Are NBOMes more dangerous than the DOx drugs?

[SteamboatBillJr]

So are most RCs even on the clear net. 5 Years worth of DOC costs you about the same as an eighth of bud (you know, the devils weed ). I can think of lots of more peaceful ways to leave this world then tripping myself out of it.

DOC is cheap and the risk of fatality, seizure, and 36 hour bad trip is included free of charge if you use DOC. There is a reason most people pay extra and purchase LSD on dark net markets instead of DOC from the clear net. If a deal sounds to good to be true it probably is.

 

[jammin83]

I thought that was dosage related? I have never touched the stuff, I rarely use anything besides LSD. I was under the impression that most of the DOx were relatively safe as well as most 4 sub tryps.

 

[lamanogaucha]

Regarding DOC, it's dosage related. I'm aware of only one pharmacological fatality related to it -- about two years ago -- yet this chemical has been around for at least three decades. As far as the 4-sub tryptamines go, I'm not aware of *any* fatality linked to any of them.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

I thought that was dosage related? I have never touched the stuff, I rarely use anything besides LSD. I was under the impression that most of the DOx were relatively safe as well as most 4 sub tryps.

Toxicity is always dose related. The pharmacological profile of most DOX chemicals and most NBOMe chemicals is nearly identical. The most significant difference is potency. Shulgin reported overdose fatalities from DOB as early as PiHkAL. Multiple fatalities from multiple DOX chemicals have been reported since. The factors involved in DOX and NBOMe toxicity remain unknown.

Sadly the safety of these chemicals was exaggerated by various uninformed groups.

 

[lamanogaucha]

They aren't "nearly identical". NBOMe's are full agonists, whereas DOx's are partial agonists. That's a huge difference. The full agonism of NBOMe's almost certainly accounts for their dangerous unpredictability. That's not to say that DOx compounds are wholly safe, but they are definitely less risky than NBOMe's.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

They aren't "nearly identical". NBOMe's are full agonists, whereas DOx's are partial agonists. That's a huge difference. The full agonism of NBOMe's almost certainly accounts for their dangerous unpredictability. That's not to say that DOx compounds are wholly safe, but they are definitely less risky than NBOMe's.

The various reports of DOX and NBOMe chemicals efficacy are within 20% of each other. They both hover at ~90% efficacy. This is the borderline of full agonist classification. LSD has higher efficacy at some receptors than either group. As an example LSD is a super agonist (~110% efficacy) at 5HT1A. I guess the toxicity is the bi-product of selectivity rather than efficacy. In general the cause of toxicity is unknown.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945162/table/T2/

 

[lamanogaucha]

That seemingly small difference probably makes all the difference. Although NBOMe's and DOx's share many similarities, it's incorrect to assume that they are equally risky, especially since there's no evidence for that assertion. As far as I know, all of the deaths attributed to DOx have been caused by ingestion of very large doses and/or unsafe combinations. On the other hand, uncombined standard doses of at least some NBOMe's have led to death. That has happened with 25C-NBOMe and 25I-NBOMe. I understand your concern, though, and yes, selectivity is also very important.

 

[Peacephrog1972]

I would try DOC .,.... Wouldn't touch a NBOME

 

[lamanogaucha]

That's entirely reasonable. I tested 25D-NBOMe a few years ago and it felt wrong, even if the two trips were fairly decent. I've had 100mg of 25I-NBOMe sitting in cold storage since the time of those two tests and I very much doubt that I'll ever bother to prepare it for consumption. I'm pretty sure that I'll flush the whole thing at some point.

 

[Kl519]

All info coming from the state or federal government isn't going to have anything positive to say about illicit drugs, therefore possibly skewing the results. I'm positive I can find instances that are untrue or exaggerated, and many times there isn't enough info to determine whether those fatalities were exclusively attributed to DOx chems. I could pull out data of fatalities caused by legal drugs to strengthen a case that helps describe the overall safety of some of these recreational drugs, in comparison. The number should come out to have a massive difference even if proportions are accounted for (legal drugs vs certain illicit drugs).

People who are not in good health tend to be the ones who suffer the most horrible effects, and sadly die sometimes. Sometimes they are idiosyncratic responses, or they have a condition that reacted badly to the substances side effects. The same goes for legal drugs too. It's just one is for relief in a fun/euphoric/psychological/consciousness-expanding way, and the other for mostly relief from physical/mental conditions. Neither are good in adverse health, the drug has a high toxicity level, or doses being too high.

DOx substances should be safe to healthy individuals. I could be a little bit healthier (cigs), but I'm physically and mentally in a healthy condition. Despite this, I'm positive an nbome would mess me up. And I never got vaso on those trips, though anecdotes pointed to many people getting it, it doesn't seem to be too bad eg life threatening. Trip intensity doesn't say anything about toxicity with certain substances, and even an anecdote can be inconclusive especially when making broad statements. More study needs to be done.

