This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Dimethyltryptamine does in the body
An unapproved short-acting psychedelic studied in ayahuasca for resistant depression.
DMT is structurally almost identical to serotonin, with two extra methyl groups. Those groups are what stop the body's ordinary handling of it and let it reach the same receptor psilocybin and LSD use. Swallowed on its own it is destroyed within minutes by an enzyme in the gut wall, which is why the Amazonian brew pairs it with a vine whose alkaloids switch that enzyme off. Injected or smoked it reaches the brain in seconds, peaks in about two minutes, and is essentially gone in thirty.
What happened in people
In 29 people, one dose improved depression for a week. Sixty-four in 100 responded versus 27 without it.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
The study used one preparation, while ayahuasca batches vary greatly and require a second plant to activate DMT.
Where it acts
Cortical 5-HT2A receptors, principally in layer V pyramidal neurons
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · WUB601BHAA · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 117 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
MADRS score change at 1, 2 and 7 days after a single dose
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
NCT02914769 (ayahuasca in treatment-resistant depression)
p=0.04 at days 1 and 2, p<0.0001 at day 7; between-group Cohen's d rose from 0.84 to 1.49 across the week
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. 29 patients in total. Vomiting is an expected and near-universal effect of the brew, which makes the placebo comparison difficult to maintain even with a taste-matched control.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intravenous or inhaled for the pure compound; oral decoction when combined with an MAO inhibitor
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), No. 04-1084 — opinion of the Court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/0… · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, autonomic and subjective response across four intravenous doses
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Strassman intravenous DMT dose-response (parts I and II)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), No. 04-1084 — opinion of the Court (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/0… · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Dimethyltryptamine
What a person takes: Intravenous or inhaled for the pure compound; oral decoction when combined with an MAO inhibitor.
The measurement behind this step
Three routes with three different pharmacologies. Intravenous synthetic DMT gives a controlled, very short exposure and is what the current trials use. Inhalation gives a similarly abrupt onset with an uncontrolled dose. The oral route works only in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which extends the experience to several hours and introduces the interaction profile of an MAO inhibitor alongside it.
Getting in
Inactive by mouth unless an enzyme is blocked first
Swallowed alone, DMT is destroyed before it can reach the brain. The Amazonian brew adds a second plant that switches off the enzyme doing the destroying.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
DMT is a substrate for monoamine oxidase A in the gut wall and liver, giving essentially zero oral bioavailability. Ayahuasca supplies harmine, harmaline and tetrahydroharmine, reversible MAO-A inhibitors, which is what makes the oral route pharmacologically possible.
Injected or inhaled, it reaches the brain in seconds
Bypassing the gut entirely, the molecule crosses into the brain almost immediately and peaks about two minutes later.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Intravenous dimethyltryptamine fumarate produces peak plasma concentration and peak subjective effect within 2 minutes; effects are negligible at 30 minutes. The time course is set by rapid distribution and rapid MAO-A metabolism rather than by receptor kinetics.
Activates 5-HT2A, the same receptor as LSD and psilocin
It is close enough in shape to serotonin to switch on the receptor that all the classic psychedelics use.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Agonist at 5-HT2A with additional 5-HT1A and 5-HT2C activity, plus reported sigma-1 receptor binding. Structurally it is serotonin with two N-methyl groups and no 5-hydroxyl, which removes the polar group that would otherwise limit brain entry.
Cortical activity is reorganised, briefly and completely
For a few minutes the ordinary flow of experience is replaced rather than modified. Volunteers described it as more vivid and compelling than dreaming or waking.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Gq-coupled 5-HT2A signalling in layer V pyramidal neurons, as with the other classic psychedelics. Strassman's volunteers described effects that "completely replaced" ongoing mental experience at 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg, with lower doses producing primarily affective and somaesthetic effects.
