Shaman killed foreign tourist

Share and discuss news about Peru.

Moderators: ExpatPeruMods, Alan

User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby chi chi » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:54 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treat.html



A warning for anyone thinking of trying out those ''alternative medicins like Ayahuascu.


She drank tea designed to make people vomit, purge and cleanse the body.

Anything that makes you vomit can only be poison.


User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2649
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby Alan » Thu Feb 05, 2015 2:54 pm

I think your post title might be off, since the facts aren't clear, but what a sad, sad story. A young woman with so much ahead of her in life. Very traumatic for the friends that accompanied her, too. It must have been terrifying to have things go so terribly wrong in such a remote place.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby teamoperu » Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:39 pm

I read the article, and then googled a couple more responsible newspapers, and NONE say a shaman killed a Canadian. False and misleading title from someone who consistently posts false and misleading information.

I hope the family doesn't hear about it. How rumors get started: "Someone in Peru says the shaman killed her".
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby chi chi » Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:42 pm

If those weirdos didn't scam people by selling that poison then people wouldn't lose their money and life.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby ironchefchris » Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:25 am

chi chi wrote:If those weirdos didn't scam people by selling that poison then people wouldn't lose their money and life.

Define “weirdos.”

I’m guessing in this case it’s anyone who isn’t white, European, Judeo-Christian, and instead are indigenous and have cultural practices different than their own. They don’t wear suits and ties, some not "traditional" Western clothing (though some wear jeans and t-shirts), but in some cases (not all) clothing more traditional to their culture, so they must be “weirdos." People and cultures who the OP doesn’t understand and makes zero effort to learn about. How shortsighted. How phobic of “others.”

More scare mongering. There are far better sources for information on ayahuasca than The Daily Mail (which to be fair offers no information or opinion in this article) or the OP on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about, other than what he reads in “journalistic” rags that specialize in sensationalism. There are far better sources than The Daily Mail for just about everything, except for “news” sensationalized for those with no intellectual curiosity or capacity. Here are a few, far more informative sources on the subject:

http://www.ayahuasca.com/

https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahua ... asca.shtml

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... /peru.html

I also noted reading the article that it states “Staff from the retreat claim Ms. Logan was drinking a tobacco purge tea at the time of her death, not the hallucinogenic ayahuasca.” Interesting how that wasn’t mentioned or conveyed in the original post. Why did the OP needlessly twist the facts? If you’re going to twist facts it might be smart not to link to the story whose facts you twist. Had he been honest, he would have mentioned that it was claimed the woman drank a tobacco based tea, but instead he chose to follow the spirit of the sensationalist Daily Mail, whose headline never stated the woman died from using ayahuasca, but from an unspecified tea that it later identifies as being claimed to be a tobacco drink. How sensationalist do you have to be to be even more sensationalist than The Daily Mail? Ask the OP.

It would be just as accurate to say that all doctors who prescribe pain killers and the companies that manufacture them are responsible for the thousands of annual deaths attributed to prescription pain killers. That the makers and sellers of alcohol are responsible for the thousands of annual alcohol deaths, whether from alcohol poisoning or innocent victims of drunk driving. And the tobacco companies who manufacture cigarettes and all the stores who sell them are responsible for the thousands of annual tobacco deaths of those who choose to smoke. But that would be sensationalizing a serious issue instead of being honest about a complex subject, trying to assign blame in a tidy, sensationalist sentence for those who seem incapable of rational discussion and can only absorb information in tabloid sized and flavored bites. No mention of personal responsibility on the part of people who actually use drugs, be they nicotine, alcohol, prescription pills, or ayahuasca. Do people die from imbibing ayahuasca? Yes. Do far more people die from imbibing alcohol and using tobacco? Yes. Is the subject more complex than the below simplistic quote whose intent seems to be to try to summarize?

chi chi wrote:Anything that makes you vomit can only be poison.

