New Psychedelic Entactogens(psychedelicreview.com)
psychedelicreview.com
New Psychedelic Entactogens
https://psychedelicreview.com/new-psychedelic-entactogens-designer-drugs-produce-designer-effects/
62 comments
> without the neurotoxicity
I would disregard any claims from Reddit users about a polydrug combo lacking neurotoxicity. It's unlikely that any of those three research chemicals (aka obscure recreational drugs) have been significantly tested for neurotoxicity alone, and definitely not in that specific combination.
Internet recreational drug users can be a little too over-confident in the safety of their drug use.
I would disregard any claims from Reddit users about a polydrug combo lacking neurotoxicity. It's unlikely that any of those three research chemicals (aka obscure recreational drugs) have been significantly tested for neurotoxicity alone, and definitely not in that specific combination.
Internet recreational drug users can be a little too over-confident in the safety of their drug use.
Yeah generally serotonin releases are neurotoxic and I'm pretty convinced amphetamines are low grade nuerotoxic as well. No shot this combo is not neurotoxic to some degree.
It’s the opposite. High dose Amphetamines are neurotoxic. The classic study impugning MDMA involved mislabeled amphetamines.
Can you elaborate or point to sources? Are you referring to all forms and doses, including ADHD medications?
Curious to learn more.
Curious to learn more.
Yeah amphetamine salts are an add med and they are almost certainly if not certainly neurotoxic. See : audio recordings of Jim Jones before and after years of heavy amphetamine abuse.
I remember ordering 5-MAPB back in the day and then flushing it because I wasn't totally sure of its toxicity. I'm still not sure, but there are at least some indications that it has physical toxicity similar to MDMA and 5-APB: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27156124/
I'm not sure about neurotoxicity either, but if you do some searching online, you'll find many anecdotal reports of people having miserable times for sometimes months following use. Those are mostly high or frequent doses, but I certainly don't feel comfortable taking a drug about which we know so little.
I'm not sure about neurotoxicity either, but if you do some searching online, you'll find many anecdotal reports of people having miserable times for sometimes months following use. Those are mostly high or frequent doses, but I certainly don't feel comfortable taking a drug about which we know so little.
Okay reading that abstract- that's just what happens when you take drugs lmao.
All type of shit gets fucked up for the duration of the high for all type of drugs. Tachycardia, sweating, blood pressure changes. None of that says "toxicity" to me, in the traditional sense of the word.
All type of shit gets fucked up for the duration of the high for all type of drugs. Tachycardia, sweating, blood pressure changes. None of that says "toxicity" to me, in the traditional sense of the word.
You and I apparently have different ideas of the "traditional sense" of toxic. Fucking up all kinds of shit certainly sounds toxic to me.
But that's literally not what "toxicity" means
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity
In the field this journal publishes in, it is (or else they wouldn't accept such a paper titled "Acute Toxicity ...").
Is coffee toxic?
Yes, caffeine is quite toxic. Water is also toxic. Toxicity is always dose dependent.
I would absolutely not call caffeine "quite" toxic. It's barely toxic, you need to consume over a gram to do anything really nasty iirc
Even without any physical changes in the brain, aren't our experiences relative? I mean heroin addicts are often saying they wish they never tried it. So if the drug is just about pleasure, doesn't it lessen all your future pleasure just by having that comparison? Sincere question.
("without neurotoxicity" seems pretty unfounded btw without a few papers by independent groups)
("without neurotoxicity" seems pretty unfounded btw without a few papers by independent groups)
I've taken 5-mapb by itself and it was pretty damn close to MDMA IMO. Throwing a tryptamine and a stimulantn in the mix sounds fun, but like it would be way more intense than "molly."
Only if those compounds are included at high-ish doses. The parent comment doesn't talk about what amounts the compounds are present in
Buyer beware on that website, lots of scams out there!
Another class of putatively non- or less-neurotoxic entactogens I don't see mentioned here are aminoindanes, which David Nichols' group specifically engineered to have lower neurotoxic potential. The classic prototype here is 5,6-methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane, or MDAI. It's also worth considering. The other broad classes of potentially non- or less-neurotoxic entactogens which I'm aware of, other than aminoindanes, are benzofurans (which are covered in the article) and substituted cathinones. Imo, all three classes contain molecules which are just peachy :) I recommend (prudent) exploration.
Done 5-apb - ask me anything.
It was fun. Probably neurotoxic. Can't say I recommend doing random ass Chinese chemicals with little history of human consumption.
It was fun. Probably neurotoxic. Can't say I recommend doing random ass Chinese chemicals with little history of human consumption.
