How to Prepare San Pedro Properly: A Step by Step Guide

Please note that the following is for information purposes only and that preparing San Pedro is illegal in many countries around the world.

Trichocereus pachanoi

A lot of people like to make what is a rather simple and easy process much more difficult and time consuming than it needs to be, based solely off of internet rumors, misinformation and conjecture. For some reason, certain people have decided that they know better than the traditional Andean people who have been using these plants for at least 10,000 years. The following guide is based off of the traditional method of preparation that has been used for millennia.

Trichocereu bridgesii

The first thing you will need is obviously some San Pedro, with the typical dose being around one foot or 30 cm of a potent San Pedro cactus. Whilst Trichocereus pachanoi is the most commonly used San Pedro cacti, there are in fact numerous other members of the Trichocereus genus than can be and are used as San Pedro.

Trichocereus peruvianus

Once you have your potent San Pedro, you need to stress the plant to increase its alkaloid levels. The best way to achieve this is by leaving the cutting in a dark place for at least a few weeks to a month. Really, the longer the better. See the following link for more information ~ Trichocereus Potency: A Basic Guide for Getting The Most Out of San Pedro.

Next you will need a sharp knife and a chopping board. Then a large pot, pressure cooker or slow cooker depending upon your preference. You may also need a pair of pliers depending on which type of Trichocereus you're actually using to remove the spines, especially with plants that have long spines, such as Trichocereus bridgesii which is widely regarded as being the most consistently potent Trichocereus species. Now this is not strictly necessary, but does make handling much easier.

Now, all you actually need to do is to cut your section of San Pedro into thin slices and place them into the pot, pressure cooker or slow cooker.

Then cover with water and boil for at least 4-6 hours. At which time the liquid will become discolored, having extracted the active ingredients into the water.

Once you have done this, you can strain out the solid material leaving only the remaining liquid. For this you can use a colander, cheese cloth or even an old T-Shirt. Just make sure that you squeeze the solid material to get out as much of the liquid as you can.

The next step in the process is to reduce the volume of the liquid to around a cup sized portion. Simply keep boiling the liquid to reduce its volume. Once your San Pedro tea has been reduced to a cup sized portion, all you have to do is allow it to cool enough for consumption and it is ready to go.

Now, the flavor really isn't the best, but at such as small amount it really is not a problem at all to get it down. Just hold your nose and down it goes. When you hold your nose and drink the small amount quickly, you do not even taste it, but you will get a sour/bitter after taste that you can easily get rid of with a nice tasting chaser like orange juice to wash it down.

If you want to improve the taste, you can add sugar and salt to counteract the bitterness and spices like cardamon and cinnamon whilst it is boiling. Another good way to improve the flavor is to further reduce to around a half a cup portion and then mix with pineapple juice and lemonade.

You can also further reduce to a gum, roll this into balls and consume, but you will want to be very careful not to go to far and burn it whilst you're doing this. Once reduced to around a quarter cup you can place it in a shallow tray or dish and put in front of a heater or in the oven on low with the door left ajar. Or allow it to dry completely and then scrape it up and put it into capsules. Although all of this will be time consuming and quite frankly unnecessary.

A lot of people will try to tell you that you need to remove the skin of the plant and only use the dark green layer that is just under the skin, discarding the white inner layer and core, but this is a huge mistake. Some people say that removing the skin and inner white layer improves the taste, but in reality it makes no difference at all. Usually they will say that the skin, white layer and core will cause nausea and that removing them will reduce the nausea. That is correct in a sense, but also extremely wasteful and completely unnecessary as I will explain below.

The fact of the matter is that the active ingredient in San Pedro, mescaline, itself causes nausea. Mescaline is a non selective serotonin receptor agonist, which means that it works on all of the serotonin receptors. Now the psychedelic experience is caused by the serotonin receptor 5ht-2 being agonized by psychedelic substances. The feelings of nausea that come with many psychedelic plants is caused by the serotonin receptor 5ht-3 also being agonized. For more information on how psychedelics work in the brain, see the following link ~ Inside the Psychedelic Mind: The New Frontier for Consciousness Studies, Innovative Therapies, Micro-dosing & Creativity.