Having used both DMT and alcohol at various points in my life, I have definitely vomited far many more times using alcohol than DMT, but never once have I received any of the benefits ayahuasca offers after vomiting from drinking too much. Go to any University frat house or local bar and you’ll find far more people vomiting because of alcohol use, so why doesn’t the OP create posts about this far more prevalent and used “poison?"

Why doesn’t the OP crusade against drugs which are responsible for far more deaths and cause far more harm to society? Maybe because the users of these drugs aren’t “weirdos” in his eyes? Maybe because they are white, non-indigionous, and come from a culture he understands? Maybe he’s just too lazy (since he's claimed to only read The Daily Mail) to bother investigating further on subjects and cultures he knows nothing about before making unsubstantiated statements? Maybe doing actual research from respectable sources is far too arduous and time consuming compared to reading the average Daily Mail article which offers no information at all on the subject? Maybe because he uses some of these drugs himself? Whatever the reason, he’s all over the map. Last year he was advocating starving and execution for two British girls caught smuggling a very small amount of cocaine compared to Pablo Escobar, who a month or so ago he praised (in the thread on charity; his comment retracted less than a day later) for providing for the people until the unjust (implied) US government overstepped their bounds and took him down. Really? The guy responsible for literally tons of cocaine being supplied, the King of Cocaine, is praised as a populist who helps people while two girls who made mistakes should be killed for selling poison ultimately supplied to them by people like Escobar? Do you have no consistency or integrity at all or is it just that you like to make outrageous statements?

Here’s a recent article I came across on what the most deadly and destructive drugs to society are:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/th ... ally-legal

It’s sources are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, based on UK drug use, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, a Columbia University study, and several other sources that the article is not afraid to mention and provide links to. Why doesn’t the OP ever have anything to back up his accusations about subjects he has no experience with and no knowledge of? Why is he unable to cite sources for anything he posts other than the epitome of crappy journalism and sensationalism known as The Daily Mail? Is it because it’s all he admittedly reads? Why should I take opinion of a person who has no experience in the subject over that of scholars and those who do have experience, some of which have made educational and scientific studies of the subject. I’ll take the opinions of Dennis and Terrance McKenna, Alexander Shulgin, Richard Evans Shultes, and other, highly educated people who are experts on the subject with both experience and scientific backgrounds over someone who calls that which he doesn’t understand as being practiced by “weirdos” and whose only source of information is The Daily Mail.

Anyone can easily find scientific studies on the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs and the effects they have on the body and society. I challenge the OP to link to a source of a scientific study that shows ayahuasca is anywhere near as dangerous as the drugs I just mentioned. Based on past requests for sources to back up claims I’m not expecting the OP will list a single source or study - if anything just some more sensationalism from The Daily Mail. He won't because he can't. All he seems capable of on this and pretty much every other subject is talking out of his a$$. I just did a Google search on “scientific studies on the danger of ayahuasca” and the first hit (see below) states under the section titled “Safety” that studies showed ayahuasca use to reduce minor psychiatric symptoms and cause positive changes in behavior, found reductions in the scores of panic and hopelessness, and improvements in several psychological measures in a six month follow-up study. No psychopathological alterations nor neuro-cognitive deficits were found. One recent study found that ayahuasca users take less drugs of abuse and concluded that the ritual use of ayahuasca does not seem to be associated with the psychosocial problems that other drugs typically cause. No harm to neuropsychological functions, does not cause psychopathology nor personality alterations. No neuropsychological damage and not neurotoxic. The site has a seperate section citing references. Sure, you vomit, but I’ve yet to read about or experience personally any of the benefits of ayahuasca after vomiting from drinking too much alcohol; only a bad hangover with nothing positive to show.

http://iceers.org/science-interest-ayah ... NRStWTF88Y
Last edited by ironchefchris on Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby teamoperu » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:18 am

Great post ironchef. He will not be able to answer intelligently. Instead of responding intelliegntly more likely you'll see a nonsensical one-liner or nothing.

