Ayahuasca - The science
In this article we talk about what we know from a scientific perspective about Ayahuasca. The bits that we don't fully unverstanden yet, we often call "magic".
Ayahuasca is unusual among psychedelics because it isn’t “one drug with one main receptor story.” It’s a deliberately engineered polypharmacology brew: a short-acting psychedelic molecule (DMT) that normally gets destroyed in your gut, paired with plant alkaloids (β-carbolines like harmine, harmaline, and tetrahydroharmine/THH) that change what your body can absorb and how your nervous system responds. That combination is why ayahuasca often produces a longer, more somatically “loaded,” emotionally narrative, and physiologically noticeable experience than, say, psilocybin alone.
What follows is a more essay-style overview of what we actually know about ayahuasca’s positive effects—what’s solid, what’s promising, and what’s still more poetry than proof—while keeping the science readable.
1) The most defensible claim: rapid antidepressant effects in some people
The strongest human evidence for “ayahuasca helps” sits in depression. A randomized controlled trial in treatment-resistant depression reported that a single session produced rapid antidepressant effects compared with placebo, with meaningful symptom reduction over the following days. That doesn’t make it a universal antidepressant, but it does place ayahuasca in the same broad “rapid-acting” conversation as ketamine—i.e., something can shift quickly rather than only after weeks. Source: Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019 (RCT; full text): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6378413/
Earlier clinical work (smaller, less controlled) also found fast reductions in depressive symptoms after one dose, pointing in the same direction even if the methodological weight is lighter. Source: Osório et al., 2015: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbp/a/ghG6Q7cLTgSRF6JxJjj6LMS/?lang=en
How likely is this “real”? Quite. If you forced me to bet: ~70–80% chance the antidepressant signal survives larger studies, though the size of the effect will probably become more nuanced (who responds, under what conditions, with what support).
2) What changes in the body may track those mood effects (BDNF, cortisol, inflammation)
Once you accept that symptoms can shift rapidly, the next question is: what in the body changes alongside it? Here the data are early but interesting.
One line of work reports changes in BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor), a molecule associated with neuroplasticity and often discussed in antidepressant mechanisms. BDNF is not a magic “happiness chemical,” but it’s one plausible marker of a brain entering a more plastic, update-ready state. Source: de Almeida et al., 2019 (BDNF): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6558429/
Another line looks at the HPA axis (stress hormone regulation), showing shifts in cortisol dynamics in depressed patients after ayahuasca. Depression is frequently linked to stress-system dysregulation; modulating it could matter for sleep, energy, threat sensitivity, and emotional volatility. Source: Galvão et al., 2018 (cortisol): https://public-pages-files-2025.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00185/pdf
And then there’s the piece you explicitly want: anti-inflammatory effects. In depressed patients, inflammatory biomarkers (including CRP) have been examined in relation to antidepressant response after ayahuasca, with findings suggesting biomarker shifts can relate to symptom change. This is not “ayahuasca cures inflammation,” but it supports a biologically coherent story: for some people, part of the therapeutic effect may involve tamping down aspects of inflammatory physiology. Source: Galvão-Coelho et al., 2020 (inflammatory biomarkers): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269881120936486
How likely is this layer? Mechanisms like “plasticity + stress-system modulation” are broadly consistent with modern neuroscience (~65–75% likely as part of the story). The specific inflammation biomarker story is promising but needs replication (~50–65% likely).
3) Why ayahuasca feels “more somatic” than many psychedelics: β-carbolines matter
DMT by itself is not orally active because the enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAO) breaks it down quickly. Ayahuasca becomes orally active because the vine (commonly Banisteriopsis caapi) contains β-carbolines that act as reversible MAO-A inhibitors, allowing DMT to enter circulation and reach the brain.
Human pharmacology work measuring blood levels supports that both DMT and β-carbolines are present after ingestion, with time courses that match the lived duration of the experience. Source: Callaway et al., 1999 (PK): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10404423/ Also classic human pharmacology work: Riba et al. (often cited; various formats exist—one accessible mirror here): https://scispace.com/pdf/human-pharmacology-of-ayahuasca-subjective-and-2iizfgdlgt.pdf
But β-carbolines likely do more than “turn on DMT orally.” In particular, tetrahydroharmine (THH) appears to have mild serotonin reuptake inhibition (an SSRI-like property), which could plausibly change emotional tone, rumination dynamics, and after-effects. Even if THH is weak compared to pharma SSRIs, “weak but present” can still matter inside a multi-compound brew. Source (review + interaction discussion): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7678905/
This is one reason a scientifically honest statement about ayahuasca is: it is not simply “DMT taken orally.” It’s a pharmacological ecosystem.
4) The “healing” mechanisms people argue about: brain networks, learning, and meaning
A lot of psychedelic therapy theory has converged on this: psychedelics can temporarily loosen overly rigid predictive models (the brain’s habits of perception, self-story, and threat interpretation), creating a window where revision is easier—especially when guided by therapy, ritual structure, or integration practices.
