Process
Methodology
How we gather, evaluate, and present information. Where the numbers come from. What we deliberately leave off the page.
Transparency about the process is essential to the trust this platform asks of its readers.
How we work
How we research
Every medicine page begins with a structured research pass. We use Perplexity Deep Research and the Sonar API to gather material from peer-reviewed journals (PubMed, Cochrane, institutional repositories), historical and ethnobotanical scholarship, contemporary clinical work, and firsthand accounts from practitioners within traditional contexts.
We cross-reference. Where modern pharmacology and traditional practice describe the same substance, we present both, and we note where they disagree. We do not lean on a single source for any factual claim. Where the evidence base is small or contested, we say so in the prose.
When new studies appear or our understanding shifts, we revisit pages and update them.
How we write
Raw research is then transformed into editorial prose. We work from three voice references when shaping medicine pages: Michael Pollan's curious, embodied reportage; Robin Wall Kimmerer's careful relational attention; Oliver Sacks's diagnostic warmth. The goal is calm authority. Not academic distance, not enthusiast hype.
We use hedge language deliberately. Phrases like "may," "often," "tends to," "some people report," and "can feel like" appear throughout.
We avoid words that promise. "Will heal," "guarantees," "awakening," "breakthrough," "this is the truth." These shapes of language treat experiences as products. Psychedelic experiences are not products.
Each section in a medicine page (essence, effects, integration, and so on) has its own voice register. Essence sections lean atmospheric. Risks sections become more clinical. Integration sections speak in the second person and slow down. The structure is consistent across medicines so that comparison is possible; the voice within each section is consistent so that reading does not whiplash.
Where the numbers come from
How strength scores work
The strength score on each medicine page is a composite, not a single measurement. It combines four dimensions, weighted as follows.
- Perceptual (0.30)
- Visual and auditory phenomena, alteration of sensory thresholds, synesthesia, time distortion. Tends to be the dimension people most readily call "psychedelic."
- Cognitive (0.30)
- Loosening or reordering of conceptual frames, novel associations, recognition of patterns previously unseen, sometimes the dissolution of self-referential thinking.
- Emotional (0.25)
- Depth of feeling, accessibility of grief, joy, terror, love. The breadth of the emotional palette the experience opens.
- Somatic (0.15)
- Body load, sensitivity to position, physical sensations including warmth, trembling, nausea, or pressure.
Intensity profile
Variability: High (depends heavily on dose, setting, and individual sensitivity)
How duration data is structured
Duration is reported as four phases, each with a minimum and maximum range in minutes.
Duration
Aftereffects: An afterglow of elevated mood and clarity may last 1-3 days. Neuroplasticity window extends roughly 3 weeks, during which integration work may be most effective.
- Onset
- From ingestion or administration to the first noticeable effects. Onset depends on route of administration: smoked or vaporized compounds may onset within seconds; oral preparations often take 30 to 60 minutes.
- Peak
- The interval during which effects are most pronounced. The peak shape varies: some substances plateau, others crest and decline. The range captures both the start and end of the peak window.
- Total
- From onset to baseline. Excludes aftereffects. The total range can be wide for substances with variable individual responses.
- Aftereffects
- Residual cognitive, emotional, or somatic effects after the substance has metabolized. Often the most underestimated phase. Some substances leave a window of openness for hours or days that is itself relevant to integration.
What we leave off the page
What we don't do
Some things are not on the page because we believe they are outside the scope of what an editorial archive should provide. The omissions are deliberate.
Source attribution and limits
Each medicine page closes with a Sources section that names the primary references behind the content. We cite peer-reviewed studies by author, year, and journal where possible. Where traditional knowledge informs a section, we name the tradition rather than claiming a single authoritative source.
We do not link out to every claim. Limits worth naming openly:
- Incomplete evidence
- Much of what is known about psychoactive plants comes from small studies, case reports, or traditional knowledge that has not been subjected to controlled trials. The evidence base is uneven. We do not pretend otherwise.
- Cultural reduction
- Written descriptions of ceremonial or spiritual practices are inherently reductive. We name the practices that have living traditions. We do not try to reproduce the practices themselves on the page.
- Evolving science
- Psychedelic research is moving quickly. A claim that holds today may be refined or overturned next year. The site is maintained, not finished.
- Editorial framing
- All writing carries a frame. We aim for accuracy and care, but editorial choices about what to include, emphasize, or simplify shape what the reader takes away. Reasonable people would write some sections differently. We invite the disagreement.