Psychedelic Capitalism, Scientific Integrity, and a Wider Look Into Current Events; Response to USONA Article
Psychedelic Capitalism, A Wider Look
Into Current Events
Overview
This article is in response to a paper recently published independently
by individuals from the USONA Institute and re-published with additional
disparaging comments by David Heldreth on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences
entitled “Fungi Fiction: Analytical Investigation into the Church of
Psilomethoxin; Alleged Novel Compound using UPLC-HRMS.” We will address first
the Church’s position on the existence of Psilomethoxin, the respective
interests of USONA and David Heldreth on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences, how
that affects the credibility of their defamatory claims, and why,
scientifically, the claims made in the subject article are highly dubious at
best. 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. Had
they taken time to read through our website content and other materials, they
would have known their assumption to be incorrect. However, these parties seem
to be so fixated on attacking and discrediting the Church that they have either
seen the Church’s statements and completely disregarded them, as it doesn’t
support their baseless attacks- or have not taken the time to assess the entire
situation before publicly disparaging the Church. Either of these scenarios are
troubling. Moreover, it is evident their desire to try and discredit and
disparage our Church has also significantly and negatively affected the quality
of their science. The article at issue is based upon extremely poor scientific
standards as demonstrated.
1
The Church’s Position
Good day to our members
and the public. We hope everyone is
doing well!! This article is in response
to a paper recently published by the USONA Institute and re-published with additional
disparaging comments by David Heldreth on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences
entitled “Fungi Fiction: Analytical Investigation into the Church of
Psilomethoxin; Alleged Novel Compound using UPLC-HRMS.” We will address first the Church’s position
on the existence of Psilomethoxin, the respective interests of USONA and David
Heldreth on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences, how that affects the credibility
of their defamatory claims, and why, scientifically, the claims made in the subject
article are highly dubious at best. Our
Officer of Sacred Science, Adam McKay, is responsible for the scientific
portion of this response.
As an initial matter, no
one should ever take scientific papers and publications as scientific fact before
thoroughly examining the underlying methodology, because as is the case here,
many are not scientifically sound. While
USONA institute on its website states that its “…current clinical trials are
aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of psilocybin and 5-MEO-DMT within
the strict guidance of the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory
bodies,” the subject article is of such a poor scientific/methodological
standard, as explained in further detail below, is not reflective of them
meeting such standards.
First, it should be noted
that the Church has never, at any time, laid claim to the fact that
Psilomethoxin has ever been positively identified in its sacrament. Why?
Because at this juncture, it is scientifically impossible to make such
claims as there is no reference sample in existence. Our claims to the existence of Psilomethoxin,
at this time, are solely based on faith, bolstered by our and our members’ own
direct experiences with the Sacrament.
No one can claim, at this
juncture, positive identification of Psilomethoxin until a reference sample for
comparison is obtained. The Church has
made significant strides in obtaining a reference sample and expects acquire
one this year.
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.
Had they taken time to read through our website content and other
materials, they would have known their assumption to be incorrect. However, these parties seem to be so fixated
on attacking and discrediting the Church that they have either seen the
Church’s statements and completely disregarded them (because it doesn’t support
their baseless attacks) or have not taken the time to assess the entire
situation before publicly disparaging the Church. Either of these scenarios are troubling. Moreover, it is evident their desire to try
and discredit and disparage our Church has also significantly and negatively
affected the quality of their science.
As discussed below, the article at issue is based upon extremely poor
scientific standards.
The subject article, in
conjunction with David Heldreth’s disparaging statements are a textbook example
of the evils and horrors of psychedelic capitalism. These are the same evils
and horrors many have speculated about, but had not previously seen, at least
to this degree. It doesn’t take a rocket
scientist to understand that both USONA (and its scientists) and Panacea Plant
Sciences/David Heldreth, at least in some manner and to some degree, are
attempting to capitalize on the burgeoning psychedelic renaissance.
