This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Salvinorin A does in the body
An unapproved research and recreational drug with state-dependent legal status.
Salvinorin A is not a nitrogen-containing alkaloid like almost every other psychoactive plant compound; it is a terpene, chemically closer to a plant resin. It fits one receptor, the kappa opioid receptor, and essentially nothing else — screened against fifty other targets it did nothing. Kappa receptors are the ones that produce dysphoria and dissociation rather than euphoria, which is why the experience is disorienting rather than pleasant and why the drug is used repeatedly by very few people. It reaches the brain within seconds of inhalation and is cleared within about twenty minutes.
What happened in people
Laboratory screening found one opioid-related target, and inhaled effects peaked within two minutes and ended within twenty.
✓ 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
No euphoria in ten people does not establish low addiction risk or absence of dependence.
Where it acts
κ-opioid receptors on cortical, claustral and vestibular circuits; the compound enters cerebrospinal fluid within minutes of inhalation
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 · T56W91NG6J · read 2026-08-29
The organism is Salvia divinorum, a species. It is also called diviner's sage.
NCBI Taxonomy · 28513 · 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 122 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.
Subject-rated drug strength every 2 minutes for 60 minutes across 16 ascending inhaled doses
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Johnson et al. 2011 ascending-dose human laboratory study (Johns Hopkins)
How many people
4
Study design
Human laboratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
Measured performance
What was found
Orderly dose- and time-related effects; peak at 2 minutes, definite effects absent by approximately 20 minutes; dose-related increases on the Mysticism Scale and Hallucinogen Rating Scale
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
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. Four participants, all with prior hallucinogen experience, dosed under supportive laboratory conditions. Nothing in this design speaks to effects in unprepared or unsupervised use, which is how the drug is actually taken.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Behavioural, subjective, cognitive, psychophysiological and endocrine effects of 0, 8 and 12 mg inhaled salvinorin A
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Ranganathan et al. 2012 crossover study (Yale / VA Connecticut)
How many people
10
Study design
Human laboratory, double-blind, randomised, counterbalanced crossover
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Psychotomimetic and perceptual effects with increased plasma cortisol and prolactin and reduced resting EEG spectral power; effects transient and not dose-related between 8 and 12 mg
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
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. No euphoria, no cognitive deficits and no vital-sign changes were observed. Effects did not separate between the two active doses, so the study characterises the state rather than a dose-response.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Dose-related dissociative, hallucinogenic and memory effects
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
MacLean et al. 2013 ascending-dose study with 1-month follow-up
How many people
8
Study design
Human laboratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Dose-related dissociative effects and impairment of recall and recognition memory; effects peaked at 2 minutes and rapidly dissipated
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
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. Maximal drug-strength ratings or unresponsiveness were frequent at the highest doses — an intensity that a laboratory can contain and an unsupervised setting cannot. No persisting adverse effects at 1 month.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 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 happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
□A number that stands in for healthNo evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.No registered study measures this.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
□AnimalsNo evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
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
Salvinorin A
What a person takes: Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf.
The measurement behind this step
Laboratory administration is a weighed dose vaporised and inhaled in a single breath, with ratings collected every two minutes. Traditional Mazatec use is buccal, from fresh leaf or an aqueous infusion held in the mouth, which gives a slower and much weaker exposure. Swallowing is ineffective because esterases inactivate the compound before absorption.
Getting in
Inhaled, because it is destroyed if swallowed
The compound is vaporised and inhaled, or held in the mouth as leaf. Swallowed, it is broken down before it can act.
╌╌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
Inhaled doses of 0.375 to 21 µg/kg in the Johns Hopkins series and 8 to 12 mg in the Yale crossover. The ester groups that make the molecule a diterpene rather than an alkaloid are also what make it labile to gastrointestinal and hepatic esterases, so oral bioavailability is negligible and buccal absorption is the traditional route.
Effects are already at maximum by the earliest moment a study can measure them — two minutes.
╌╌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
Lipophilic, uncharged and low molecular weight; crosses the blood-brain barrier without a transporter. Nonhuman-primate work documents rapid entry into cerebrospinal fluid, matching the fast onset of unconditioned behavioural effects.
It fits one receptor. Against fifty other targets, including the serotonin receptor every classical psychedelic uses, it did nothing measurable.
╌╌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
Full agonist at the κ-opioid receptor with no significant activity across a 50-target panel and no action at 5-HT2A. Unlike every other opioid-receptor ligand in clinical use it contains no nitrogen, so it makes none of the ionic contacts that define the classical opioid pharmacophore — the binding mode was worked out separately by mutagenesis.