Depression scores fall for at least a week after one dose
In the one randomised trial, the gap between drug and placebo was largest at day seven — after the drug had been gone for six and a half days.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Measured endpoint is MADRS at days 1, 2 and 7. Between-group effect size rose from d=0.84 at day 1 to d=1.49 at day 7, in 29 patients. DMT is cleared within an hour of administration, so the day-7 result is not a drug-concentration effect and no mechanism for its persistence has been demonstrated.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In trials: adults with treatment-resistant depression, given ayahuasca or intravenous synthetic DMT in a monitored session. In practice: participants in ayahuasca ceremonies, and members of two syncretic churches with a US legal exemption.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
Remission at day 7 in the ayahuasca trial, 36% versus 7%, did not reach significance (p=0.054)
The 0.1 mg/kg intravenous dose produced the least desirable subjective effects of any dose tested, which is not a linear dose-response
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Not available
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Intravenous or inhaled for the pure compound; oral decoction when combined with an MAO inhibitor
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Three routes with three different pharmacologies. Intravenous synthetic DMT gives a controlled, very short exposure and is what the current trials use. Inhalation gives a similarly abrupt onset with an uncontrolled dose. The oral route works only in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which extends the experience to several hours and introduces the interaction profile of an MAO inhibitor alongside it.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Acute effects are dose-dependent rises in blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature and pupil diameter, with elevations of cortisol, corticotropin, prolactin and beta-endorphin, all measured directly in the intravenous dose-response study. Subjectively, the higher doses produce a state that displaces ordinary experience entirely, with a brief overwhelming onset that volunteers described as loss of control and in which euphoria and anxiety coexisted. Vomiting is a near-universal effect of ayahuasca and is treated within the ceremonial context as expected rather than adverse. The MAO-A inhibition in the oral preparation carries the interaction profile of any MAO inhibitor: serotonergic drugs, including SSRIs, and tyramine-containing foods are the relevant hazards. DMT does not produce physical dependence.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Intravenous or inhaled for the pure compound; oral decoction when combined with an MAO inhibitor
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Intravenous synthetic DMT gives a controlled, very short exposure and is what the current trials use. Inhalation gives a similarly abrupt onset with an uncontrolled dose. The oral route works only in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which extends the experience to several hours and introduces the interaction profile of an MAO inhibitor alongside it.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Dimethyltryptamine studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the pineal gland synthesises and releases DMT — no human measurement supports it, and melatonin was unmoved in the study most often cited for it
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That detecting endogenous DMT in tissue establishes a physiological signalling role for it
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a result from one characterised batch of a plant decoction generalises to ayahuasca as a category or to synthetic DMT
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a twenty-minute drug effect produces the same durable outcome as a six-hour one — no trial has compared them
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Dimethyltryptamine are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Ayahuasca beat placebo in 29 patients with treatment-resistant depression
In plain words
A single dose lowered depression scores more than placebo at one, two and seven days, with the gap widening over the week. Response at day seven was 64% against 27%.
What was measured
MADRS score at days 1, 2 and 7 after a single dose
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 29 patients with treatment-resistant depression; a single dose of ayahuasca or placebo, with MADRS and HAM-D measured at baseline and at 1, 2 and 7 days. MADRS was significantly lower in the ayahuasca group at day 1 and day 2 (p=0.04) and at day 7 (p<0.0001). Between-group effect sizes rose across the week: Cohen's d 0.84 at day 1, 0.84 at day 2 and 1.49 at day 7. Response rates were high in both arms early and significantly higher with ayahuasca at day 7, 64% versus 27% (p=0.04); remission was 36% versus 7% (p=0.054, a trend). The placebo was a brew designed to mimic taste and appearance. This is the first controlled trial of a psychedelic in treatment-resistant depression and it has 29 patients in it.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Strassman: full dose-response in humans, peaking at two minutes
In plain words
Intravenous DMT was given at four doses to experienced volunteers. Blood levels and effects peaked within two minutes and were negligible at thirty. Hallucinogenic effects appeared only at the two highest doses.
What was measured
Neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, autonomic and subjective dose-response to intravenous DMT
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Double-blind, saline placebo-controlled, randomised dose-response study of intravenous dimethyltryptamine fumarate at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg in 11 experienced hallucinogen users, treatments at least a week apart. Peak blood levels and subjective effects occurred within 2 minutes and were negligible at 30 minutes. DMT dose-dependently raised blood pressure, heart rate, pupil diameter and rectal temperature, and raised blood beta-endorphin, corticotropin, cortisol and prolactin. Growth hormone rose equally at all doses. The companion paper reported that hallucinogenic effects appeared at 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg, that 0.1 mg/kg produced the least desirable effects, and that psychological effects peaked at 90 to 120 seconds and were almost completely resolved by 30 minutes. These were the first US studies of a Schedule I hallucinogen in humans in two decades.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The pineal gland claim: DMT did not move melatonin, and the pineal was never shown to make it
In plain words
The popular story that the pineal gland releases DMT has no supporting human data. In the one controlled study that measured it, DMT left melatonin — the pineal's actual product — completely unchanged.
