The DMT Laser Phenomenon: Are People Seeing the Brain at Work—or Something Deeper?

 Researched and Written by ChatGPT

Every so often, a claim emerges that is so unusual it deserves neither immediate dismissal nor unquestioning belief. Instead, it deserves careful investigation.

One such claim has been gaining attention after appearances by behavioral scientist Chase Hughes and independent researcher Danny Goler. The phenomenon is surprisingly specific: individuals under the effects of DMT report seeing stable, code-like symbols when looking at a diffused red laser projected onto a wall. They describe glyphs that resemble Japanese katakana, ancient writing systems, or an unknown symbolic language. More intriguing still, many claim the symbols remain fixed in place rather than morphing like typical psychedelic visuals, and some report that independent observers have drawn remarkably similar symbols.

If true, this would be a fascinating discovery in neuroscience, perception, or perhaps something we have yet to understand. If false, it would still represent one of the more interesting examples of how the human brain constructs reality.

Either way, it deserves a closer look.

Why This Claim Is Different

Psychedelic experiences are typically personal and difficult to compare between individuals. One person encounters geometric tunnels, another reports entities, while someone else experiences profound emotional insights. These experiences are meaningful to those having them, but they are also highly subjective.

The laser phenomenon makes a much stronger claim.

Rather than describing an internal experience, participants suggest they are observing the same structured information within the same physical environment. That shifts the conversation from personal experience toward something that can, at least in principle, be tested scientifically.

The Physics Begins With Laser Speckle

Before introducing DMT into the discussion, it helps to understand what a laser is actually doing.

Unlike ordinary light bulbs, lasers emit highly coherent light. As this coherent light reflects from microscopic imperfections on a wall, it creates an interference pattern known as laser speckle. Although the wall appears uniformly illuminated, the laser actually produces a complex field of tiny bright and dark regions resulting from constructive and destructive interference.

Optical engineers generally consider speckle to be an artifact because it introduces structured visual noise into images. Entire areas of laser research have focused on reducing or eliminating speckle for imaging applications.

In other words, a laser-projected wall already contains far more visual structure than our brains consciously recognize.

What DMT Does to Vision

DMT is one of the most powerful naturally occurring psychedelic compounds known. Its primary action is through activation of serotonin 5-HT2A receptors, producing profound alterations in perception.

Recent neuroimaging studies suggest that DMT changes how the visual cortex processes incoming information. Researchers have observed increased receptive field sizes within the primary visual cortex (V1), potentially explaining why people experience distortions in size, depth, edges, and spatial organization while under its effects. Importantly, these changes occurred without differences in eye or head movement, indicating the alterations originated within visual processing itself rather than simple gaze changes.

Many neuroscientists also describe psychedelic perception using predictive processing.

Under ordinary circumstances, your brain constantly predicts what it expects to see, filtering enormous amounts of sensory information before it reaches conscious awareness. Psychedelics appear to weaken those predictions, allowing previously ignored sensory information—or internally generated patterns—to become far more prominent.

If that model is correct, coherent laser speckle may provide unusually rich visual input that an altered visual cortex organizes into highly structured forms.

Shared Perception or Shared Pattern Recognition?

The most compelling aspect of the claim is not that people see symbols.

Humans are extraordinarily good at recognizing patterns. We routinely identify faces in clouds, animals in tree bark, and meaningful shapes in random textures—a phenomenon known as pareidolia.

The stronger claim is that different observers reportedly see similar symbols in similar locations without prior communication. That possibility has motivated an open documentation effort in which participants submit drawings of what they observed, including reports that do not support the hypothesis. The project's stated goal is not to prove the phenomenon but to determine whether genuine convergence exists.

Whether those similarities ultimately exceed what would be expected by chance remains an open scientific question.

What Would Convince Scientists?

Extraordinary claims require careful methodology rather than heated debate.

A rigorous experiment might include:

• Participants who have never heard about the phenomenon.

