• BASIC DRUG
    DISCUSSION
    Welcome to Bluelight!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Benzo Chart Opioids Chart
    Drug Terms Need Help??
    Drugs 101 Brain & Addiction
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums
  • BDD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | negrogesic

Tan mdpv Conversion Discussion/Credibility?;

yosiah

Greenlighter
Joined
Jul 19, 2022
Messages
5
Hi there, i've become interested in the 'stuffmonger' 'tan mdpv' discussion and wanted to ask any other individuals if they came to a conclusion on the credibility of a possible conversion between white mdpv hci to the elusive 'tan mdpv'. If anybody cares to give their 2 cents i would like to hear. I lean to the believe that there is anecdotal/subjective evidence to say the mid 2000's tanned variant of mdpv was qualitatively different to what was later sourced as 'white mdpv hci' post 2007 (roughly). why could this theoretically not be replicated?

Although the stuffmonger conversion thread seems to be inconclusive/lacking participants. (understandably now as it is illegal) i thought i would call upon opinions.

For the record i have no interest in trying either, am more or less interested in the chemical mystery.
 
He was simply on a manic stimulant bender when he wrote all that stuff.

However I also preferred the tan MDPV as well. It felt more adrenergic and thus more stimulating than the white stuff. Perhaps it was racemic? The R(-)-MDPV enantiomer is considerably less potent than the S(+) but as is often the case it higher relative affinity for the norepinephrine transporter, so I would imagine the racemate of MDPV is more physically stimulating and has more tactile enhancing effects.

Who knows though. What I do know is that the tan stuff stunk like a mixture of fermented fish and belly button cheese. I really was a big fan of MDPV, i had some great times on it. Didn't find it especially prosexual though. I did find it fairly functional. Eventually the shit hits the fan with that stuff though.

Also the tan stuff was still around in 2008/2009.
 
Very interesting, thank you for answering. the Racemic theory sounds plausible in my opinion, as well as the manic psychosis type rambles.

regarding your comment about the smell, its seems stuffmonger was potentially correct in that sense, if his conversion was legitimate when he says it should smell like 'semen' if done correctly?

i also quote an article here from a fairly inaccurate source (gizmodo);
"Stuffmonger's claims were discredited," a senior moderator later wrote, "and he vanished."
last sentence in last paragraph. found here;

is that true? was his conversion theory legitimately discredited as bogus/made up? (as he mentions in the joe rogan interview)

were the individuals in the original forum who tried to replicate his procedure real?

its a cooked story, im fairly fascinated :)
 
i also find this fucking hilarious;
McAfee has a simple explanation: The whole thing was an elaborate prank aimed at tricking drug users into trying a notoriously noxious drug. "It was the most tongue-in-cheek thing in the fucking world," he says, and denies ever taking the substance. "If I'm gonna do drugs, I'm gonna do something that I know is good," he says. "I'm gonna grab some mushrooms, number one, and maybe get some really fine cocaine.

"But anybody who knows me knows I would never do drugs," he says.

quoted from about 3/4 quarters in;

who the fuck in their right minds would go to this much trouble to create a mythical drug story like that haha.
if the conversion is real, i think he's an interesting man. if it is an entire hoax, what a waste of time.

haha, i guess it hardly matters anyway
 
Yeah, that whole "it was an elaborate joke" is clearly bullshit, even in that Joe Rogan interview you can hear him sort of contradicting himself. I was around at the time, he had a few accounts here, and I've been around enough stimmed out people to know when someone is on one. And McAfee was tweaking pretty hard there for a while.
 
Indeed, thank you for your time, it seems priceless. may i ask your opinion on the conversion's legitimacy itself?
 
Welcome to Bluelight. We don't really allow synth talk but it's all good.

I don't know shit about chemistry but converting a substance into a very slightly different version of it isn't very likely. Turning the drug into different salt forms is possible but that usually doesn't change the effect profile, just the bioavailability. Trying to flip a drug's isomers while it is already in the state of being any specific isomer seems like an incredibly daunting challenge from my laymen's understanding.
 
mmm indeed, thanks for the reply and welcome falsified. i can't really speculate on the process itself either, a range of possibilities could be. although it seems like the difference between the two is fairly apparent, at least subjectively. (subjectively objective differences argh?!?)

i guess the main thing i would like to know is, is there any verifiable evidence to prove the conversion legitmate? or was it kooked ramble?

hopefully this doesn't fall into synth talk, i wish to discuss the general existence of the conversion, not specifics. has anybody clearly debunked the outcome?
 
mmm indeed, thanks for the reply and welcome falsified. i can't really speculate on the process itself either, a range of possibilities could be. although it seems like the difference between the two is fairly apparent, at least subjectively. (subjectively objective differences argh?!?)

i guess the main thing i would like to know is, is there any verifiable evidence to prove the conversion legitmate? or was it kooked ramble?

hopefully this doesn't fall into synth talk, i wish to discuss the general existence of the conversion, not specifics. has anybody clearly debunked the outcome?

Not entirely what you mean by "conversion" but from what I recall none of what McAfee was saying made much sense scientifically speaking.

It is hard to say what the differences were, and there are various subtleties about synthesis outcomes that evade typical GCMS testing, so who knows. Or perhaps the tan MDPV was made using water blessed by the monks of the Himalayas. Whatever the case may be the stuff stunk like it had unreacted pyrrolidine in it.
 
However I also preferred the tan MDPV as well. It felt more adrenergic and thus more stimulating than the white stuff. Perhaps it was racemic? The R(-)-MDPV enantiomer is considerably less potent than the S(+) but as is often the case it higher relative affinity for the norepinephrine transporter, so I would imagine the racemate of MDPV is more physically stimulating and has more tactile enhancing effects.

All of the MDPV on the market would have been racemic. It's not derived from an enantiopure precursor like, say, methamphetamine frequently is. I don't see any reason someone would have gone out of their way to resolve it unless it was for personal experimentation.
 
Top