Chemical structure of Mescaline

Now, contrary to popular belief, not all of the mescaline and other alkaloids in a given San Pedro cutting is in the outer dark green layer. Up to 45% of the total alkaloids in a given San Pedro cutting is in the inner white layer beneath the outer dark green layer. So when you discard the inner section it will reduce nausea, in the sense that you're throwing away almost half of the usable mescaline and other alkaloids. See the following link for more information ~ Distribution of Alkaloids in Cacti, from San Pedro and Related Species by Keeper Trout.

The problem of nausea is usually vastly overblown and is actually not really that bad, but we all do have different systems, different numbers of receptors and different people will react differently. If the nausea is a problem for you, there are a number of things that you can do to reduce the discomfort, namely use anti-nausea medication, plants or 5ht-3 antagonists. Cannabis, ginger and lemon essential oil work well in this regard. You can also use a small amount of datura or brugmansia as in the traditional "Cimora" San Pedro cocktails, although all due care should be used with these plants and please do your research before consuming them.

Datura metel

There are also other ways you can help to extract the active ingredients from a San Pedro cutting, being the freeze/thaw method, adding a weak acid such as lemon juice to the water you use to boil the sliced San Pedro or putting it into a blender. The freeze/thaw method is quite simply freezing and thawing your San Pedro cutting or slices a number of times to break down the cell walls, better allowing the alkaloids to extract into the water. The same applies to weak acids like lemon juice and blending. Now, this is not actually needed as simply boiling the slices for long enough will do this itself, but you can do it if you want, if anything it will just speed up the process. Using a pressure cooker will also speed up this process. If you're worried about extracting every last bit you can, just boil it for a longer period of time, this is where a slow cooker is useful as it is quite forgiving if you happen to forget about it and with the lid left on the water will not boil away.

Of course then some people will tell you that boiling San Pedro for too long will degrade the alkaloids, this is complete nonsense. The boiling point for mescaline is 180 degrees Celsius, where as the boiling point for water is 100 degrees Celsius, meaning the water will boil off long before the mescaline ever will. So, obviously keep an eye on your pot as it boils so the water does not boil off.

The last thing you need to worry about is of course what is known as "set and setting." Being the mindset taken into the experience and the place in which you take the medicine. Ideally you should be in a comfortable space, with people you trust and have prepared your mind for what is to come and have set your intention as to what exactly you hope to achieve in taking San Pedro. Information about set and setting, and the importance of intention is widely available on the internet and should obviously be taken into account.

*For more information on San Pedro and to freely discuss all aspects of the amazing plants, please join The San Pedro / Trichocereus Group on facebook.

The Great "PC" Mass Debate: The Truth

The Great "PC" Mass Debate: The Truth

All pictures used are the copyright of Tricho Serious Ethnobotany unless stated otherwise.

One of the most prevalent and enduring myths of modern Trichocereus taxonomy is the true identity of what is commonly known as Trichocereus pachanoi "PC." Now, before we go any further you might want to know what "PC" actually means, it stands for "Predominant Cultivar" and I think this is probably the best way to designate it until actually proven otherwise, as in Australia and the US, it is by far the most commonly found Trichocereus pachanoi variety. Whether it is a clone, or more likely a cultivar, we will address below.

A lot of speculation and internet rumors have been spread about this fantastic plant, mostly unnecessarily. And quite often the "information" being spread about this plant is quite simply inaccurate. I think it is high time that these myths are put to bed once and for all. So let's take an in depth look at the main theories that are being spread as the truth shall we?

One of the first myths being spread about this plant was the "Backeberg clone" myth. Thankfully this myth has largely fallen by the wayside. As you can see in the picture below, Curt Backeberg's Trichocereus pachanoi (left) that was pictured in his book Die Cactacae was rather different to the plant we know as "PC" on the right.