Dissociation, distorted body sense, raised stress hormones
The experience is disorientation rather than pleasure: altered sense of where the body is, pressure on the skin, loss of contact with the room. Cortisol and prolactin rise.
──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
κ activation produces dose-related dissociative effects, somaesthetic distortion and recall and recognition memory impairment, with increased plasma cortisol and prolactin and reduced resting EEG spectral power. No euphoria, no cognitive deficit outside the acute window and no vital-sign change were measured at 8 and 12 mg.
Over in twenty minutes, with nothing detectable a month later
Definite effects have gone by about twenty minutes. Follow-up a month after sixteen ascending doses found no lasting adverse effect.
──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
Rapid ester hydrolysis to the inactive salvinorin B underlies the short duration. At one-month follow-up in the eight-participant ascending-dose study there was no evidence of persisting adverse effects; participants described the effects as qualitatively unlike other drugs.
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 the published studies: eight to ten healthy adults with prior hallucinogen experience, dosed in a laboratory. Outside them: recreational users, disproportionately adolescents and young adults, inhaling leaf or fortified extract.
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
No therapeutic development of salvinorin A itself has been attempted; the compound's use is as a pharmacological tool
The two active doses in the Yale crossover did not separate from each other, so that study produced a state description rather than a dose-response curve
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
Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf
✎ 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
Laboratory administration is a weighed dose vaporised and inhaled in a single breath, with ratings collected every two minutes. Traditional Mazatec use is buccal, from fresh leaf or an aqueous infusion held in the mouth, which gives a slower and much weaker exposure. Swallowing is ineffective because esterases inactivate the compound before absorption.
✎ 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
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
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
Across three controlled human studies at doses up to 21 µg/kg, salvinorin A produced no change in heart rate or blood pressure, no euphoria, no acute or delayed adverse events, and no persisting adverse effects at one-month follow-up. The measured hazards are within the acute window: profound dissociation with maximal drug-strength ratings or unresponsiveness at high doses, loss of spatial orientation, and dose-related memory impairment. The risk that follows from that is situational — falls, injury and loss of contact with surroundings during a two-to-twenty-minute period of unresponsiveness — and no controlled study is designed to measure it, because a laboratory removes exactly those hazards.
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
Vaporised inhalation, or buccal absorption from chewed leaf
✎ 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
Traditional Mazatec use is buccal, from fresh leaf or an aqueous infusion held in the mouth, which gives a slower and much weaker exposure. Swallowing is ineffective because esterases inactivate the compound before absorption.
✎ 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 Salvinorin A 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 absence of euphoria in a 10-person acute study establishes low abuse liability, which requires self-administration and withdrawal measures this design does not contain
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 laboratory safety in prepared, supervised, hallucinogen-experienced volunteers describes the risk of unsupervised use of fortified extract
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 κ-antagonist drug candidates work because salvinorin A validated the target; those compounds carry their own trial evidence and it belongs to 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.
✗Goes past the evidence
That "most potent naturally occurring hallucinogen" is a measured ranking — it is a comparison of active doses by weight, not of a common endpoint
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.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records 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.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records 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 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 Salvinorin A 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.
Selective for one receptor out of fifty tested, and inactive at 5-HT2A
In plain words
Screened against fifty receptors, transporters and channels, salvinorin A hit exactly one: the kappa opioid receptor. It did nothing at the serotonin receptor that every classical psychedelic works through.
What was measured
[3H]-bremazocine displacement at cloned κ receptors plus a 50-target negative screen including 5-HT2A
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Roth et al. found that salvinorin A potently and selectively inhibited [3H]-bremazocine binding to cloned κ-opioid receptors and had no significant activity against a battery of 50 receptors, transporters and ion channels. Functional studies confirmed potent agonism at cloned κ receptors in HEK293 cells and at native κ receptors in guinea-pig brain. The compound had no actions at 5-HT2A, the principal molecular target of the classical hallucinogens, and its profile was distinct from LSD across the same panel. It is, to the authors' knowledge, the first naturally occurring non-nitrogenous opioid-receptor-subtype-selective agonist — an unusual claim in that it is a negative result across a wide panel, which is stronger evidence of selectivity than any single affinity number.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Peaks at two minutes, gone by twenty, with no change in heart rate or blood pressure
In plain words
A placebo-controlled study gave sixteen ascending inhaled doses to four experienced volunteers. The effect was at maximum by the first measurement, two minutes in, and had faded by about twenty. Blood pressure and pulse did not move.
