Do Not Take 25i -Cardiac Arrest

[pupnik]

was the radio labeling shown in the brain scans for individuals with oral compared to individuals with sublingual?
I saw comparative brain scans but was not clear what the comparison was for, or if this involved individuals or processed results from a large group.

thanks for your clarification so far, trying not to be side tracked,
I don't recommend nbome or any related compounds via any ROA (though I explored them personally when I thought there was no way to get any lysergamides)

 

[psy997]

It really is Halah

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah it seems that some people are able to get oral effects from the 25x series, but most are not, or at least they are drastically reduced.

In any case, that's scary about your friend, OP. This is a good illustration of why the 25xs, especially 25i it seems, are very dangerous drugs.

 

[Img_9999]

So apparently there's undeniably some people that still get effects from this compounds when consumed orally. I remember some blotter, back in the day, were being sold as "Complexed in HPBCD"... was that some kind of cyclodextrin or something ? could it be that this, somehow, affects the normal metabolism of the NBOME ? Maybe the people that are getting effect even after immediately swallowing are absorbing the NBOMe quickly through the esophagus and gastric mucosa before it reaches it's normal metabolic fate ? I'm making up things completely here haha, but it just seems strange ... the variation in experience I mean.

 

[Solipsis]

was the radio labeling shown in the brain scans for individuals with oral compared to individuals with sublingual?
I saw comparative brain scans but was not clear what the comparison was for, or if this involved individuals or processed results from a large group.

thanks for your clarification so far, trying not to be side tracked,
I don't recommend nbome or any related compounds via any ROA (though I explored them personally when I thought there was no way to get any lysergamides)

The radio labeling was not only for PET scanning to check binding like it is also used for. Here it was used to keep track of methoxy moieties and their metabolism, so that the kinetics could be followed as well. It told them first the 5-methoxy is cleaved rapidly and then the 5-OH you are left with gets glucuronidated, also rapidly.

They didn't compare oral vs sublingual but just checked oral administration to see what happens to it in the body. We can infer from there that this is the reason for oral inactivation while parenteral administration circumvents this, as - clearly - it is effective.

HPBCD was not found to matter much, I think. Maybe it was a misguided attempt to fix absorption and bioavailability while in reality first-pass metabolism was the culprit.

The variability in oral activity is certainly strange, but could be explained by differences in enzyme morphology or population. Apparently these exceptions were not represented in the study, or they were but he didn't discuss it and the data was not used because he figured out the very same thing.
10% of caucasians metabolizes DXM very differently, too, and there are more examples of variability that possibly mean bigger affected groups in the population.

 

[pupnik]

thanks for verifying that in fact there was no metric actually performed which compares radio labelled absorption of 25-i at sites in the cortex which would actually clear up the question of bio-availability by ROA oral vs sublingual absorption.