Next up was the "Pachanot" theory by Keeper Trout and M S Smith. The main thrust of their theory is that the flower tube of "PC" has white hairs, where as the original description of Trichocereus pachanoi states that it has black hairs on the flower tube. Well the truth is (that Trout himself admits) that "PC" does indeed have black flower hair, it just bleaches white in the sun, rapidly. As you can see in the below picture from Zed240 it actually does have black flower hair.

Copyright Zed240

The other main part of the "Pachanot" theory is that "PC" has a different morphology to the Trichocereus pachanoi growing in Ecuador and Peru today, and to Keeper Trout and more M S Smith it looks more like a Trichocereus bridgesii or hybrid there of due it having skinny columns and the tip somewhat resembling a Trichocereus bridgesii, despite it fitting perfectly into the descriptions of what constitutes a Trichocereus pachanoi and no other described Trichocereus.

I can see how this mistake was made as "PC" does look very different to a large amount of the Trichocereus pachanoi that we see from habitat. The main problem with this is the fact that Trichocereus pachanoi is a highly variable species, with many different morphologies, that all fit into the published descriptions. With more and more people seeking these plants in habitat and providing pictures, it is becoming clear that there are in fact plants in habitat, in Peru that closely resemble "PC." As you can see from the pictures below from Huan Shuma of Chavin Herbalist.

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Also there are Trichocereus pachanoi that have been grown in western horticulture for decades that also closely resemble "PC" that no one has ever questioned as being "true pachanoi." As you can see from the pictures below from Feild's cactus farm.

T. pachanoi 'Field's'

T. pachanoi 'Field's'

Another different T. pachanoi at Field's

Now, the latest theory that is spreading like wildfire is the Trichocereus riomizquensis theory from Patrick Noll. Let's take a look at the points Patrick makes and see if we can get to the bottom of this.

Firstly Patrick states "The original site is the Rio Mizque and we and my friends from Sacred Succulents visited the original site a couple of times." This is a blatant lie, as Patrick has never visited South America at all, Sacred Succulents have no doubt.

Next Patrick states "It is extremely similar to Trichocereus pachanoi, but differs in substantial points like the hairs on the flowers and the overall rib structure." This has already been dis-proven above.

Patrick continues "Though it is common belief that the San Pedro cactus aka Trichocereus pachanoi grows in Bolivia, all the San Pedro related plants we ever came across IN THE WILD either belonged to Trichocereus bridgesii or Trichocereus scopulicola." Again, we? Dude, stop lying, what Sacred Succulents did had nothing to do with you. As far as I know the only Trichocereus scopulicola that Sacred Succulents have found have been in western horticulture, not in habitat.

It was widely believed that Trichocereus scopulicola had gone extinct in habitat, although I have on good authority from someone in Bolivia right now (at the time of writing) that this is actually not the case. Also Sacred Succulents and others have indeed found Trichocereus pachanoi growing in Chochabamba, Bolivia. Which Patrick himself uses to back up his theory. But, importantly he admits that it is not growing "IN THE WILD." Remember this as it will be further addressed later on and is important.

Patrick continues "This is a long-spined version of this but there also are a lot of short-spined ones on that site. I seen them. Just like this PC, they have 6-7 ribs, those weird areoles and golden spines without swollen spine bases. Overall, they are just a short-spined version of Trichocereus bridgesii." Referring to the plant below.

I actually have a number of short spined Trichocereus bridgesii and they look very different. As you can see below. Also, these plants are consistently very potent.

Also where Patrick mentions "This is a long-spined version of this but there also are a lot of short-spined ones on that site. I seen them." He provides no actual photographic evidence for these supposedly shorter spined variants from the site he never actually visited at all, outside of the photo of a small pup. However, there are these plants with much longer spines as you can see below.

 

Now, what these plants actually are is a good question. Again, unlike patrick I actually grow a number of these plants from Sacred Succulents and have a bunch of F2 hybrid seedlings coming along from them as well and to be honest, I don't know what they really are. I could guess, but that is all it would be. I know they're not Trichocereus pachanoi, bridgesii or scopulicola. Given their location and morphology it's possible they are related to Trichocereus schoenii, or they just could be hybrids from the local gardens. Who knows? All of these plants appear to be growing right next to houses or close to them. They do not appear to be wild plants. Without detailed information about their history in the area from the local inhabitants, it really is impossible to tell with any real certainty.