Any person or
organization which seeks or attempts to open and/or increase access to
psychedelics, beyond the control of the capitalist gatekeepers, is seen as a
threat to their monetary interests, and as we have seen, causes these
capitalist gatekeepers to go to great lengths to try and oust the threat. These companies will spare no person, entity,
or expense in protecting their IP interests and exclusive control over new
psychedelic compounds or any and all aspects of psychedelic therapy. As many are all too aware, patent lawsuits
and litigation are a common headline in the psychedelic news media as the
psychedelic capitalist fight for control over the entire sector.
Before we start to assess
the claims being made by USONA and Panacea Plant Sciences/David Heldreth, it is
important to note that many individuals and entities operating in the
psychedelic scientific/medical research community have sought to disparage and
discredit the claims of entheogen-based religious practitioners. As many are aware such individuals and
entities will tout the safety of psychedelics in a medical/clinical setting but
then state how dangerous they are if consumed elsewhere, even when such is not
supported by the clearly established safety data. Obviously, if people are free to consume
entheogens in a spiritual/religious setting, then they are not forced to pay
exorbitant amounts of money to go through the clinical models. This is seemingly unacceptable to many
operating in the medical/scientific psychedelic space, regardless if it
involves exercising a fundamental and inalienable right.
We must first consider
that both USONA and Panaea Plant Sciences/David Heldreth seemingly have a
vested interest in trying to discredit and disband the Church of Psilomethoxin. As such, we should always examine their
statements and science with the knowledge they are likely biased and seemingly
believe they have some vested interest (likely pecuniary in nature) contrary to
that of our Church.
Even though the Church
has never inserted itself into the for-profit and/or medical/scientific psychedelic
sector (as it is a non-profit religious organization), or placed itself in
competition against either entity, it seems that our spiritual/religious
practice and our sacrament represents a threat to them. It would be highly unlikely that USONA, a non-profit
entity (medical research organization) would spend money and resources on
publishing the subject article if it didn’t believe that such would advance
some interest of theirs. It is unlikely
that David Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences would make clearly
false patent claims and republish, with additional disparaging comments, the
subject article if they did not believe there would be some interest (likely
pecuniary) advanced by such conduct.
The disparaging statements
made by David Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences, when he
republished the USONA article, are not the first he has made against the
Church. Approximately five months ago,
Mr. Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences, made blatantly false and
non-sensical patent claims on LinkedIn, alleging he had a patent on our sacrament-production
process. Additionally, he suggested that
if we did not engage him, or some other party for a non-profit license, we could
be sued for patent infringement. These patent claims are and were obviously
false. In fact, several people on the
same post indicated as much and were of the opinion, as was the Church, that
such assertions were ridiculous.
Why were these assertions
patently false? The process the Church was
using to produce its sacrament had been previously patented by German
scientists well over thirty years ago.
Obviously that patent has expired.
Moreover, the general contours of our exact process at the time had been
described by our Church’s godfather and prophet, Alexander Shulgin, in a 2005
article on his website Cognitive Liberty.
As such, David Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Science’s patent
claims were clearly erroneous as the process had clearly been prior arted, and as
such, no valid patent could ever be obtained on the process. The concept of prior art is one of the most
basic, fundamental, and well-known aspects of patent law. It is the Church’s opinion that Mr. Heldreth’s
blatant disregard for these basic and fundamental patent laws, as an officer of
a psychedelic science/research organization who has filed multiple patent
applications, clearly evidences a malicious intent in making those claims.
While Church leadership
considered filing a defamation lawsuit and/or publishing an article at that
time to address the public, false, and defamatory statements made by David
Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences (he insinuated that the Church
was a patent infringer), we decided to let it go and forgive him as such is
consistent with our fundamental belief in the principle of cosmic unity and we
always want to set a good example for our members and the public at large. However, now that subsequent statements have
been made, we felt it necessary to disclose the prior statements in our defense,
as it aids in gauging the apparent and obvious bias David Heldreth and Panacea
Plant Sciences have in republishing the subject article with additional disparaging
comments.