Anyway, with proper care, preparation and moderation taken seriously, all of the substances that are not unknown and/or marked with dangers, are safe to take. How safe in the long run? That question is the same with adderall and zoloft (which are legally prescribed, btw).

I could go on, but anyway, I hope we can all just get that out of the way now.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

DOC produces the same physical complications in me as NBOMe chemicals. I am also the only person who has provided peer reviewed evidence supporting my opinion.

lamanogaucha,

Referencing the binding data I linked. DMT is a full agonist or super agonist at multiple 5HT2 pathways. This disproves the argument toxicity is the result of high efficacy at 5ht2 (full agonism/ super agonism). The only consistent difference between NBOMe drugs and safer psychedelics is their selectivity. DOB, Bromo Dragonfly, DOC, and 25i-NBOMe have this in common and they have all caused fatalities.

Using my personal experience with both drugs as a reference, citing multiple fatalities from both drug classes in the literature, and supporting this claim with the most recent pharmacological data available; I warn both of these drugs classes likely share the same pharmacological risk at equivalent concentrations. Heed my warning at your own discretion. From my perspective, the thing I say with certainty is I don't know what causes the unpredictability with these chemicals.

PiHKAL (not allowed because of drug synthesis info.)
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=doc+psychedelic+fatality
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=nbome+psychedelic+fatality
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=nbome+psychedelic+fatality

 

[Kl519]

Studies can be found to support almost any argument. It's not that hard. -_-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...escription-drugs-are-more-deadly-street-drugs

Edit: So now the myths can be put to bed. Considering the amount of deaths from legal drugs, there isn't much of a leg to stand on when there are like a handful of fatalities in total compared to what...a hundred a day. The proportions can be figured out with a little math and proper estimation (% confidence intervals) and the gap is freakin' huge.

Almost everything I say is carefully laid out (I know what I'm talking about) and easy to confirm either by knowledgeable people who already know too, or just by a few quick searches. If I don't know a certain subject, I say so and don't pretend to know. I remember you also saying psychedelics were dangerous, and when I proved to you that they all weren't, you ignored that one too. Now it's the DOx substances. -_- Something tells me that you didn't even try either of those if you think nbomes are on the same level of unpredictability and danger as DOx substances. That's simply not true.

Normal dosage of nbomes shouldn't exceed 1mg, and in general DOx compounds are at ~2-4mg as a medium/average dose. Again, people have died at these normal doses while that isn't true for DOx. A lot of things have been stated already...

So, let's put this to bed. If not, I'm ready for that too.

 

[lamanogaucha]

You're speculating, SteamboatBillJr. That data does not support your assertion (or belief) that NBOMe and DOx compounds share the same level of risk. At best, your argument is based on extrapolation.

Question: How do you explain pharmacological deaths involving other types of psychedelics? Should we assume, then, that all psychedelic phenethylamines and tryptamines are unsafe? Or should we consider that those deaths took place because the users ingested too much and/or took unsafe combinations, as in DOx pharmacological deaths?

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

I remember you also saying psychedelics were dangerous, and when I proved to you that they all weren't, you ignored that one too. Now it's the DOx substances. -_- Something tells me that you didn't even try either of those if you think nbomes are on the same level of unpredictability and danger as DOx substances.

All drugs including psychedelics have risks. At least provide sources of the previous incident you mention while you call me a habitually argumentative liar and publicly slander my character.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

You're speculating, SteamboatBillJr. That data does not support your assertion (or belief) that NBOMe and DOx compounds share the same level of risk. At best, your argument is based on extrapolation.

Based on my level of knowledge and my analysis of the data I maintain my claim high efficacy (full agonsim) isn't the cause of toxicity. In the absence of additional peer reviewed evidence I also maintain my claim the most likely cause of toxicity is high 5ht2 selectivity (What changes down stream of this I don't know about. To me this could be hepatic/metabolic, for all I know there could be renal complications). These are my opinions. Yours could be different and your welcome to yours.

Question: How do you explain pharmacological deaths involving other types of psychedelics?

I am only commenting on the hyper selective phenethylamines vs. the classics (LSD, DMT, Psilocybin). You'd want to give me a more specific question mentioning specific chemicals. Even so it's possible I mightn't have much of an answer. As I said earlier " From my perspective, the thing I say with certainty is I don't know what causes the unpredictability with these chemicals.". This is true, with certainty I don't know a lot about these chemicals.

My personal conclusion is the risks outweigh the benefits. We pay premiums when we purchase LSD, Mushrooms, ect. from the dark-net, ect. because these options are safer than clear-net dox/NBOMe.

 

[Kl519]

All drugs including psychedelics have risks. At least provide sources of the previous incident you mention while you call me a habitually argumentative liar and publicly slander my character.