 

*Further notes about these plants after growing them for a few more years. I've noticed with one of my Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Sacred Succulents that I moved into a more shaded position, the spines became far less prominent, and it still looked very different to "PC" and short spined bridgesii. As you can see below. Which makes me think that the short spined "riomizquensis" that patrick talks about and only shows with one photo of a pup growing in the shade, is just how these highly variable plants grow in more shaded positions. Now, have you ever seen "PC" change so drastically from one position to another or even bridgesii for that matter? It just doesn't happen. Nothing anywhere near close to it. Because, they are not the same plant, not even all that close. If these are really short spined bridgesii as patrick asserts, it would be growing very blue in the position it is in, like the actual bridgesii clump I have growing right next to it. Even "PC" would be bluer than this "riomizquensis" in this position. This is why you need actual real life experience and observation, not just looking at pictures of other peoples plants on the internet.

Next Patrick makes another bold claim that I am not sure is exactly correct, in an effort to prove his assertion that all the "PC" plants are in fact one clone. "We tested it numerous times…almost none of those Californian plants were able to mate with each other…simply because they were genetically identical and cuttings of each other." Almost none, is not all. So his own statement disproves his theory.

I also highly doubt that a large amount of real testing has actually been done, let alone for the "PC" plants also growing in Australia. Unfortunately, the more the myth spreads that they are all one clone, the less likely people will actually put this theory to the test. Also, Patrick doesn't actually grow "PC" as it is quite rare in Europe, if it exists there at all. So how he is including himself in the "we" is beyond me. But this is par for the course with Patrick, claiming others work as his own and using it for his own benefit.

Interestingly a new myth I've just become aware of being spread around by "Willy Myco" on youtube is that because all "PC" are supposedly clones, that being cloned over and over has somehow weakened their genetics, causing them to be weaker in potency. Of course this is laughable as there is no scientific evidence of this in plants what so ever. It seems this myth has transferred over from the cannabis community somehow, but has absolutely nothing to back it up.

Now anyone who grows "PC" knows that this plant is tough as nails, thrives in all sorts of harsh conditions and grows very quickly, so how someone could infer that it has been "weakened" genetically is beyond me. Potency is highly variable and that does have a genetic component obviously, but this being cloned weakening "PC" myth is just unscientific nonsense.

Also working against this nonsense is the fact that numerous verified Trichocereus clones such as Trichocereus bridgesii 'Eileen,' Trichocereus pachanoi 'Yowie,' Trichocereus peruvianus 'Sharxx Blue' etc etc etc have all been cloned potentially thousands of times by now, with absolutely no reported "weakening" of their potency at all.

Interestingly however it has been shown by Oxford University that cloned plants are not always genetically identical. To quote the scientific paper Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes published in Current Biology, "Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called 'whole genome sequencing') the researchers analysed 'clones' of the small flowering plant 'thalecress' (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant."

Personally I think there are just far too many "PC" plants that have obviously been growing for decades and decades for them all to be clones, there are just too many of them that are far too large, it really doesn't make sense to me at all. Being an early cultivar is far more likely.

Returning again to Patrick and his theory, he doubles down on the already dis-proven flower hair argument "Do you see all those white hairs? Good, because it´s important to differentiate between certain Trichocereus species. Trichocereus pachanoi tends to have black or brown hairs, while this PC has white hairs. And that´s typical for the Bolivian San Pedro strains." Well I'm sorry to say that the flower hair bleaching white is also a common trait of Ecuadorian and Peruvian species, as you can see in the pictures below.