On the neuroscience side, ayahuasca has been shown to modulate the default mode network (DMN), a set of brain regions involved in self-referential processing and rumination. DMN findings do not prove “ego death cures depression,” but they do map to a plausible psychological mechanism: less locked-in self-narration, more flexibility, more possibility of perspective shift. Source: Palhano-Fontes et al., 2015 (DMN effects): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4334486/
How likely is DMN modulation to be relevant to outcomes? The DMN effect itself is very likely (it’s a repeat theme across psychedelics). Whether it is the driver of healing is less certain—more like a correlate or one piece of a multi-factor process (~60% likely as part of the causal chain).
5) Addiction and habit change: encouraging, but scientifically messier
Addiction outcomes are where enthusiasm often outruns study design. Observational studies of ayahuasca-assisted approaches in addiction contexts report improvements in substance use and psychosocial functioning, and qualitative work describes mechanisms like autobiographical insight, emotional catharsis, reorientation of values, and renewed social connection.
These are meaningful signals—but they are harder to interpret because the container (group, ritual, accountability, community, aftercare) is often powerful by itself, and people who choose ayahuasca programs differ from controls in important ways. Sources:
Thomas et al., 2013 (observational addiction outcomes): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23627784/
Qualitative mechanisms work: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24830187/
How likely is “ayahuasca helps some addictions” true? I’d put it around ~50–60% in principle. The bigger uncertainty is magnitude and specificity: how much is the brew vs the container.
6) Anti-inflammatory and “physical” healing: what’s plausible vs what’s proven
Here we need to be blunt: robust clinical evidence for ayahuasca treating physical diseases is limited. But there is a credible mechanistic foundation for anti-inflammatory and cytoprotective effects.
DMT and the sigma-1 receptor: immune modulation and neuroprotection (strong preclinical)
DMT interacts with the sigma-1 receptor, which functions like a cellular stress-response modulator. In human immune cell models, DMT (and 5-MeO-DMT) influences dendritic cell behavior and downstream inflammatory signaling via sigma-1 receptor mechanisms. Source: Szabó et al., 2014 (human dendritic cells): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106533
In cellular models relevant to brain injury, DMT has shown protective effects under hypoxic conditions through sigma-1 receptor pathways. Source: Szabó, 2016 (hypoxia protection): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5021697/
This is one plausible bridge between “mental” and “physical”: if sigma-1 mediated immunomodulation and stress protection occurs meaningfully in vivo, ayahuasca could influence systemic physiology. But translating cell findings into clinical outcomes is notoriously difficult.
β-carbolines: anti-inflammatory signaling and neurogenesis-related pathways (preclinical)
Harmine has been shown to inhibit inflammatory signaling pathways in experimental models (for example via NF-κB/JNK/STAT1 pathways). Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36556387/
Separately, harmine and related alkaloids have been linked to increased proliferation of human neural progenitor cells, and β-carboline mixtures have been discussed in the context of adult neurogenesis in vitro. Sources:
Dakic et al., 2016 (human neural progenitors): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5144684/
Morales-García et al., 2017 (alkaloids + neurogenesis markers): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05407-9
The honest conclusion: anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective mechanisms are plausible and supported preclinically (~70–80% that the mechanisms are real), while the leap to “this reliably heals physical disease in humans” remains unproven (~25–40% depending on the claim).
7) DMT is endogenous and widespread in nature—so what does that mean?
Yes: DMT is found widely across plant species and has evidence supporting endogenous presence in mammals/humans, though measurement and interpretation are tricky and historically controversial.
A critical review discusses endogenous psychedelic tryptamines, the evidence for DMT presence, and the methodological pitfalls (a useful “sober referee” paper for your essay). Source: Barker et al., 2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22371425/
A broader review covers DMT neuropharmacology, receptors, and distribution, including discussion of endogenous DMT. Source: Carbonaro & Gatch, 2016 (open access): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5048497/
And a focused review explicitly tackles DMT as an endogenous compound and its possible physiological roles. Source: Barker, 2018: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088236/
What can you safely claim in a scientific essay?
It is plausible and supported that mammals can synthesize DMT endogenously.
It is not established that endogenous DMT routinely reaches concentrations that produce psychedelic phenomenology, or that it is the explanation for dreams/NDEs/pineal mysticism (popular hypothesis; weak evidence). If you phrase it as “hypothesized roles include…” and keep sigma-1/immune/neuroprotection as the grounded anchor, you’ll stay credible.
8) A clean “mechanisms of healing” synthesis
Ayahuasca may produce therapeutic benefit through a convergence of:
Acute psychedelic state (DMT 5-HT2A agonism → cognitive/emotional flexibility)
Polypharmacology modulation (MAO-A inhibition + THH serotonergic effects → altered monoamine dynamics and longer experiential window)
Stress/immune signaling effects (sigma-1 receptor pathways → plausible anti-inflammatory and cytoprotective modulation; preclinical but coherent)
Neuroplasticity window (BDNF/plasticity-associated shifts → learning and reconsolidation)
Psychological meaning-making + behavioral updating (insight, emotional processing, narrative revision)
Contextual causal factors (ritual structure, music, social safety, integration practices; not “just placebo,” but real variables shaping outcomes)
The scientific argument is not “it’s magic.” It’s: ayahuasca stacks multiple levers at once—pharmacology + physiology + learning + context—and that stack can move certain human problems more efficiently than a single lever alone.
Last updated