It must be noted that the
Church of Psilomethoxin is a religious organization. It is not a for-profit entity and has never
injected itself into the for-profit psychedelic industry, nor would it
ever. Our sacrament has always been and
will remain available only to our members, who are sincere and competent
entheogen-based religious practitioners.
We do not serve our sacrament to the general public, nor will we
ever. It seems that USONA and David
Heldreth/Panacea Plant Sciences either do not understand or are disregarding
this fact as they speak and ac as if the Church is a normal for-profit entity
seeking to distribute its sacrament to the public at large, in competition with
them.
As a group of religious
practitioners, the Church is entitled to rely on faith in believing that its
sacrament contains Psilomethoxin. Other
established religious organizations make claims their sacrament contains or
represents certain things which it can not prove scientifically. Yet, USONA chose to zero in on our Church for
no apparent reason. The fact remains
that faith is a perfectly normal, accepted, and fundamental part of most, if
not all, religions. It is clearly
established precedent in this country that individuals are completely free and
protected in their right to believe in things they cannot prove and courts in
this country are strictly forbidden from entertaining such an inquiry.
As stated above, our
faith in the existence of Psilomethoxin is rooted in the Church’s and its
members’ own direct experiences with the sacrament. We all have the right to believe whatever it
is we want to believe, on faith, and to strengthen our faith based upon our own
direct experiences. There has always
been a struggle between science and religion, in that science has always made
concerted efforts to discredit religious claims. This situation is a prime example of that. However, today, more and more, people are
relying on their personal and direct experiences over scientific claims to the
contrary (and we think rightfully so). In
this instance, the scientific paper at issue is of extremely poor quality, and
it is perfectly reasonable that people would disregard its claims and continue
to follow their faith in their own direct experiences with our sacrament.
David Heldreth, on behalf
of Panacea Plant Science’s claims that this dubious scientific paper “…would
seem to complicate their religious protection claims and may being other legal
issues” is beyond his competency and is not worthy of a detailed response. The Church disputes whether the sample tested
in this instance was indeed obtained from the Church (there is no chain of
custody to establish this fact).
However, regardless of the blatant chain of custody and testing/methodological
issues present in the subject article, the Church feels extremely confident in
its religious claims. This is true regardless
of whether psilocybin and psilocin were discovered in samples of its
sacrament.
Obviously, the Church is
working with a natural organism which produces these compounds. The Church’s clearly stated belief system
requires it to work hand-in-hand with nature (reunion of science and nature). As such, the Church believes that trace
amounts of psilocybin and/or psilocin are perfectly normal and should be expected
to some extent. If the sacred mushroom
substrates output some trace quantity of psilocybin and/or psilocin, then such
is still considered our sacrament. In
fact, the Church has acknowledged and discussed this possibility on several
occasions.
As most are aware,
psilocybin/psilocin are perhaps the most ancient and prolific entheogenic
sacraments, and their sacramental/spiritual/religious use, as Michael Winkleman
has stated, is “…our shared world religious heritage.” So how the existence of these ancient and
sacred compounds in a religious sacrament would complicate religious claims is
unknown. It is no surprise that Mr.
Heldreth’s statements were conclusory in nature and without substantive
discussion. Moreover, for USONA to
suggest that trace amounts of psilocybin/psilocin present in any sample
represents a public health issue or danger is completely disingenuous. The amount of scientific evidence bolstering
the safety profile of these two sacred compounds is so great as to not even
warrant citation. There has never been
one documented death attributed solely to either one or both, of these
compounds.
In his re-publishing of
the article, David Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Sciences, uses
quotations around the word “church.” It
is obvious that, in this, he is intending to shed doubt on the Church’s
sincerity and religious claims. This is
patently offensive and worthy of some discussion as this conduct is very
pervasive amongst psychedelic capitalists and they need to be held accountable
for having double standards and being intellectually dishonest.