At least your post balances the thread and accurately rebuts his misinformation. Thanks.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:37 pm

ironchefchris wrote:Anyone can easily find scientific studies on the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs and the effects they have on the body and society. I challenge the OP to link to a source of a scientific study that shows ayahuasca is anywhere near as dangerous as the drugs I just mentioned.

Since I asked a few days ago I’m wondering if the OP took me up on my challenge to link to a source of a scientific study that shows ayahuasca is anywhere near as dangerous as the other drugs mentioned or to back up his opinion on ayahuasca which is based on …. personal experience? (no), research? (no again), reading the research of a scientist or scholar (nope) or only The Daily Mail (whose article doesn’t even talk about ayahuasca at all as far as giving an opinion on any danger). Anything about a shaman killing anyone as the thread title suggests?

How ‘bout it? In the interest of accuracy, can you provide a source that backs up your opinion? It shouldn’t be that hard to use Google to find a scientific study or academic research that backs up your opinion if what you say is indeed true and not just made up BS. If you can't cite a source, maybe you want to think twice before posting such false accusations and statements in the future.
amy10
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby amy10 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:02 am

ironchefchris wrote:
chi chi wrote:If those weirdos didn't scam people by selling that poison then people wouldn't lose their money and life.

Define “weirdos.”

I’m guessing in this case it’s anyone who isn’t white, European, Judeo-Christian, and instead are indigenous and have cultural practices different than their own. They don’t wear suits and ties, some not "traditional" Western clothing (though some wear jeans and t-shirts), but in some cases (not all) clothing more traditional to their culture, so they must be “weirdos." People and cultures who the OP doesn’t understand and makes zero effort to learn about. How shortsighted. How phobic of “others.”

More scare mongering. There are far better sources for information on ayahuasca than The Daily Mail (which to be fair offers no information or opinion in this article) or the OP on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about, other than what he reads in “journalistic” rags that specialize in sensationalism. There are far better sources than The Daily Mail for just about everything, except for “news” sensationalized for those with no intellectual curiosity or capacity. Here are a few, far more informative sources on the subject:

http://www.ayahuasca.com/

https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ayahua ... asca.shtml

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... /peru.html

I also noted reading the article that it states “Staff from the retreat claim Ms. Logan was drinking a tobacco purge tea at the time of her death, not the hallucinogenic ayahuasca.” Interesting how that wasn’t mentioned or conveyed in the original post. Why did the OP needlessly twist the facts? If you’re going to twist facts it might be smart not to link to the story whose facts you twist. Had he been honest, he would have mentioned that it was claimed the woman drank a tobacco based tea, but instead he chose to follow the spirit of the sensationalist Daily Mail, whose headline never stated the woman died from using ayahuasca, but from an unspecified tea that it later identifies as being claimed to be a tobacco drink. How sensationalist do you have to be to be even more sensationalist than The Daily Mail? Ask the OP.

It would be just as accurate to say that all doctors who prescribe pain killers and the companies that manufacture them are responsible for the thousands of annual deaths attributed to prescription pain killers. That the makers and sellers of alcohol are responsible for the thousands of annual alcohol deaths, whether from alcohol poisoning or innocent victims of drunk driving. And the tobacco companies who manufacture cigarettes and all the stores who sell them are responsible for the thousands of annual tobacco deaths of those who choose to smoke. But that would be sensationalizing a serious issue instead of being honest about a complex subject, trying to assign blame in a tidy, sensationalist sentence for those who seem incapable of rational discussion and can only absorb information in tabloid sized and flavored bites. No mention of personal responsibility on the part of people who actually use drugs, be they nicotine, alcohol, prescription pills, or ayahuasca. Do people die from imbibing ayahuasca? Yes. Do far more people die from imbibing alcohol and using tobacco? Yes. Is the subject more complex than the below simplistic quote whose intent seems to be to try to summarize?

chi chi wrote:Anything that makes you vomit can only be poison.