Why do you say "probably neurotoxic"? Do you mean moreso than MDMA? If so, do you suspect it's only being studied for its therapeutic use because it's currently not criminalized?
MDMA is not known to be neurotoxic. The study that showed that accidentally used methamphetamine, which is definitely neurotoxic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/425109a
If you prefer to hear it straight from a Stanford professor's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QE6t-MkYE&t=5052s
https://www.nature.com/articles/425109a
If you prefer to hear it straight from a Stanford professor's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QE6t-MkYE&t=5052s
I think the state of the literature is a little more complicated than you surmise from Huberman's podcast. For example, note especially their careful wording around its neurotoxicity, as well as the clinical dosing assumptions they make their claims within, which likely differ from those of casual users. As a cautionary example, you should look into alpha-Methyldopamine. Last I checked (which was, admittedly, several years ago), there was not a good rebuttal to its neurotoxic potential. Though this potential is less serious than the neurotoxicity demonstrated by the botched study which injected methamphetamine and said it was MDMA (and was later corrected, but the damage to MDMA's reputation had already been done), I still think it demonstrates that the case of MDMA's neurotoxicity, at least in the way that a casual user might consume it--even sparingly--is not an open and shut case.
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong, since MDMA is great stuff. I hope someone can check the most recent literature on this topic and tell me otherwise.
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong, since MDMA is great stuff. I hope someone can check the most recent literature on this topic and tell me otherwise.
I'm aware that MDMA is not neurotoxic, I was wondering why the person I responded to called the research chem they took "probably neurotoxic"... but perhaps they were under the impression that MDMA is neurotoxic, and therefore considering this research chemical "guilty by association" or something
So firstly I did and do think mdma is neurotoxic.
I was under the impression that the literature was pretty settled on it being neurotoxic but sounds like I might be wrong about that.
I said 5-apb is probably nuerotoxic because it's serotonin effects felt very similar to mama, and that feeling has always felt to me like I was doing low grade brain damage or at the very least heavily downregulating my serotonin receptor system.
I was under the impression that the literature was pretty settled on it being neurotoxic but sounds like I might be wrong about that.
I said 5-apb is probably nuerotoxic because it's serotonin effects felt very similar to mama, and that feeling has always felt to me like I was doing low grade brain damage or at the very least heavily downregulating my serotonin receptor system.
Interesting to isolate them and analogs and even synthesizing psylocibin, but what was wrong with just taking shrooms? Even if you can synthesize them, it doesn't mean these fungi are not here to take care of us and we should respect them.
-- as taken from a recent argument with a psychedelics enthusiast. Take it as you will.
-- as taken from a recent argument with a psychedelics enthusiast. Take it as you will.
Mushrooms have wildly varying potencies. Even if they are cloned and grown in the same batch there will be variance and some people like knowing the precise dose they will get.
People also complain about mushrooms causing nausea which is partially caused by inert organic matter. Some people may want options for reducing that.
Also, while psychedelic mushrooms are reasonable to cultivate, something like peyote isn't. With the rarity of peyote, I think it's disrespectful for anyone that isn't indigenous to take it and synthetic mescaline or it's analogues provides a way to get a very similar experience without the disrespect.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with just taking mushrooms. Just throwing out some thoughts on possible reasons why some people might want to go other routes.
People also complain about mushrooms causing nausea which is partially caused by inert organic matter. Some people may want options for reducing that.
Also, while psychedelic mushrooms are reasonable to cultivate, something like peyote isn't. With the rarity of peyote, I think it's disrespectful for anyone that isn't indigenous to take it and synthetic mescaline or it's analogues provides a way to get a very similar experience without the disrespect.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with just taking mushrooms. Just throwing out some thoughts on possible reasons why some people might want to go other routes.
https://cactusconservation.org/2021/03/26/number-of-greenhou...
(Napkin math for factory farming peyote)
(Napkin math for factory farming peyote)
That's really interesting. I guess I was thinking about things from a more clandestine perspective. Having a greenhouse with illegal plants that take 12-16 years to mature is pretty risky. But, in the realm of legal goods, there are other products that take that long to mature. Whiskeys are what come to mind first. I can't imagine it's particularly cheap but I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to pay the premium.
In case this knowledge can come in use for others: AFAIK it's the chitin in the mushroom which causes nausea and discomfort. I've read about eating ginger root before ingesting the mushroom to reduce this. Although I have not tried it myself.