Trichocereus macrogonus

Trichocereus pachanoi 'Yowie'

Trichocereus pachanoi 'Field's'

Trichocereus knuthianus

Trichocereus pachanoi 'Etienne'

Trichocereus pachanoi 'Rod' which is widely regarded as being an Ecaudorian pachanoi. Copyright Rodni Chisar at Trichocereus Australia

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

Copyright Chavin Herbalist

There are certain other falsehoods that have been spread by San Pedro "mastery" and others about the infamous "PC," that I would like to dis-prove also. Being that the "saw tooth" look is some kind of distinguishing feature, and that "PC" does not have V-notches above the areole. As you can see in the photos below, "PC" can have V-notches and the "saw tooth" look is apparent in other non-questioned Trichocereus pachanoi. And most importantly with the "saw tooth" aspect of certain Trichocereus, it is largely dependent upon conditions, grown hard with little water in full sun and the "saw tooth" look becomes pronounced, in lots of Trichocereus, where as a more pampered, shaded plant will not show it as much, if at all, even the same clone.

Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" with V-notches

"Saw Tooth" Trichocereus pachanoi "Yowie"

"Saw Tooth" Trichocereus pachanoi "Rod" Copyright Rodni Chisar at Trichocereus Australia

"Saw Tooth" Trichocereus pachanoi "Field's"

"Saw Tooth" Trichocereus pachanoi "Etienne"

Also it has been suggested that the Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" spread around Australia by Robert Field, is "really" a Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Friedrich Ritter. Well I know Robert personally, he is as genuine a man as you will ever meet and I can guarantee you that he has never changed a plant name in his life, he even still calls his Trichocereus peruvianus, Trichocereus rosei which is the name he received them as. There are numerous other examples as well. This is a good thing, as it allows us to trace the provenance of these plants. So, if Robert Field actually received his Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" as a Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Ritter, he would call it that, but he does not, he calls it Trichocereus pachanoi, which is what he received it as back in the 1950's.

It has been supposed that Friedrich Ritter began to spread Trichocereus "riomizquensis" around in the 1950's, but I can find no evidence to back this up at all. Keeper Trout made some interesting comments in a forum in this regard "Its weird Ritter would find it in the 1950s, wait until 1980 to publish the description and not include anything capable of segregating it from pachanoi in his description." Trout continues "Another bit of oddness is that this name was not published by Ritter until around 8 years after the seeds reached NMCR." So, the plants that NMCR have as being Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Ritter did not arrive there until around 1972?

Keeper Trout states on his website about the Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Ritter at NMCR the following "Trichocereus riomizquiensis FR856 type from Chuyllas, Bolivia (Rio Mizque). Seeds had been obtained from Riviere de Carault in November of 1972 and were planted on the first of July in 1980 by Horst." So, even with this 1972 date, Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" had still been spread around long before Ritter's Trichocereus "riomizquensis" ever had, for decades in fact, nailing the coffin shut on that theory once and for all, it is simply impossible for "PC" to be Ritter's "riomizquensis." Here are some pictures from Keeper Trout of the plant in question from NMCR.

Admittedly that plant above is in terrible condition, which makes its use for identification purposes largely useless, but I have never seen a "PC" look anything like that at all and I've seen it in all sorts of conditions and states of neglect. Now, M S Smith however has this same plant from this same source growing and has provided some better pictures of how it looks in better condition. But, it still is not a perfect match for "PC." It is similar, because they are both Trichocereus pachanoi. See below.

Another myth is that because it grows rather vigorously, that it must be a hybrid.. As any one who has grown a seed batch of Trichocereus knows, some plants grow faster than others, even different plants in the same seed batch, it's just the way it is. So, just because a plant grows vigorously in comparison to others, it in no way proves it is a hybrid, not at all.

Something that I myself am guilty of spreading is that "PC" is either very weak to completely inactive. Certainly the "PC" in Australia is weak compared to other Trichocereus pachanoi and especially short spined Trichocereus bridgesii.

It has been brought to my attention that a lot of people in the US have been getting good results with "PC" at twice the normal 30 cm dosage, especially with older sections. Whether certain "PC" are stronger than others, how much conditions play a role, stressing of the plant etc etc, needs further investigation.

Another myth spread by people, especially San Pedro "mastery" about "PC" is that it doesn't grow blue columns, well tell that to this "PC." The blueness of Trichocereus pachanoi is largely dependent upon how much shade it is getting. Again, people who aren't actually growing the plant, reading too much bullshit on the internet, not enough growing.