Having used both DMT and alcohol at various points in my life, I have definitely vomited far many more times using alcohol than DMT, but never once have I received any of the benefits ayahuasca offers after vomiting from drinking too much. Go to any University frat house or local bar and you’ll find far more people vomiting because of alcohol use, so why doesn’t the OP create posts about this far more prevalent and used “poison?"

Why doesn’t the OP crusade against drugs which are responsible for far more deaths and cause far more harm to society? Maybe because the users of these drugs aren’t “weirdos” in his eyes? Maybe because they are white, non-indigionous, and come from a culture he understands? Maybe he’s just too lazy (since he's claimed to only read The Daily Mail) to bother investigating further on subjects and cultures he knows nothing about before making unsubstantiated statements? Maybe doing actual research from respectable sources is far too arduous and time consuming compared to reading the average Daily Mail article which offers no information at all on the subject? Maybe because he uses some of these drugs himself? Whatever the reason, he’s all over the map. Last year he was advocating starving and execution for two British girls caught smuggling a very small amount of cocaine compared to Pablo Escobar, who a month or so ago he praised (in the thread on charity; his comment retracted less than a day later) for providing for the people until the unjust (implied) US government overstepped their bounds and took him down. Really? The guy responsible for literally tons of cocaine being supplied, the King of Cocaine, is praised as a populist who helps people while two girls who made mistakes should be killed for selling poison ultimately supplied to them by people like Escobar? Do you have no consistency or integrity at all or is it just that you like to make outrageous statements?

Here’s a recent article I came across on what the most deadly and destructive drugs to society are:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/th ... ally-legal

It’s sources are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, based on UK drug use, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, a Columbia University study, and several other sources that the article is not afraid to mention and provide links to. Why doesn’t the OP ever have anything to back up his accusations about subjects he has no experience with and no knowledge of? Why is he unable to cite sources for anything he posts other than the epitome of crappy journalism and sensationalism known as The Daily Mail? Is it because it’s all he admittedly reads? Why should I take opinion of a person who has no experience in the subject over that of scholars and those who do have experience, some of which have made educational and scientific studies of the subject. I’ll take the opinions of Dennis and Terrance McKenna, Alexander Shulgin, Richard Evans Shultes, and other, highly educated people who are experts on the subject with both experience and scientific backgrounds over someone who calls that which he doesn’t understand as being practiced by “weirdos” and whose only source of information is The Daily Mail.

Anyone can easily find scientific studies on the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs and the effects they have on the body and society. I challenge the OP to link to a source of a scientific study that shows ayahuasca is anywhere near as dangerous as the drugs I just mentioned. Based on past requests for sources to back up claims I’m not expecting the OP will list a single source or study - if anything just some more sensationalism from The Daily Mail. He won't because he can't. All he seems capable of on this and pretty much every other subject is talking out of his a$$. I just did a Google search on “scientific studies on the danger of ayahuasca” and the first hit (see below) states under the section titled “Safety” that studies showed ayahuasca use to reduce minor psychiatric symptoms and cause positive changes in behavior, found reductions in the scores of panic and hopelessness, and improvements in several psychological measures in a six month follow-up study. No psychopathological alterations nor neuro-cognitive deficits were found. One recent study found that ayahuasca users take less drugs of abuse and concluded that the ritual use of ayahuasca does not seem to be associated with the psychosocial problems that other drugs typically cause. No harm to neuropsychological functions, does not cause psychopathology nor personality alterations. No neuropsychological damage and not neurotoxic. The site has a seperate section citing references. Sure, you vomit, but I’ve yet to read about or experience personally any of the benefits of ayahuasca after vomiting from drinking too much alcohol; only a bad hangover with nothing positive to show.

http://iceers.org/science-interest-ayah ... NRStWTF88Y


Hi
I have read the whole article. It's really a bad news.
Bassman
Member
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Shaman killed foreign tourist

Postby Bassman » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:49 pm

chi chi wrote:If those weirdos didn't scam people by selling that poison then people wouldn't lose their money and life.


Natural selection :idea:

Return to “Peru News and Views”

Login  •  Register