When we look back over
history, the religious/spiritual use of entheogens has by far been the primary method/mode
of consumption. In fact, this class of
compounds didn’t enter into the scientific sector until the 1950’s. Moreover, the concept of “recreational”
(whatever that means) use of psychedelics did not manifest until probably the
1960’s. Therefore, as a statistical
matter, based upon credible anthropological/archeological evidence and academic
literature, it is much more likely that someone is being sincere in their
assertion that they are consuming entheogens for spiritual/religious purposes,
as opposed to any other kind of use.
However, because this fact is inconsistent with David Heldreth, on
behalf of Panacea Plant Science’s pecuniary interest, it is obviously disregarded,
in favor of insinuating the Church’s religious claims aren’t sincere.
Additionally, David
Heldreth, on behalf of Panacea Plant Science’s insinuation of the Church’s
insincerity is wholly inconsistent with psychedelic science, of which he is
undoubtedly aware. Ever since
psychedelics were first administered under scientific observation in the
1950’s, it was noted that this class of compounds, very reliably, produces
primary religious/mystical experiences, even in sterilized clinical settings. As the science has progressed and different
psychedelic compounds have been studied, this one fact has remained the same–people
very reliably have primary religious/mystical experiences under the influence
of psychedelic compounds. That is why
the Church prefers to identify them as entheogens. In fact, a recent paper
published by Johns Hopkins University, one of the world’s leading psilocybin
research institutions, states that between 70-80% of those who consume
psilocybin in clinical trials have a primary religious/mystical experience,
which are usually ranked in the top five most meaningful experience of their
lives.
Considering the
foregoing, based upon long-standing historical and scientific fact, someone who
claims they consume any entheogen/psychedelic for spiritual/religious purposes
are much more likely than not being sincere in their assertions. However, David Heldreth and many other
psychedelic capitalists have repeatedly insinuated, or outright stated, that
entheogen/psychedelic-based religious claims are fraudulent or insincere (one
very well-known psychedelic profiteer used the word “bogus” in his remarks at a
conference in Florida).
One must ask why these
individuals continue to make disparaging comments about the claims of
entheogen/psychedelic practitioners when it is obviously contrary to
established scientific and historical fact?
Because claims of entheogen/psychedelic-based religious practitioners
are contrary to their pecuniary and other vested interests. And as such, it does not matter what the
science or history says. If the science
is contrary to their interests, then it is completely disregarded, or other
science is manufactured to achieve their ends.
This is exactly what has happened here.
USONA apparently decided to throw scientific standards out the window to
bolster a conclusion seemingly consistent with its perceived interests-that
Psilomethoxin does not exist in our sacrament.
Enough is enough, it is time to start holding these psychedelic
“scientists” to a higher standard of scientific integrity and rigor.
At this juncture, the
Church will likely explore its legal options against both USONA and David
Heldreth/Panacea Plant Sciences for the unfounded and disparaging comments they
have made (including the previous comments made by David Heldreth on behalf of
Panacea Plant Sciences). For reference,
we will publish in conjunction with this response, the prior comments made by
David Heldreth, so everyone can see his relentless pursuit to disparage and
disband our Church. The Church believes
that David Heldreth’s consistent efforts to discredit and disband our Church
through the use of false and conclusory statements and assertions, are likely malicious
in nature. It is doubtful he will ever
stop his pursuit until he and Panacea Plant Sciences are held accountable for
their actions.
