I think you might be confused who you are talking to sometimes. There is a lot wrong with your statement here. You equate the other posters knowledge of molecular structure of the drug and it's experience itself because of this statement...."yeah, you def. didn't do enough and/or the right strain." Then you cross over/confuse what I said about theraputic effect. You have no clue how much I take or the effect I am affected long term by.

I sternly suggest you go over your messages before you submit them, and stop being so ass hurt when someone gives you a downvote, its a fucking button click you take as someone kicked your mom in the head. You mention DMT you get a downvote, tired of your broken record one note pony bullshit, now I am learning you are presumptuous and projecting.

Thank goodness we have someone else here on the Sift (other than myself) that truly understands both the molecular structure AND the experience itself! I think "walls breathing" with a slight "therapeutic effect" would result in a Shulgin rating of 1 - where as the correct dosage with the right strain could very well end up with a Shulgin rating of 3 /5 potentially 4 - so the spectrum is vast. To reach those states on mushrooms I would say is potentially dangerous - due to duration and effects - if that is the state one wishes to see - I'd highly recommend smoking straight up very small doses of 5-MEO-DMT (which is potentially dangerous past say 7 milligrams so start small and actually weight the dose) or NN-DMT (up to 25 milligrams - which is not dangerous at all - one could smoke 200000000000000000000 mg and it's safe, "breakthrough" experience usually occurring somewhere in the 20mg-50mg range). I don't promote "breakthrough experiences" like the poet, mycologist & ethnobotanist + ultimate source of knowledge on the subject (Terence Mckenna) did - I think it's a lot crazier than any person can realize is possible but what I recommend is starting small and working up from there.

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

In California we have a JR/community college system that transfers credits to 4 year colleges. You can take your first 2 years at a DRASTICALLY reduced expense, < $50 a credit the last time I went. You can also go there without a major or plan, just to learn. That's what I did for years and years, building up credits towards a degree without declaring one. It's really sad that that's not the norm, it seems like a great system. Not only does it make entry into 4 year colleges easier and cheaper, it also makes the 2/3 of students that drop out in the first 2 years have FAR less debt (if any) when they decide school is no longer the right option. It also opens higher education up to high school students with aptitude and older people who simply want to learn something new without breaking the bank to do so. This also makes for a better, more diverse student body.
Before someone who doesn't know makes the assumption that the level of education is lower than 4 year schools, you should know that many have been awarded 'best college' and 'best teacher' for the state repeatedly. True enough, there is an upper limit to the classes offered, but advanced molecular organic chemistry, offered and taken at Foothill college, was fairly advanced, as was advanced marine biology, taught by the repeated winner of 'best teacher' in the state. Each class cost about $250. WHAT A DEAL!

Hi Notarobot, your argument is unfortunately based on a very common misunderstanding of the chemistry of water and salt.

I can assure you that it is an established scientific fact that pure water has the highest heat capacity per unit of its mass compared to any water solutions. The less water there is in a water solution, the less heat capacity that solution has. This is because the temperature of pure water is more proportional to the amount of energy contained within it, which is due to the flexibility of its molecular structure. The more salt you add to water, the less structural flexibility (i.e. purity) there is to distribute and contain energy as the temperature increases. To put it another way, the salt molecules weigh down and restrict the water molecules from moving as freely, which is why salt water has a higher boiling point.

So in fact the more fresh water that is introduced to the oceans, the higher heat capacity and heat conduction there will be.

Furthermore, you grossly oversimplify the problem of climate change by assuming the only change that matters is immediately perceptible to "mammals like us". One of the biggest issues is that even slight variations in temperature can drastically change entire marine ecosystems. If enough ecosystems collapse, it will cause a chain reaction that will be very, very difficult to manage, let alone recover from. Also, even slight variations in salinity can drastically change ocean currents, which in turn affects not just marine ecosystems, but weather patterns throughout the world as well.

I can tell you're an intelligent person, so I hope you'll take me seriously when I say that it's very, very important for all intelligent people to be as diligent as possible when referring to the scientific causes and effects of climate change. Advocate whatever position you'd like as to how we should go about things, but please do your best to validate the information you're using to do so.