What was measured
Subject-rated drug strength every 2 minutes over 60 minutes across 16 ascending doses, with heart rate and blood pressure, n=4
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Johnson et al. ran a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in four healthy hallucinogen-experienced adults who inhaled 16 ascending doses of salvinorin A (0.375 to 21 µg/kg) with four intermixed placebo doses, rating drug strength every two minutes for 60 minutes. Effects were orderly and dose-related, peaked at the first timepoint two minutes after inhalation, and definite subjective effects were no longer present at approximately 20 minutes. Dose-related increases appeared on the Mysticism Scale and the Hallucinogen Rating Scale. Salvinorin A did not significantly increase heart rate or blood pressure. Narratives described disruption of vestibular and interoceptive signals — changed spatial orientation, pressure on the body — rather than the visual content typical of 5-HT2A agonists.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Raises cortisol and prolactin, flattens the EEG, and produces no euphoria
In plain words
In ten healthy volunteers, inhaled salvinorin A produced dissociation and perceptual changes, raised two stress hormones, reduced brainwave power — and produced no pleasurable high at all.
What was measured
Plasma cortisol and prolactin, resting EEG spectral power, and subjective and behavioural ratings at 0, 8 and 12 mg, n=10
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Ranganathan et al. ran a three-day double-blind, randomised, crossover, counterbalanced study of 0 mg, 8 mg and 12 mg inhaled salvinorin A in 10 healthy individuals with prior Salvia experience. The drug produced psychotomimetic effects and perceptual alterations including dissociative and somaesthetic effects, increased plasma cortisol and prolactin, and reduced resting EEG spectral power, with a rapid rise in blood levels. It did not produce euphoria, cognitive deficits or changes in vital signs, and the effects were transient and not dose-related across the two active doses tested. Administration was very well tolerated with no acute or delayed adverse effects. The cortisol and prolactin rise is the neuroendocrine signature of κ-receptor activation and is the objective correlate of an otherwise entirely subjective experience.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Dose-related memory impairment, and nothing persisting at one month
In plain words
Eight volunteers took up to sixteen ascending doses. Recall and recognition memory got worse as the dose rose. A month later there was no sign of any lasting harm.
What was measured
Dose-related recall and recognition memory impairment and dissociative ratings across 16 ascending doses, with 1-month follow-up, n=8
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
MacLean et al. gave eight healthy hallucinogen-using adults up to 16 ascending inhaled doses of salvinorin A (0.375 to 21 µg/kg) under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions, assessing physiological, behavioural and subjective effects every two minutes for 60 minutes. Effects peaked at two minutes and rapidly dissipated, replicating the earlier series. Subjective effects were intense, with maximal drug-strength ratings or unresponsiveness frequent at high doses. The drug produced dose-related dissociative effects and impairments in recall and recognition memory. At one-month follow-up there was no evidence of persisting adverse effects, and participants reported the effects were qualitatively different from other drugs.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Not in the federal schedules at all — the control is entirely at state level
In plain words
One of the most potent hallucinogens known does not appear anywhere in the US federal drug schedules. Around thirty states banned it separately, so whether it is legal depends on the state line.
What was measured
Presence or absence of the substance in the federal schedules, checked against the current regulation text
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Neither Salvia divinorum nor salvinorin A appears in 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15, the sections listing Schedules I to V. The current eCFR text of part 1308 names ibogaine, psilocyn, mephedrone, 2C-B, the JWH synthetic cannabinoids and isotonitazene; it does not name salvinorin A. A Federal Register search of Drug Enforcement Administration documents returns no scheduling action for Salvia divinorum. DEA has listed it as a drug of concern for two decades without initiating a rulemaking. Control is therefore state-by-state — roughly thirty states have their own statutes — and international, with schedules in Australia, Japan, Italy, Belgium and elsewhere. The record here is that federal scheduling tracks legislative and administrative attention, not pharmacological potency: this compound is more selective and more potent by weight than several Schedule I substances that are listed.
Source
21 CFR part 1308, current eCFR text (Schedules I-V); Federal Register search of DEA documents for "Salvia divinorum", zero scheduling actions
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
"Low addictive potential" is a reasonable reading of ten people, not a finding
In plain words
Because the drug produced no euphoria in a ten-person laboratory study, the authors suggested it has low addictive potential. That is an inference from an acute study, not a measurement of dependence.