• Double-blind procedures that prevent expectation from influencing perception.

• Independent drawings made immediately afterward.

• Statistical comparison between observers.

• Replication by laboratories with no connection to the original investigators.

If independent groups repeatedly produced matching results under controlled conditions, researchers across neuroscience, psychology, and vision science would almost certainly pay attention.

Conversely, if similarities disappear once expectation is removed, that outcome would also be valuable.

Good science advances regardless of which hypothesis survives.

The Question Is Bigger Than DMT

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this story is that it touches on one of neuroscience's oldest questions.

We tend to assume our eyes show us reality directly.

They do not.

Our brains construct reality from incomplete sensory information, using prediction, memory, prior experience, and constant interpretation. Every moment of conscious perception is already an active reconstruction rather than a simple recording of the external world.

The DMT laser phenomenon invites an intriguing possibility: under certain altered states, does the brain simply become better at extracting hidden visual structure from coherent light, or does it generate symbolic interpretations from otherwise meaningless optical noise?

At present, both explanations remain plausible.

Curiosity Is Not the Same as Conclusion

There is understandable excitement surrounding these reports. There is also understandable skepticism.

Both responses have their place.

History contains many discoveries that began as observations outside conventional thinking. It also contains countless fascinating ideas that dissolved under rigorous testing. The challenge is learning to remain curious without becoming credulous and skeptical without becoming dismissive.

The DMT laser phenomenon has reached the point where anecdotes alone are no longer enough. What it needs now is careful experimentation, transparent data, independent replication, and the willingness to accept whatever the evidence ultimately reveals.

Whether this turns out to be an unexpected feature of human perception or simply another remarkable illusion produced by an extraordinary brain, the journey toward answering that question may prove every bit as interesting as the answer itself.

Further Reading

• DMT Code Project (open documentation effort): https://dmtcode.com

• Rapid effects of tryptamine psychedelics on perceptual distortions and early visual cortical population receptive fields (NeuroImage, 2024).

• Reviews of laser speckle and optical coherence in imaging research.

                                                                                       

 Written and researched by ChatGPT


Author's Note:  I've been writing with this ai model for a while now.  It helps my ideas come to life more quickly to say the least.  But of course, I worry that my finished products --I have three books in the works-- will not be respected.

Then I began hearing about famous authors who have collaborated with others on a regular basis.  

If this helps anyone else set aside preconceived notions about what it is to author a book or book series, then I'm happy. 

What's interesting is the idea of showing people all of the back and forth that builds the book or book series. When minds or code interact, magic happens.

Here to help!

---------------------------------------------

The Myth of the Lone Author: Why Great Books Have Always Been Collaborative

For centuries, we've celebrated the image of the solitary author. A quiet room. A typewriter or laptop. One brilliant mind pouring words onto a page until a masterpiece is born.

It's a wonderful image.

It just isn't the whole story.

Behind many of the books we cherish are editors, publishers, researchers, collaborators, secretaries, co-authors, ghostwriters, and trusted friends who helped shape what eventually reached readers. While one person may have conceived the story or argument, bringing it to life has often been a team effort.

Perhaps collaboration isn't the exception to great writing. Perhaps it's one of the reasons great writing exists.

The Invisible Architects

Ask any published author about their editor and you'll quickly discover that editors do far more than correct spelling mistakes or move commas.

Developmental editors routinely challenge weak plots, suggest restructuring entire chapters, encourage authors to deepen characters, remove unnecessary scenes, or strengthen themes that only partially emerge in an early draft. Line editors then refine sentences for rhythm, clarity, and flow, often rewriting awkward passages while preserving the author's voice. Copy editors and proofreaders provide another layer of refinement before a manuscript ever reaches a bookstore.

In traditional publishing, acquiring editors may even influence a book long before it is finished, offering feedback on proposals, requesting substantial revisions, or steering a project toward a stronger market position.