The other main point used to back up the "PC" is from Bolivia, and is therefore a Trichocereus "riomizquensis" is a number of plants growing in Chochabamba, Bolivia. The main problem with this apart from the fact that the plants found there do not really resemble "PC" that much at all, certainly no more than numerous other Trichocereus pachanoi as seen above, who actually do look much closer, and obviously are Trichocereus pachanoi, is that they are growing in public and private gardens and could very well have come from literally anywhere.

Trying to say that these plants are 100% Bolivian is like trying to say that my various Trichocereus pachanoi are Australian because they grow in my garden..

Interestingly Patrick only includes the pictures of these plants on his website that have the whitest flower hair, deliberately excluding the pictures of the same exact plants that show it does indeed have black hair, that again just bleaches white in the sun. They could possibly be native to Bolivia, but even if so, that only proves that Trichocereus pachanoi also grows there, it proves nothing in regards to "PC." Here are the plants in question below.

Returning to Keeper Trout and M S Smith for a moment, here is some interesting quotes from Keeper Trout talking to M S Smith in a forum "Michael dismissed it for not having black hairs on the ovary but the reality is it does in fact have black hairs on the ovary. At least mine do. They are simply overgrown with lighter wool. Comparing flowers of mine in detail with flowering shots a friend took of Peruvian plants do not reveal any significant differences."

Trout continues, "I could dismiss about half the bridgesii's as not being bridgesii on far more grounds. (I do not though) Michael makes a lot out of what he can find in other people's travel photos yet (no offense intended Michael) I would much rather trust the first hand observations of friends with extensive field experience in Ecuador and Peru who claim that the plant Michael rejects as not occurring in those countries, is in fact growing there."

Another factor working against "PC" being from Bolivia or that it is a Trichocereus bridgesii or hybrid there of, is the fact that it does not grow four ribbed columns, which is very common in the species of Bolivia such as Trichocereus bridgesii and Trichocereus scopulicola and their hybrids. Also the plants Sacred Succulents consider to be Trichocereus "riomizquensis" do indeed also grow four ribbed columns. "PC" never does, even though there is so much of it growing all over Australia and America, and has been for decades upon decades.

Not to mention that Trichocereus bridgesii is widely regarded as being the most consistently potent Trichocereus there is. Has "PC" ever been accused of that? Or anything close? Think about it...

4 ribbed Trichocereus bridgesii next to "PC"

4 and 5 ribbed Trichocereus scopulicola

4 ribbed Trichocereus "riomizquensis" from Sacred Succulents

Now, just so everyone knows, no real expert or properly trained botanist considers Ritter's Trichocereus "riomizquensis" to be a separate species, none at all. They all consider it a Trichocereus pachanoi, at most it is simply a regional variant. Here's Ritter's original picture below in which you can see it is plainly just another Trichocereus pachanoi.

The fact of the matter is that Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" has always been considered a Trichocereus pachanoi, it wasn't until amateur enthusiasts on the internet who cannot even pronounce the name correctly began to muddy the waters that this has been in dispute. As you can see above, literally every supposed distinguishing trait that supposedly separates Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" from the supposed "real pachanoi" is complete and utter bullshit.

It is obvious to me that certain dishonest people who have read too much nonsense on the internet and have not actually grown the plant in question at all, suffering confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance have tried to make the evidence fit their theories and deliberately omitted anything that did not, instead of using all the available evidence to draw a logical conclusion as one should.

Interestingly after the time of writing and this post being spread around, Patrick decided to address it. He now claims that it is not his theory, and not his name attached to his theory, despite attaching his name to it and publishing it as his own work on his website.. If it is not his theory, then who's is it? Why is no one being credited for their work? Just makes you either a thief or liar, or both.

As you can see below. He also admits that it has a poorly documented background, despite sounding extremely sure of himself on his website that it came from Ritter, stating it as a matter of fact. To quote Patrick again "This plant was originally collected by Friedrich Ritter and described as Trichocereus riomizquensis." But, he offers no proof of this in anyway what so ever.