What was measured
That the pineal gland synthesises and releases DMT — a claim with no human measurement behind it, and one contradicted by the melatonin data in the study usually cited for it
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
DMT is an endogenous compound: it has been detected in mammalian tissue and body fluids, and the enzyme INMT that could synthesise it is expressed in several tissues. The specific claim that the pineal gland synthesises and releases DMT, particularly at birth or death, is not supported by any human measurement. Strassman's own dose-response study, which is the source most often invoked for the pineal hypothesis, reported that melatonin levels were unaffected by DMT at any dose — melatonin being the pineal's characteristic secretory product and the obvious index of pineal involvement. Detecting a compound in tissue establishes its presence, not its physiological function, its concentration at a receptor, or its release from a particular organ. The endogenous-DMT literature and the pineal story are two different claims, and only the first has evidence.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The ayahuasca trial tested a brew, and the brew is not standardised
In plain words
The trial used one preparation from one source. Ayahuasca varies several-fold in both its active components between batches, and the DMT is only active because of the second plant.
What was measured
That a result obtained with one characterised batch of a plant decoction generalises to ayahuasca as a category, or to synthetic DMT
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Ayahuasca is a decoction whose DMT content comes from one plant and whose oral activity depends on beta-carboline monoamine oxidase inhibitors from another. Published analyses of ceremonial preparations show several-fold variation in both DMT and beta-carboline content between brews. The randomised trial administered a single characterised batch, which is correct trial practice and also means the result belongs to that preparation. Extending it requires either standardising the brew or moving to synthetic DMT with a defined dose — which is what the current early-phase programmes do, and which makes them a different intervention rather than a confirmation. Separately, the MAO-A inhibition that makes the brew work is a real pharmacological interaction, and it applies to serotonergic drugs and to tyramine-containing foods in the same way any MAO inhibitor does.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The Supreme Court allowed a Schedule I sacrament, unanimously
In plain words
In 2006 the US Supreme Court held that a small church could import and drink an ayahuasca tea containing DMT, because the government had not shown a compelling reason to stop it.
What was measured
Judicial outcome on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to Schedule I enforcement
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), decided 21 February 2006, the Court affirmed a preliminary injunction permitting a religious sect to import and consume hoasca, a sacramental tea brewed from Amazonian plants containing DMT, a Schedule I substance. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court. The decision turned on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest served by the least restrictive means when it substantially burdens religious exercise; the government had not made that showing on the record before the Court, notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act's categorical Schedule I treatment. The case is an unusual and instructive shift: Schedule I status was not overturned, and an exemption from it was upheld anyway, on grounds that had nothing to do with the pharmacology.
Source
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), No. 04-1084, opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Roberts
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A twenty-minute psychedelic, and the clinical question that follows from it
In plain words
Injected DMT peaks in two minutes and is over in thirty. That is a fraction of a psilocybin session, and it is the main reason companies are developing it.
What was measured
Time to peak and time to resolution of subjective effects after intravenous DMT
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Strassman's dose-response work established the human time course directly: peak plasma concentration and peak subjective effect within 2 minutes of intravenous administration, negligible by 30 minutes, with psychological effects almost completely resolved at that point. A psilocybin session runs six to eight hours and a supported LSD session eight to twelve. The clinical implication is a cost implication: monitored time is the dominant cost of psychedelic-assisted therapy, and a twenty-minute drug effect changes it by an order of magnitude. The unresolved question is whether the durable outcome depends on duration. No trial has compared a short-acting and a long-acting psychedelic head to head at matched intensity, so this is currently an economic argument with a pharmacological premise and no clinical evidence either way.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A tryptamine that is inactive by mouth unless paired with an enzyme inhibitor, produces its entire effect in under half an hour, and has one 29-patient randomised trial in treatment-resistant depression with a day-seven effect size of 1.49.
Recorded evidence blocks (3)
Q1
Which 2 trials of Dimethyltryptamine posted no result?
Posted no result
2 of 2 completed trials
Registrations
NCT04353024 and NCT04673383
Completion dates
oldest 2022-09-22; newest 2022-12-22
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT04353024
2022-09-22
NCT04673383
2022-12-22
Q2
At the median, Dimethyltryptamine's trials enrolled 50 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
50
Largest enrolment
66
Registered trials counted
3
Q3
Who carried Dimethyltryptamine to phase 2, and who else?
Johns Hopkins University, 1 study: the lead sponsor the registry names most often for Dimethyltryptamine; 3 lead sponsors in all; highest registry phase 2, 1 of 3 studies at it. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
No marketed product. The principal psychoactive constituent of ayahuasca; SPL026 and similar synthetic DMT fumarate formulations are in clinical trials
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 3 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.