The finished book may still belong entirely to its author, but it is rarely untouched by many experienced hands.

Famous Authors Who Didn't Write Alone

This shouldn't surprise us. History is filled with successful writers who openly collaborated.

James Patterson is perhaps the most recognizable modern example. He develops stories, characters, outlines and major plot points before working with co-authors who help transform those ideas into complete novels. Patterson remains deeply involved throughout the process, but he has never hidden the collaborative nature of his work.

Tom Clancy followed a similar path later in his career, producing numerous novels with co-authors whose names often appeared beside his own.

Long before either of them, authors frequently dictated their work rather than writing every sentence by hand. Henry James dictated many of his later novels to a secretary. Agatha Christie also dictated portions of her work at various times. Their ideas remained their own, even if another person recorded the words.

Then there are ghostwriters.

Political leaders, business executives, celebrities, athletes and even novelists have quietly relied on professional writers to help tell their stories. Sometimes the public knows. Often it doesn't. The collaboration may be invisible, but it is hardly unusual.

Every Creative Field Works This Way

Oddly enough, writing is one of the few creative arts where we still cling to the idea that one person should do everything.

A film director doesn't operate every camera.

An architect doesn't lay every brick.

A composer may rely on orchestrators to prepare music for an entire symphony.

Painters throughout history employed apprentices who prepared canvases, mixed pigments and even painted background elements under the master's direction.

None of this diminishes the creative vision. If anything, it allows that vision to reach its fullest expression.

Why should writing be any different?

When Ideas Outrun Words

Many people possess extraordinary ideas but struggle to express them on paper.

Some think visually rather than verbally.

Others are natural storytellers when speaking but freeze in front of a blank page.

Many simply don't know how to organize thousands of thoughts into a compelling narrative.

None of these challenges make someone's ideas less valuable.

Writing is a craft. Like woodworking, music or painting, it improves with practice, feedback and collaboration. Working alongside someone who can ask questions, suggest alternatives, tighten prose or help uncover the heart of a story has always been part of that process.

Sometimes the greatest barrier isn't imagination.

It's translation.

Turning what exists vividly in the mind into words another person can experience.

A New Kind of Collaboration

Artificial intelligence has introduced another collaborator to the writing table.

Some people view that with suspicion. Others see it as cheating.

History suggests a different perspective.

If authors have long worked with editors who reshape chapters, co-authors who draft scenes, assistants who transcribe ideas, and ghostwriters who help construct books, then AI may simply represent the newest tool in an old tradition.

Like every collaborator before it, its value depends on how it is used.

An author who simply asks a machine to produce a book and publishes it unchanged has contributed very little.

An author who brings original ideas, asks thoughtful questions, rejects weak suggestions, rewrites passages, develops characters, reshapes chapters and guides every creative decision is still doing what authors have always done.

They are creating.

The tools have changed.

The process of refining ideas through collaboration has not.

Perhaps the real question has never been whether someone received help.

Perhaps the question has always been this:

Whose imagination gave birth to the story in the first place?

Because long after the edits are finished, the collaborators have gone home, and the manuscript reaches a reader's hands, it is still that imagination readers remember.

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

7 Times Anthony Fauci's Private Diary Didn't Match His Public Messaging.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

When more than 1,100 pages of Anthony Fauci's COVID-era diary became public, readers were given a rare opportunity to compare what he privately recorded with what he later told the American public.

Not every difference amounts to a contradiction. Not every contradiction proves deception.

But several diary entries raise legitimate questions about whether Fauci's later public messaging accurately reflected his own contemporaneous account of events.

Here are seven examples.

---

1. "I Had Nothing to Do with Lockdowns"

Public messaging

In later interviews, Fauci repeatedly said he did not order lockdowns and had "nothing to do" with shutting the country down.

What his diary says

His diary records him persuading New York City officials to close schools and describes California officials acting after hearing his recommendations. He also documented urging closures of bars and restaurants.