What was measured
That absence of euphoria in an acute 10-person laboratory study establishes low abuse liability
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Ranganathan et al. concluded that the perceptual-altering effects and lack of euphoric effects "would explain its intermittent use pattern" and "would also suggest a low addictive potential similar to other hallucinogens and consistent with κ opiate receptor agonism". The premise — no euphoria at 8 and 12 mg in 10 people — is measured. The conclusion is an extrapolation: abuse liability is established by self-administration, dose-escalation and withdrawal measures over time, none of which this design contains. The κ-receptor pharmacology makes the inference plausible, since κ agonists are aversive in both animal and human studies, and the epidemiology of intermittent use is consistent with it. It remains an inference, and this record files it as one.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The tool that made the κ receptor a psychiatric drug target
In plain words
Because salvinorin A showed that switching on the kappa receptor in a person produces dissociation and distorted perception, blocking that receptor became a plausible treatment idea. That is the compound's main scientific legacy.
What was measured
Demonstration in humans that selective κ agonism produces dissociation, perceptual alteration and a neuroendocrine response
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Roth et al. stated the implication directly in 2002: because salvinorin A is a κ-selective psychotomimetic, κ-selective antagonists may be therapeutic candidates for disorders manifesting perceptual distortion, and κ receptors evidently play a prominent role in modulating human perception. The human studies that followed supplied the objective correlates — cortisol and prolactin elevation, reduced EEG spectral power, dose-related dissociation and memory impairment — that a target-validation argument needs. This is a measured claim about what the compound demonstrated, not a claim that any κ-targeted drug works; the clinical results for κ antagonists in depression belong to those compounds' own records, not to this one.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 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.
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.
The first naturally occurring non-nitrogenous opioid-receptor-selective agonist, inactive against a panel of 50 other receptors and transporters and completely inactive at 5-HT2A, producing an intense dissociative state that peaks two minutes after inhalation and is gone in twenty — and it is not listed anywhere in the federal drug schedules.
Recorded evidence blocks (5)
Q1
What did Salvinorin A's largest trial (105 people) and its longest (5.5 years) measure?
105 people in Salvinorin A's largest registered study, 5.5 years in its longest registered window, measuring Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptoms Scale, Visual Analog Scale, Assessment of Opioid Effects, Cognitive Testing. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
2 phase1, 1 early phase1, 1 na, 1 phase2; NCT00700596; 2014-08-22; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2020, NCT03418714.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Salvinorin A was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase1
2
early phase1
1
na
1
phase2
1
Last recorded human testNCT03418714
2020-03-02
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
Salvinorin A was tested only in human — what did it show?
Interpretation Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptoms Scale, Visual Analog Scale, Assessment of Opioid Effects, Cognitive Testing — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
humanNCT00700596
mechanism-only; Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinician Administered Dissociative Symptoms Scale, Visual Analog Scale, Assessment of Opioid Effects, Cognitive Testing; 4
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
More Salvinorin A was worse in human: at what point?
U-shaped in human: "Local administration of the selective KOR agonist salvinorin A (Sal-A), also resulted in an inverted U-shaped curve; however, the downward phase was insensitive to U0126." Europe PMC · dose-response search · 2015-08-21
5 recorded sentences naming Salvinorin A; U-shaped, dose-response
Show the evidence
U-shapedPMID 26297384
"Local administration of the selective KOR agonist salvinorin A (Sal-A), also resulted in an inverted U-shaped curve; however, the downward phase was insensitive to U0126."
dose-response
PMID 26047623
"Salvinorin-A induced intense psychotropic effects characterized by a dose-dependent gating of external audio-visual information and an inverted-U dose-response effect on body awareness."
PMID 16434091
"The tail-flick assay was employed to investigate 1) salvinorin A's (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/kg) dose-response and time-course (10, 20, and 30 min) effects in a thermal nociceptive assay, and 2) the ability for the KOP antagonist norBNI (10.0 mg/kg) to prevent salvinorin A antinociception."
PMID 16434091
"The hotplate assay was utilized as a second thermal nociceptive measure to test salvinorin A's dose-response effects."
PMID 16434091
"The acetic acid abdominal constriction assay was used to study salvinorin A's dose-response and time-course (over 30 min) effects in a chemo-nociceptive assay."
recorded 2015-08-21 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Which 2 trials of Salvinorin A posted no result?
Posted no result
2 of 2 completed trials
Registrations
NCT01149824 and NCT00700596
Completion dates
oldest 2010-10; newest 2014-08-22
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT01149824
2010-10
NCT00700596
2014-08-22
Q5
At the median, Salvinorin A's trials enrolled 13.5 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
13.5
Largest enrolment
105
Registered trials counted
4
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence
✗ 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: 4 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.