came into the thread to stir up shit with some thinly veiled warning.
2 Likes
I would like to say this is rather fun. I love tryptamine chemistry and getting to use some of it and get to learn a bit more on the way as well. This will be a (somewhat) short and informal one as I canât waste all evening arguing with you.
I did infact read my references, really there was only one that actually took more than a minute, did you read yours? Your âreferencesâ are a little lacking to say the least, it would help if you used a bit of notation. The first (Tsujikawa et al.) kind of exists but not under that name, very odd. I actually read that one while typing up my first reply. It simply states that psilocybin mushrooms in japan do indeed contain tryptamines (what a surprise!), but has nothing to do with a new analysis beside doing a simple HPLC The second reference is just a literature review of drugs derived from modified naturally occurring compound, may contain a tryptamine or two, but I am not going to look through every individual compound to prove that. Your third reference is an essay on hallucinogens. Not very notable as most classical hallucinogens have a tryptamine backbone (of course the compounds that are like seritonin affect the seritonin system). It is a good paper however. The final reference is a paper on schizophrenia hallucinogens that mimic the condition. Very cool theory given that halunigens were first considered a schizotoxin and early studies aimed to find if similar endogenic compounds were the cause of it. It really seems like you used chatGPT to get those as they have next to nothing to do with the points that you are trying to make, exept for that typtamines and their derivatives act like one would expect a tryptamine would!
Now on to your âtransformationâ section. If you are talking about a chemical change, the only one that I know of under those conditions is degradation and cyclization to Beta Carbolines (I pray to god you arent using those). Now it is possible for you to add compounds to psilocybe mycelium to have it be altered by the biochemical process. Problem is that this usually just adds a oxyphosphate or hydroxy substituent. This is well documented, but it is usually very low yielding (<5%). I find it far fetched that these now modified compounds would make up the bulk of what was analyzed.
I agree that labs, especial COAs, do often misread their analysis. The issue is that a majority of tryptamines and tryptamine containing compounds do not share this overlap. The smallest difference was a 0.1, which since its a log difference, is still significant. You would have to add a compound with nearly (0.001) the same LogP. Very hard to do. Also, mass fragmentation similarity? Do you even know how mass fragments form and why they are significant in analysis? What does it have to do with HPLC?
Finally, your attack on my experience with theory vs. practice. I know that theory means jack when it comes to actual application, I am an engineer, our whole field is disregarding theory. I would say something about how some portions of my theory is incorrect, but you have provided nothing for theory to be applied to, except for my theory of your greed.
I do want to offer up the olive branch and propose a simple solution. PM and we can work out you sending me a sample and I will preform a GC/MS analysis on it. It will look a lot better for your company to have a 3rd party test your product and verify that it is free of harmful substances. Either that or post some real data instead of some COA summary from people who barely know how to read a HPLC.
3 Likes
Youâre so full of shit. Then show me a COA of your ACTUAL ingredients. So as I said you are knowingly mis labeling your products. And giving your customer some mystery tryptamine which shall not be quantified or qualified? Yeah ok bud, solid fucking business plan. You show the fucking LCMS you weird little liar. Youâre making claims put the COAs up and put your money where your lying mouth is or shut the fuck up and move along already.
Youâre a snake. Youâre outright defending a fake COA, which as you admitted isnât what it says it is. And then saying I should run LCMS on it? Fucking weirdo, bud. Iâm sure your mystery bro science is super legit and all. BUt you seem completely full of shit to me. Keep diggin that holeâŠ
I actually inquired to KCA about creating a method on gcms to prove or disprove the muscimol claims, they wanted 2k to do it. If he doesnt jump on this it proves hes full of shit.
If I was in his shoes id have spent the 2k because you could have easily made that back in just advertising with a clean KCA coa and a product like what he claims.
The proof of burden is on the person making the claim so its on him.
That being said I would LOVE for him to prove us all wrong!
Unfortunately I dont see that happening
7 Likes
How much extract is in one of those, and how potent is your extract?