Why it matters

Nobody claims Fauci had legal authority to impose lockdowns. He didn't. But his own diary portrays him as an influential advocate for those policies—quite different from later statements suggesting he had little or no role.

---

2. School Closures

Public messaging

Fauci later minimized his involvement in decisions to close schools.

What his diary says

He specifically credited himself with convincing New York City leadership to shut schools and described influencing decisions elsewhere.

Why it matters

Readers can decide whether influencing the decision differs meaningfully from being responsible for it.

---

3. A Reluctant Public Servant—or Someone Tracking His Celebrity?

Public messaging

Fauci often presented himself as someone reluctantly thrust into the spotlight.

What his diary says

Entry after entry documents television appearances, newspaper profiles, celebrity conversations, media praise and public recognition.

He even wrote:

"It is not hyperbole to say that today I am the most famous and talked about person in the country..."

Why it matters

The diary paints the picture of someone highly conscious of—and at times seemingly energized by—his public profile.

---

4. Above Politics?

Public messaging

Fauci consistently portrayed himself as simply following the science.

What his diary says

The journal contains lengthy reflections on political battles inside the White House, media strategy, his disagreements with President Trump and conversations with influential journalist Bob Woodward.

Why it matters

Scientists inevitably operate in political environments, but the diary reveals a much more politically engaged figure than many Americans likely imagined.

---

5. One Adviser Among Many?

Public messaging

Later interviews often suggested Fauci was just one adviser whose recommendations were among many considered.

What his diary says

The diary repeatedly describes governors, mayors and senior officials changing direction after conversations with him or after hearing his public comments.

Why it matters

His own writing portrays him as believing he had considerable influence over major policy decisions.

---

6. The Most Credible Scientist in the World

Public messaging

Fauci generally allowed others to praise his credibility publicly.

What his diary says

Following criticism from the White House, he wrote officials were trying:

"to discredit the most credible scientist in the world."

Why it matters

Whether this reflected confidence or ego, it offers a candid glimpse into how Fauci viewed his own standing.

---

7. Public Neutrality vs. Private Frustration

Public messaging

Publicly, Fauci typically maintained a measured, restrained tone.

What his diary says

Privately, he described President Trump with words such as "crazy," "rambling," "desperate," "incompetent" and "an embarrassment."

Why it matters

Many professionals express private frustrations they never voice publicly. Still, the diary highlights a much sharper contrast between Fauci's public composure and his private opinions than many people realized.

---

Final Thoughts

Anthony Fauci's diary does not answer every question about the pandemic, nor does it prove every criticism that has been directed at him over the years.

What it does provide is an unfiltered record of how he viewed events as they unfolded.

In several instances, those private accounts sit uneasily beside his later public messaging. Whether readers view those differences as changing memories, strategic communication, or something more serious is a judgment each person can make after reading the diary itself.

                                                                       

The 10 Most Insane Things Anthony Fauci Wrote in His Personal Diary.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

When Senator Rand Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci's COVID-era diary in July 2026, many expected a dry record of meetings, phone calls, and policy discussions.

Instead, readers found something far more revealing.

The diary provides a rare glimpse into the private thoughts of the man who became the public face of America's COVID response. While some entries show a dedicated public servant working under extraordinary pressure, others reveal a man who appeared increasingly aware of—and perhaps captivated by—his own celebrity.

Here are ten of the most surprising entries.

1. "I am the most famous and talked about person in the country."

Perhaps no quote has received more attention than this one.

Fauci wrote:

"It is not hyperbole to say that today I am the most famous and talked about person in the country and one of the most recognizable persons in the world."

He followed that by writing:

"The situation with my national and international fame is explosive and really unimaginable."

There's no indication he was joking.

Whether readers see this as simple observation or remarkable self-importance is up to them.

2. He kept track of his own celebrity.

Throughout the diary, Fauci repeatedly noted:

• television appearances

• magazine profiles

• newspaper interviews

• celebrity encounters

• media praise

• public recognition

At times, the diary reads less like a government journal and more like someone documenting an extraordinary rise to fame.