Also of note is he has changed his original version of his theory after this post was spread around, to include that there are in fact plants in habitat in Peru that look extremely similar, somewhat pulling back from his original assertions that only "Bolivian" plants look anything like "PC," which is a start..

It is obvious he has no actual confidence in his own theory, will not stand by his own words and really, doesn't have a clue about Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" at all, which he does not even grow and cannot even pronounce correctly... If you want to have faith in the "riomizquensis" theory, when the author of it obviously doesn't and refuses to stand by his own words, that's up to you... Certainly does not inspire confidence in me.

For a start, Patrick has never been published anywhere. He's full of shit. I challenge anyone to find this mysterious publication from 20 years ago lol. Good luck. You can find everything I've ever had published at a google search. He has self published some terrible coffee table books that read like they were written by a slightly retarded child, but they have nice pictures, of other people's plants, again gaining the benefit of others work. The guy is not an expert, he is a parasite.

 

Of course the old get out of jail free card, being DNA is thrown about, but are we really going to need it when ALL of the internet age theories have so easily been proven to be so completely wrong? When literally everyone who has been growing this plant for decades considers it a Trichocereus pachanoi?

Are we really going to DNA test every single Trichocereus pachanoi in existence to certify that they are really Trichocereus pachanoi? Or every other Trichocereus for that matter? Do we really have to DNA test every single plant to be sure what it is? If that is the case, then no one can positively identify anything! That seems ridiculous to me..

If you have to DNA test the most common Trichocereus cultivar there is, that all of our elders (who we should respect) consider to be a Trichocereus pachanoi, to correctly identify it, you really can't identify Trichocereus plants very well at all and should immediately stop pretending to be an expert.. But this is what happens when you grow a tiny collection, stunt the poor things in little pots, have never even seen a real mature Trichocereus in real life, look at pics on the internet and somehow think that makes you the world's greatest Trichocereus expert lol..

With all this being said, we can all rest assured that without a shadow of a doubt, all the theories that Trichocereus pachanoi "PC" is not a "real" Trichocereus pachanoi, are quite simply just wrong. "PC" is a Trichocereus pachanoi. There is literally nothing at all to separate it. Not one thing. People can lie, make up stories and pretend whatever they like, it does not change the truth.

If you do not want to be caught out lying, making things up, deliberately omitting all the evidence that contradicts your theory and talking about a plant you have only seen pictures of, don't lie, make things up, omit evidence and pretend to know about a plant you do not even grow... Stop being a blatant fraud.

One thing you will notice with every single one of the people pretending to be experts on Trichocereus pachanoi "PC," Trichocereus and San Pedro in general on youtube is, they are selling you products. It's marketing. They are using the "PC" name, and interest in the subject to drive traffic to their shops to flog their wares. For them, it's all about the money. Always has been, always will be. 

 

Especially the disgusting people who refer to sacred medicine as being like "trading cards" for "collectors." You know who you are you slimy little money hungry worms, it's people like you who ruin it for everyone and epitomize everything that's wrong with our society. 

 

Ever wonder why Trichocereus are so expensive now when they never used to be? You can thank your sacred trading card medicine "experts." To me, they're just parasites.

 

And please, for heavens sake people, at the very least, brush your teeth and learn how to pronounce Trichocereus pachanoi properly before you make a bunch of videos pretending to be an expert online. Seriously, it's just embarrassing.

 

Here's a clue, Trichocereus pachanoi was named after Abelardo Pachano Lalama, now botanical names ending in a "i" such as pachano-i, the "i" is pronounced "eye." So, say it with me now, nice and slowly children,  pachano -i. See, that wasn't so hard was it...

Now go out and actually grow these plants yourself, then you can talk about them, if your eyes see past the dollar signs that is.

*Just for good measure, here are some more pictures of Trichocereus pachanoi "PC."

*Please feel free to comment about your experiences with Trichocereus pachanoi "PC." Especially in regards to potency, but please be specific about your conditions, if, how and for how long you have stressed the plant, age of the material used, condition of the material used and anything else that you can think of that would effect how potent it is or the potency of the experience. Thank you.