Another good way of ingesting the psilocybin is to make tea from the mushroom. This reduces discomfort for those who get unwell from eating it. For some types, such as psilocybe cubensis, it's recommended to squirt a bit of lemon juice in the mix. This will supposedly help extract the psilocybin from the mushroom.
As for potency, it's recommended to use a mortar and pestle to pulverize the dried mushroom into a fine powder. Potency should me more predictable and consistent after this.
Another good way of ingesting the psilocybin is to make tea from the mushroom. This reduces discomfort for those who get unwell from eating it. For some types, such as psilocybe cubensis, it's recommended to squirt a bit of lemon juice in the mix. This will supposedly help extract the psilocybin from the mushroom.
As for potency, it's recommended to use a mortar and pestle to pulverize the dried mushroom into a fine powder. Potency should me more predictable and consistent after this.
As another commenter noted, some people have trouble with nausea when taking shrooms. If you're in this camp, I'd recommend exploring O-Acetylpsilocin (aka 4-AcO-DMT), which is widely thought to be a prodrug for psilocin, and much easier to synthesize than psilocybin to boot--and note that psilocybin is a prodrug for psilocin too, after all. Having explored both fairly extensively, I think O-Acetylpsilocin holds a lot fewer surprises than shrooms. I expect that pure psilocybin would behave similarly, but I haven't experienced it.
not patentable
As with all designer drugs - shrouds = controlled - novel analog = unregulated
Interesting side note, you can feed psilocybin mushrooms synthetic tryptamines not found in nature and they will process them into 4-HO derivatives.
Ooh I remember reading a bit about this years back. Not much research has been done into it though, do you know of any recent work? I'd love to read about it
That's really neat! Where'd you hear about that?
These being re-take inhibitors and releasers is very interesting and concerning. That combination is typically not considered safe because you are increasing the amount of a given transmitter and diminishing your ability to deal with it.
These are probably very nuerotoxic.
These are probably very nuerotoxic.
Back in the day, researchers would just try the drugs instead of feeding them to mice for 20 years. Things moved a lot faster that way.
Maybe they did, but they can't really say it publicly.
Anyways, it is not hard to find reports from people who tried these "research chemicals". These substances are often legal (because they haven't been controlled yet) and they are labs that will make them for you without asking too many questions. And by that I mean serious, registered, professional labs doing things up to specs, with GC/MS and all that stuff. Not a RV in a desert. Publish the synthesis and someone will make it and try it.
Anyways, it is not hard to find reports from people who tried these "research chemicals". These substances are often legal (because they haven't been controlled yet) and they are labs that will make them for you without asking too many questions. And by that I mean serious, registered, professional labs doing things up to specs, with GC/MS and all that stuff. Not a RV in a desert. Publish the synthesis and someone will make it and try it.
The safety track record has been very inconsistent for RCs.
Shulgin's popular creations turned out to be very safe, even in overdose, besides the few that were MAOIs (2C-T-7 and AMT, off the top of my head.) But Shulgin was looking for good, safe psychedelics.
David Nichols's lab worked in the same area, but focused on high-affinity 5-HT2A agonists. They made Bromo-DragonFLY (killed a few people after it was mislabeled as 2C-B-FLY), and then most recently the NBOMe series, which is often sold as counterfeit acid.
NBOMes produce spectacular, rich visuals, and a strong euphoria uncharacteristic for the class. Unfortunately, they seem to kill people at random, for no good reason. Even people taking it again at the same dose. And it can happen very abruptly. Seems to be from seizures disrupting the autonomic nervous system.
So chemical purity isn't the thing to worry about, it's the pharmacology. It's like test piloting experimental aircraft or something. If you experiment, use Shulgin's method and work up very, very slowly.
Shulgin's popular creations turned out to be very safe, even in overdose, besides the few that were MAOIs (2C-T-7 and AMT, off the top of my head.) But Shulgin was looking for good, safe psychedelics.
David Nichols's lab worked in the same area, but focused on high-affinity 5-HT2A agonists. They made Bromo-DragonFLY (killed a few people after it was mislabeled as 2C-B-FLY), and then most recently the NBOMe series, which is often sold as counterfeit acid.
NBOMes produce spectacular, rich visuals, and a strong euphoria uncharacteristic for the class. Unfortunately, they seem to kill people at random, for no good reason. Even people taking it again at the same dose. And it can happen very abruptly. Seems to be from seizures disrupting the autonomic nervous system.
So chemical purity isn't the thing to worry about, it's the pharmacology. It's like test piloting experimental aircraft or something. If you experiment, use Shulgin's method and work up very, very slowly.