3. He referred to himself as "the most credible scientist in the world."

After the White House publicly criticized him, Fauci wrote that officials were trying:

"to discredit the most credible scientist in the world."

Again, this wasn't someone else describing him.

It was Fauci describing himself.

4. He believed Trump was jealous of his spotlight.

In one entry, Fauci suggested President Trump appeared:

"enamored" of him,

while also believing Trump recognized that Fauci was taking attention away from him.

Whether accurate or not, it reveals Fauci was highly conscious of the political optics surrounding his public appearances.

5. He documented celebrities treating him like a hero.

The diary contains numerous references to famous actors, musicians, and public figures contacting him.

One entry describes actress Julia Roberts greeting him enthusiastically and calling him her hero.

Other well-known personalities appear throughout the journal.

6. He privately called Trump almost every insult imaginable.

Although Fauci often maintained a measured public tone, his private diary is considerably less restrained.

Among the words he reportedly used to describe President Trump were:

• rambling

• crazy

• desperate

• incompetent

• idiot

• obnoxious adolescent

• embarrassment

Whatever one's politics, the contrast between his public professionalism and his private opinions is striking.

7. He spent time talking privately with journalist Bob Woodward.

Fauci documented lengthy background conversations with Bob Woodward while Woodward was preparing a book on the pandemic.

He even expressed concern that people might suspect he was leaking information.

For someone frequently portrayed as remaining above politics and media narratives, these entries are noteworthy.

8. He knew early that the Wuhan market wasn't the original source.

One diary entry states:

"Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier."

Importantly, Fauci still believed the virus had originated naturally somewhere else before reaching the market.

This entry alone does not prove he privately believed the virus leaked from a laboratory.

However, it demonstrates that scientists were already revising their understanding of the outbreak's earliest spread.

9. Secret Service officers reportedly recognized him without checking ID.

One surprisingly personal story involves Fauci writing that Secret Service personnel allowed him through a security checkpoint without checking identification because they already knew who he was.

It's a small detail—but one he apparently felt worth recording.

10. The diary reveals someone acutely aware of his place in history.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway isn't any single quote.

It's the overall tone.

Repeated references to media coverage.

Repeated references to celebrity interactions.

Repeated references to public support.

Repeated references to how history would remember events.

Taken together, the diary paints a picture of someone who understood that he had become one of the defining public figures of the pandemic—and who documented that transformation in remarkable detail.

Final Thoughts

The diary doesn't prove every accusation that has been made against Anthony Fauci over the past several years.

Nor does it exonerate him.

What it does provide is something historians rarely receive: an unfiltered personal journal written during one of the most consequential public health events in modern history.

Readers can now judge for themselves whether the diary reflects confidence, ego, self-awareness—or some combination of all three.

One thing is beyond dispute:

The public Anthony Fauci and the private Anthony Fauci were not always the same person.

                                                                                      

MAID and Canadians: A Nightmare to Save Money in Healthcare.

This video speaks my mind completely.  

I'm very glad someone else is saying this.

Watch Video Here.

The Sgt. Helen Grus Case and the Future of Free Inquiry in Canada.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

"Whether you agree with Sgt. Helen Grus or not, her case raises an important question: Can investigators still ask difficult questions without fearing for their careers?"

There is a saying that has guided investigators, journalists, scientists, and ordinary citizens for generations:

Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Whether Sgt. Helen Grus was ultimately right or wrong in her concerns is not the most important question facing Canadians.

The more important question is this:

Should someone face professional punishment simply for pursuing an unpopular line of inquiry?

That question should concern every one of us.

The Helen Grus Case

Sgt. Helen Grus, an Ottawa Police detective assigned to child abuse and sudden child death investigations, became concerned after noticing what she believed was an unusual pattern of infant deaths during the COVID era.

