"I think Ismene is just asking you to ask yourself what the likelihood is that some potent non-LSD psychoactive is made by chance during the synthesis process which hasn't been exploited for profit yet."
^Why would someone trying to turn large quick profits by cooking up and selling LSD on the black market go thru all the time and trouble to isolate something whose main property is to alter the brain's reaction to LSD and make it feel "dirty"?
They would finish their synth process, test it, see that it gave some sort of trippy buzz, and even if it was not quite right, even if it gave an uncomfortable dirty body buzz and a weird headache, not wanting to waste all that time and money, they would just proceed to sell it anyway.
I am not saying that the adulterants I suggest might exist are, on their own, multiple times more potent than LSD. On their own they might do nothing. Maybe all they might do is just SYNERGIZE with the LSD and make it feel "yucky." I am just saying it is within pharmacological precedent that EXTREMELY tiny amounts of a compound can, while not having much if any effect on their own, cause a CHANGE in the properties of another compound administered at the same time.
True, with respect to "dirty LSD" this is just hypothetical speculation by me from pure reason. But so is the claim that "All forms of acid body load and undesired side effects are NOT REAL and are just some sort of placebo effect cause by set and setting," THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION DUE TO blah blah blah... followed by the completely baseless hypothesizing, by pharmacology neophytes, that it is "totally impossible" for there to be any other adulterant that might make the LSD feel dirty. Anyone who makes such a claim is just pulling it out of their ass... totally inventing it out of thin air, in order to serve their apparently religious faith that anything and everything on a blotter must by irrefutable definition be ONLY 100% pure LSD and nothing else. Absurd poppycock! No one has any "proof" or evidence backing up that sort of claim!
Even more absurd is the claim that "So you don't think most psychedelics that are psychoactive at LSD dose levels would have been explored and reported on?" This is just utterly laughable. So you think that out of the INFINITE number of possible molecules that could potentially exist, there is some necessity that proves that man is likely to have already discovered all of them that are psychoactive? Highly unlikey. What are you smoking?
Speaking of which, I can immediately disprove your silly belief-by-faith. Salvinorin-A, the active constituent of Salvia Divinorum is active at 200 micrograms. It was only fairly recently isolated.
What makes you assume mankind already knows about all possible psychoactives active at such doses? Given that there are an infinite number of possible molecules that can be devised, logic dictates that there is probably a HUGE number of possible molecules that fit this qualification of being psychoactive in this dose range. What sort of thought process leads one to conclude absolutely that there is LSD... discovered by accident by the way... and that there cannot possibly ever be any others that we do not already know about. Huh? Ridiculous and completely lacking any logic.