It is a sad state of
affairs, when religious organizations, such as our Church and its members, who
are peacefully practicing their religion and working to support vulnerable
populations such as veterans and first responders, are attacked and defamed for
exercising their basic and fundamental rights as citizens and human beings. As previously stated, we think it is fair to
say that what we are seeing here is a textbook example of what can be expected
should the psychedelic capitalist system proceed in the direction it is now
headed. As all dedicated entheogen-based
religious practitioners and others are aware, these attacks and psychedelic
capitalism are antithetical to the clear messages we receive from the sacred
entheogens. Perhaps the world, and the
psychedelic space, would be a much better and peaceful place if those who seek
to monetize and control access to psychedelics would consume their sacrament
and listen to what spirit is saying. All
we can do is hope.
Below is the response
from our Head of Sacred Sciences, Adam McKay.
Much Love!!!!!
2 Scientific
Response
The publication
and sample veracity
Williamson and
Heldreth’s paper firstly is not published or peer reviewed in any accredited
journal or institution, and seems to be just a formulaic document aided by AI
aimed at discrediting the Church of Psilomethoxin. It appears to be put forth
by two individuals associated with a for profit organization. The individuals
did not make any effort to contact the church for an authentic sample or
attempt to verify the purported sample in question whatsoever. Before moving
onto the analytical inconsistencies it is important to note the chain of
custody of the sample in question. There is no evidence to support that it is
authentic sacrament, stored and transported properly, and unadulterated- on
both the anonymous donor and investigator end with the exception of the authors
safe handling claims at the very end of the samples use.
Methodology
5 known to be
present in mushroom tryptamine compounds, along with 5-MeO-DMT were claimed to
be run with reference standards by UPLC-HRMS in an unspecified solution where an
anhydrous methanolic extract was used to prepare the purported sample. When
possible the diluent solution for the sample and standard should be identical
or otherwise demonstrated to not alter the results between sample and standard.
This is a major methodology issue in itself.
Chromatography is
highly sensitive to solvent mixture ratios and pH yielding variable results
even on the same instrument run consecutively without significant controls and
safeguards in place. In a credible analysis the method used needs to be
validated and robust. With chromatography in particular, this entails such
steps as repeated injections of the standard to indicate the instrument’s
reliable functioning, blank measurements for background noise, and threshold of
detection measurements. As a chromatography specialist for small molecule drugs
of almost a decade in FDA regulated labs these findings would never stand as
reported here due to the lack of the 3 aforementioned control steps alone.
Without replicate standard analysis, and a reportable RSD for both retention
time and peak size, it is significantly likely that either a single
misrepresentative result may be selected or inaccuracies in the results would
be present.
The author
hypothesizes “If present in the sample, Psilomethoxin would likely appear with
a retention time between that of psilocin and 5-MeO-DMT at approximately
1.3-1.6 minutes” with no basis other than a mention of polarity. Taking the
fact that this is simply a conjecture based on nothing more than speculation of
the molecule’s polarity without evidence or data, the approximate retention
time is meaningless and absolutely not credible as a basis of confirmation.
This issue is what likely led Hamilton Morris to properly declare inconclusive
in his testing in accordance with GLP.
Results
Consider the fact
in figure 5 of the Fungi Fiction paper, that a water blank was compared against
a church sample in anhydrous methanol. This is not a blank determination when
different and unrelated solutions are used. One would expect that the results
would not be identical, given that a water blank was run against anhydrous
methanol regardless if an authentic sample is used and Psilomethoxin is
present.
Traditional
psilocybin producing mushrooms produce a series of related tryptamines such as
Baeocystin, Norbaeocystin, and Norpsilocin in addition to the well known
compounds psilocin and psilocybin. The author clearly demonstrated that his
machine was capable of the isolation and detection of all 5 compounds, using
analytical reference standards. It would be expected in an analysis of
psychoactive mushroom extract that the related tryptamines would be present in
addition to the natural products of the mushroom. The reported sample results
show only the presence of psilocybin and a lesser amount of psilocin despite
the author claiming an unreported or quantified recovery of baeocystin and a
robust recovery system. The author claims without evidence or reporting that
naturally present compounds were found. This is strong evidence to suggest that
an inauthentic or adulterated sample was tested