As part of her inquiries, she explored whether maternal COVID vaccination should be considered as one possible factor among many. Following a lengthy disciplinary process, an adjudicator found Sgt. Grus guilty of discreditable conduct under Ontario's Police Services Act, concluding that she had exceeded her authority by accessing files outside her assigned investigations and contacting a parent without authorization.

Some view the decision as a necessary reminder that police officers must follow established investigative procedures.

Others see something far more troubling.

Interestingly, support for Sgt. Grus has extended beyond Canada. Public figures as different as actor John Cusack and comedian Adam Carolla have both publicly expressed support for her in recent weeks.

"... you chose to keep going and to ask questions. That took a lot of courage."--John Cusack

That doesn't prove her investigative suspicions were correct.

Nor does it resolve the legal questions surrounding her disciplinary case.

But it does suggest that concern over freedom of inquiry now reaches well beyond one police service or one country.

A Chilling Message

Regardless of where someone stands on COVID vaccines, this case sends an uncomfortable message.

If investigators believe certain questions are simply too politically sensitive to ask, what happens to independent policing?

Police officers are not supposed to investigate only the cases that are politically convenient.

Their duty is to investigate evidence.

Scientists are not supposed to test only popular hypotheses.

Journalists are not supposed to pursue only approved stories.

Curiosity has always carried risk.

History is filled with examples of people who asked uncomfortable questions that later proved important—and others whose suspicions ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Both outcomes are part of honest inquiry.

The point is not that every suspicion deserves to be believed.

The point is that every reasonable question deserves to be examined through evidence rather than dismissed because it is unpopular.

Freedom Requires Curiosity

Democracy depends upon disagreement.

Science depends upon skepticism and justice depends upon investigation.

If citizens begin believing they can lose their jobs simply for expressing concerns or pursuing unpopular lines of inquiry, many will stop asking altogether.

And silence is rarely where truth is found.

You investigate, collect evidence, follow the facts.

You accept the result—even if it contradicts your original belief.

That is how genuine inquiry has always worked.

But if certain questions become forbidden before the evidence can even be examined, we risk replacing investigation with assumption.

The Growing Culture of Self-Censorship

Perhaps the greatest casualty of recent years has not been free speech itself.

It has been the willingness to speak.

People increasingly ask themselves:

"Could this cost me my job?"

"Will I be labelled?"

"Should I just stay quiet?"

When those questions become routine, society loses something precious.

Not because every concern is valid.

But because fewer people are willing to test whether they are.

Self-censorship is often far more effective than censorship itself.

People need not be silenced if they silence themselves.

The Bigger Question

Words such as fascism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism carry enormous historical weight.

They should not be used casually.

Canada is not a fascist state.

At the same time, it is fair to ask whether some authoritarian tendencies are becoming more acceptable within modern institutions.

When expressing unpopular opinions carries professional risk...

When politically sensitive questions become increasingly difficult to ask...

When reputations are damaged before evidence can be fully explored...

Those developments deserve thoughtful public discussion.

Healthy democracies do not fear scrutiny.

They welcome it.

Strong institutions should be confident enough to withstand difficult questions.

The Principle Matters More Than the Person

Today's unpopular investigator could become tomorrow's whistleblower.

Today's dismissed concern could become tomorrow's accepted fact.

History reminds us of that time and again.

The question Canadians should be asking is not simply whether Sgt. Helen Grus followed every internal procedure.

It is whether our institutions still encourage honest curiosity—or whether they increasingly reward silence.

Democracies are not protected by unanimous agreement.

They are protected by citizens willing to ask difficult questions—and institutions confident enough to let them.

Whether Sgt. Helen Grus was ultimately right or wrong may be debated for years.

But if Canadians become afraid to ask questions in the first place, we will have lost something far more valuable than any single case could ever decide.

                                                                                

Latest Iver Mectin Dosing Chart from Dr. Makis

 This is not medical advice.