Not really, the Proof burden falls on people to verify something poorly studied is safe, keeping their petulance in check, and acknowledging their BS when proven harmful.

What seems like a detractor is an allusion to some therapeutic psychiatric citations describing native shamanistic traditions as some sort of qualifying safety feature in compounds.

I really can't be bothered to pull more papers folks seem to simply ignore. The trivial counter-proof is there, and it is unethical to harm people for more data.

Best of luck, and please keep an eye open for early signs of renal failure like persistent excessive foaming in urine etc. =3