I realize, they were assays not pure theory - the explorations are really appreciated and it turns out you were right about the opioid effects, but it was unclear whether you presented that bit purely as anecdotal, as a theory or if you knew about 3-HO-PCX binding affinities even then. My whole point was: the last thing we want is for something to reverberate as fact before it's confirmed however tantalizing given there is still much to discover. Some things get repeated so much that they become postulated as fact - probably one of those classical fallacies, so, was just asking about the validation itself.
Even if it was 'hardly academic', it was still very interesting just like Hans Meyer's fringe assaying of N-subbed PEAs posted in PD... it can be very helpful to point us in a direction and suggest things hopefully to be proven analytically sooner or later. Only condition is to take it at face value.