Wow, did I say or call you any of that? I bet I didn't. I have no idea who you are or what your character is, and I'm not gonna pretend to know. Posts aren't enough to judge that much. But you spread misinformation occasionally and in one of those threads, I took your word for it and spent some time trying to find that information. I didn't, so I asked you about it, but you didn't respond. That's literally why I brought that up. I was wondering what your response would be.

You're kind of doing the same thing here.
It's great that your aim is harm reduction, but misinformation will get called out on by somebody here, if not me. It got a little personal because I pride myself in taking as little risks as possible, especially the last few years.

But even then, read it again, I was trying to be nice and trying to figure out your reasoning. It almost sounds like you know me IRL, because that is a huge jump in an assumption like that. Only people in my close, inner circle would know that those kind of intentions don't come from me, eg. I don't attack first about anything. So if you took it that way, I apologize, but that is clearly not what I meant or tried to infer.

Wow.

 

[infantannihilator]

While I realize selling blotters is probably safer than selling powder, at least with a powder you can dissolve it in a known amount of solvent and then actually be able to titrate by volumetric dosing to get an actual sense of how you react and what your tolerance is to this substance - or really any given substance.

Personally I don't trust what any damn blotter is unless its from a very reliable source. Add into the factors of absorbtion and what not nbomes face with these roa and you're just putting more sticks in the road of confusion

 

[lamanogaucha]

I understand your reasoning, SteamboatBillJr, but it's important to remember that using convenient (yet not wholly related) scientific data in an attempt to arrive at an a priori conclusion does not make that conclusion fact or science. That's extrapolation. Now, extrapolation is not necessarily a bad thing and much good science has come from it, eventually, but still... What you have is a hypothesis: it could be correct or incorrect.

Regarding specific mentions of non-NBOMe and non-DOx compounds, four that come immediately to mind are 2C-T-7 (which I've tested multiple times with no issue), 2C-T-21, 5-MeO-DiPT (ditto) and aMT (ditto). All of these are partial agonists, yet they have killed people. However, like DOx (which are also partial agonists), all of the pharmacological fatalities associated with these drugs were (and in some cases appear to have been) caused by ingestion of very large amounts and/or ill-advised routes of administration and/or unsafe combinations. The same cannot be said for NBOMe's, which happen to be full agonists.

I can accept your hypothesis that selectivity might be a significant component here, but the available evidence (scientific and anecdotal) suggests that the principal cause of NBOMe's dangerous unpredictability is their efficacy (i.e. full agonism).

 

[thizzkid]

"I understand your reasoning, SteamboatBillJr, but it's important to remember that using convenient (yet not wholly related) scientific data in an attempt to arrive at an a priori conclusion does not make that conclusion fact or science. That's extrapolation. Now, extrapolation is not necessarily a bad thing and much good science has come from it, eventually, but still... What you have is a hypothesis: it could be correct or incorrect.

Regarding specific mentions of non-NBOMe and non-DOx compounds, four that come immediately to mind are 2C-T-7 (which I've tested multiple times with no issue), 2C-T-21, 5-MeO-DiPT (ditto) and aMT (ditto). All of these are partial agonists, yet they have killed people. However, like DOx (which are also partial agonists), all of the pharmacological fatalities associated with these drugs were (and in some cases appear to have been) caused by ingestion of very large amounts and/or ill-advised routes of administration and/or unsafe combinations. The same cannot be said for NBOMe's, which happen to be full agonists.

I can accept your hypothesis that selectivity might be a significant component here, but the available evidence (scientific and anecdotal) suggests that the principal cause of NBOMe's dangerous unpredictability is their efficacy (i.e. full agonism)."


Well yes and no...partial vs full antagonism certainly would most likely play a role in explaining nBOMES differences from DOx and 2C, especially in the wide range of doses that have and haven't killed people. But the lack of studies done on old PEA psychs like 2CB let alone the out-there ones like nBOME bring us to such an uncertainty of what is going on in the body with these drugs that its probably unsafe to assume that anything suggests anything. Who knows, maybe only some metabloite is what actually gets you high? Or perhaps the drug itself does, but if a person has too many or too little of a specific enzyme then a toxic byproduct gets created which is responsible for the deaths....,Correlation is not causation and there's only been a small amount of correlation if anything reliable at all. Im just saying be careful about throwing the word "suggests" around because to a lot of drug-happy people "Suggests" means "this is the way it is" which could lead to people thinking theyre safe with partial agonists at any dose just because theyre partial agonists.

 

[SteamboatBillJr]

the available evidence (scientific and anecdotal) suggests that the principal cause of NBOMe's dangerous unpredictability is their efficacy (i.e. full agonism).

I held the same opinion originally. My opinion changed when I learned LSD and DMT are stronger full agonist and have proven safer than NBOMes.