Brazilian ritual root gets second life as potential anti-depressant
Following instructions he found on the internet, Guaracy Carvajal extracted DMT at home in 2016 from roots he bought on the street.
The 31-year-old software programmer, who had tried various treatment for chronic depression he has suffered since adolescence, said the drug makes it "feel like you've solved something in your life."
Physicist Draulio Araujo, who has conducted extensive research on the drug, said "the response is rapid. One day after treatment, (patients) already showed a significant improvement in their depression symptoms."
Yet he also warned that it "is not a magic cure" and that psychedelics "are not for everyone."
As a researcher at the Brain Institute of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Araujo and his team treated 14 people with the drug for six months.
The patients inhaled vaporized DMT, under medical supervision.
"It's common for our patients to say that something changed, that a key opened something," he said.
His patients also received psychological therapy, and some continued with conventional pharmaceutical drugs.
Neuroscientist Fernanda Palhano-Fontes, also of the Brain Institute, said "we have patients who improve significantly, others who don't improve at all."
Araujo's findings were published in the scientific journal Nature in April. In 2024, he published another study with promising results in the journal Psychedelic Medicine.
As for Carvajal, who stopped using jurema preta some time ago, he said the drug really allows a person to "start to have a lighter life."
It helped him get through a time when he was in "a state of questioning myself" about "work, day-to-day life," he said.
Spiritual channels
Brazil occupies a fairly prominent place in DMT research due to the substance's prominence in society, Araujo said.
While there is no ban on the cultivation or possession of jurema, which is also known as Mimosa tenuiflora, consumption of DMT is prohibited, except for religious and scientific use.
Jurema's roots are combined with other plants in a wine-like beverage that is consumed at rituals that include dancing and drums, part of Indigenous tradition in northeast Brazil where the plant grows.
"It's not hallucination," said Joyce Souza, a young woman attending a jurema ceremony in Planaltina, on the outskirts of Brasília.
"My spiritual channels become more accessible, I can communicate better with myself," Souza said.
Gathered in a house courtyard and dressed in white, the group of mostly novices waited for more seasoned practitioners to enter a trance and bring messages from ancient spirits.
Meanwhile, back in the lab, Araujo is hoping to expand his DMT research to a study of 100 patents.
"Let's say that in five years we'll have... a clear picture on when it will reach a real clinical setting," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AFP
5 days ago
- AFP
Major climate-GDP study under review after facing challenge
But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released August 6, 2025, challenges the conclusion of the climate paper (archived here and here). It found the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan (archived here). The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP August 6 it will have "further information to share soon" -- a move seized upon by climate-change skeptics following the publication of the re-analysis and pre-print correction of the paper. Both the original authors -- who have acknowledged errors in their methodology and data processing -- and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth (archived here). Influential paper It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others (archived here and here). AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP August 5, 2025 (archived here). When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on August 6 uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Undeniable climate impact Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed (archived here). She told AFP on August 5 that the paper's correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she explained, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Image Riverbank dwellers carry banana produce over the dry Solimoes riverbed in the Pesqueiro community in Manacapuru, Amazonas state, northern Brazil, on September 30, 2024 (AFP / MICHAEL DANTAS, MICHAEL DANTAS) Hsiang said even smaller impacts on GDP should be considered "enough that it makes a lot of sense to invest in reducing climate change." "It's very cost effective," he told AFP. Heat stress on the economy manifests through various mechanisms, he said. For example, workforce productivity dips at high temperatures, risks of potential health complications rise, while machinery also deteriorates (archived here, here and here). "The very hottest countries in the world, near the tropics, we see this effect even more magnified," Hsiang said. "Every one degree of warming for them is a much larger impact on their economy." 'Final stages' Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology (archived here). "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP August 6. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science," he said. AFP has previously reported on other flawed reports and predatory studies on climate change.
LeMonde
6 days ago
- LeMonde
On an Indonesian island, traces of human presence over one million years old have been discovered
After the discovery in 2003 of the so-called Flores Man on the Indonesian island of Flores, and the subsequent unearthing of human remains on the Philippine island of Luzon – which also lent its name to a distinct species – researchers turned their curiosity to another Indonesian island: Sulawesi (also known as Celebes). This vast landmass, spanning several hundred thousand square kilometers, had already yielded some prehistoric secrets, including tools at least 194,000 years old. However, these finds could not compete with the artifacts from Flores, dated at 1.02 million years old, or those from Luzon, around 700,000 years old. "We have searched for many years for evidence of the earliest humans of Sulawesi, so it is a great relief to finally find it," said Adam Brumm, an archaeologist and co-author of the study published on August 6 in the journal Nature. Together with colleagues from Australian and Indonesian universities, the team excavated the sediment layers at the Calio site, progressing 10 centimeters at a time. This meticulous approach paid off, allowing them to unearth seven flint tools.
France 24
06-08-2025
- France 24
Major climate-GDP study under review after facing challenge
But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released Wednesday, challenges that conclusion -- finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have "further information to share soon" -- a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors -- who have acknowledged errors -- and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. - Influential paper - It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. - Undeniable climate impact - Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology. "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science."