Yep. The crappy viddy illustrates the design on a molecular level and the in the finished product well, like Payback said, you got a fancy one-way cocaine straw with that one. If y'all go to the patent link site though, you'll see just how many related patents are referenced from this simple Tesla design from not a short list of *AHEM, tiny ma and pa companies like General Electric, Haliburton, Packard, Remington, Sperry-Rand, etc.
It's pretty obvious the design wasn't dismissed as useless in many applications. Tesla probably jotted this one out on a napkin while sopping some gravy at dinner while designing anti-gravity devices in his mind.

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

Well when you find a scientist that can take notes from a molecular POV, let us know, eh??

What is a REAL scientist anyhow??

One person is NEVER responsible for another person's emotional state or reaction to stimuli. It is not YOUR fault that an entire nation of emotionally damaged, abused, affected, incapable, ineffectual, developmentally-disabled human beings are now covering the landscape like a fungus...HOWEVER:
Self-preservation, species advancement, psycho-spiritual evolution, and the innate sensibilities that afford humanity a chance to get the goddamn molecule off-planet being the prime directive, one should when given the opportunity assist said molecule so much as is does not cause undue stress or fatigue to one's body, mind, or soul.

YouTube comments mean jack and or shit, as does most of the prattle filling servers faster than they can be manufactured. Get over it Missy, yer sexy to some, ugly to some, stay on task, make yer magnet videos, eat, shit, fuck, sleep, and die like the rest of us so the planet can produce more coal, fishes, coffee and mosquitoes, life goes on.

Sexism, racism, ism ism motherfucking isms, get the fuck over yourselves you bunch of self-satisfied, privileged, whining cake-hole stuffing fucks, and BIG HUGS for everyone with sandy vaginas, hashtag, smiley-face, fuck-off.

Oh yeah, and TROLLS??? That's YOUR emotion state telling the molecule to be un-molecular. Everyone commenting on the internet is a goddamn troll, in case you haven't figured that shit out yet, get a clue.

That's my point. The brain channel isn't about you thinking a dog is amazing for thinking of something. There's a description of the channel, by the channel owner, which explains what the channel is for and when you should invoke it:

http://videosift.com/brain

"From the molecular biology of neurons to theories of consciousness, the Mind and Brain channel is devoted to workings of the brain and its emergent mind. All videos in this channel offer some insight into the workings of brains (organic or synthetic). Videos of trippy optical illusions and Derren Brown mind tricks are generally not acceptable - unless, of course, they contain some explanation of how the brain is being manipulated to produce the demonstrated results."

"The dog was smart to use its brain of doing that" doesn't fit. The same way so many of your channel assignments don't fit.

I'm sorry, but you really do need to look at what the channels are for because honestly you're just making a mess of the site with your constant throwing channel assignments out to the point where their meaning is lost.

Granted, some channels don't have good descriptions (which is why you tag every god damn thing that has a car in the background with wheels), but still, I hope you understand what I mean.

I think you'd have to try it firsthand. I don't know, either. But it is not like other tryptamines even if they share molecular structure. NN-DMT is unlike them all.

Like Joe Rogan said: "Mushrooms X 1,000,000 + Aliens = DMT"

Why do people see them and why do they "teach" people things. It's a good question. Maybe it is what McKenna said "The After-Life Machinery" or maybe it is very deep in the subconscious.

It doesn't really matter if it is "real" or not. It could drive a person crazy thinking about it after they have seen it "for real". What matters, is here is a deep mystery that anyone can experience for themselves, and it's fairly... beyond imagination.

If you want to accurately model what real water/fluids would do, you've got to model at the molecular (if not atomic) level. Games just have to fool you, which is a way lower bar.

Must be the kind of Kool Aid where the Kool Aid man comes out dressed in a black entity costume aboard a UFO and you are being blasted apart at a molecular level until your consciousness and huge ego does exist any longer. Sounds like Kool Aid more people should take around here right Choggs?

The non-wetting plunger (assume a nano molecular hydrophobic surface is the trick) actually makes a lot of sense---no drips when you lift over the edge of the bowl after using...More hygenic?