I had read that magnesium deficiency is generally the culprit in the case of NBOMe deaths
Umm, they published many books about it, TIKHAL and PIKHAL by the Shulgins being the most famous.
"Why was biopharma so much more productive in 1950" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u6ZkAVQfPA , tldw: their model systems were much closer to reality. ie, trying 8 compounds in mice models is more likely to find you a working drug than trying 8000 compounds in well plate cell culture models, or worse just binding studies.
Many probably still do. They just publish their research on Erowid and Bluelight instead of journals
I'm being somewhat glib but I genuinely think projects like Psychonaut and TripSit Wiki that try to at least organize the wealth of "underground" knowledge about these substances are tapping into a huge source of knowledge that has so far been ignored and even shunned. Obviously the challenge that remains is meaningful organization of it
Check out TIHKAL and PIHKAL by the Shulgins.
Yeah, feeding these drugs to mice and conclude they are hallucinogenic based on head twitches? Seems a bit ridiculous considering these compounds have been out on the research chemical market for years now.
People have been buying and consuming 5-apb as a"research chemical" for almost a decade at this point.
I don't really have a very high opinion of MDMA, it's basically just a modified amphetamine and the amphetamines have a not-so-great historical record, being more likely to lead to addictive behavior. These modified molecules are all amphetamines - just look at the right-hand tail of the molecules in the images and compare to amphetamine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
The paper cited on the potential similarity to psilocybin and LSD (which exert their activity through the 5-HT2A receptor) is behind a paywall and mice of course are not humans, so that's very speculative.
However, why mess around with compounds with unknown metabolic breakdown behavior, with unknown side effects and activity in humans, when the existing psychedelics (such as psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline) are fairly well understood in terms of effects on humans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
The paper cited on the potential similarity to psilocybin and LSD (which exert their activity through the 5-HT2A receptor) is behind a paywall and mice of course are not humans, so that's very speculative.
However, why mess around with compounds with unknown metabolic breakdown behavior, with unknown side effects and activity in humans, when the existing psychedelics (such as psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline) are fairly well understood in terms of effects on humans?
Psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline all have vastly different effects from MDMA. That's why MDMA is called an entactogen or empathogen, and not a psychedelic.
Mescaline is a substituted amphetamine just like MDMA. As is the antidepressant buproprion (Wellbutrin). And a variety of very strong hallucinogens.
MDMA can be problematic like that, it has a host of side effects, particularly at higher doses and can be mildly habit forming. The effects also wane very rapidly with repeated use and the side effects become much worse. A valuable drug but one to use with caution.
I would definitely stick to the below 120mg dosages, these pills with 220mg are way too much!
I would definitely stick to the below 120mg dosages, these pills with 220mg are way too much!
I am not a professional but as I understand APBs (and MDMA) have the same issue as Fen-Phen in that they are cardiotoxic and can cause heart valve issues due to high 5HT2b receptor affinity, which might be mitigated by combination with a 5HT2b antagonist such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-127445
Super interesting comment, but it was marked "dead", so I vouched for you.
But let's not suggest taking research chemicals for maybe mitigating a known negative side effect for the chemical family of compounds, as it could do good... but it could also bring another negative side effects on top of this one, or a worse one!
But let's not suggest taking research chemicals for maybe mitigating a known negative side effect for the chemical family of compounds, as it could do good... but it could also bring another negative side effects on top of this one, or a worse one!
Is the verdict still out on magnesium supplements?
As much as Theranos has been discredited, there is still opportunity to perform near real-time serum measurements in novel ways which could have a huge impact on the safety of pharmaceutical consumption (even for recreational uses) in the forthcoming 20 years.
Although the current focus is diabetes, the possibilities are limitless.
As much as Theranos has been discredited, there is still opportunity to perform near real-time serum measurements in novel ways which could have a huge impact on the safety of pharmaceutical consumption (even for recreational uses) in the forthcoming 20 years.
Although the current focus is diabetes, the possibilities are limitless.
What do you mean IRT magnesium supplements?
Yeah you are right. All this stuff is bad news, best to stay away imo
I don't know if you reply is sarcasm or not.
I was just trying to warn people that reality is often more complex than simple plans.
There have been other interesting comments, just as interesting as your original one, offering more information as to why it's not as clear cut as some people are pretending it to be.
I was just trying to warn people that reality is often more complex than simple plans.
There have been other interesting comments, just as interesting as your original one, offering more information as to why it's not as clear cut as some people are pretending it to be.
These guys can get away with legally selling pressed pills of this combo in Europe. I'm not associated with this company.
https://chemical-collective.com/product/pinkstars/