What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[Jabberwocky]

Aleo, if someone had perfectly good R-MDA, why on earth would they go to the trouble of converting it to shitty R-MDMA?

Cause it was just laying around and -- they think MDMA is more marketable -- I mean -- that's more likely than some fantastical impurity from glycidic acid and a rare metal catalyst that even at 1% somehow can poison the entire reaction to become stereo=--isomerically pure

WITHOUT :

Blowing up the lab

or

ruining the synth


The extra oxygens from glycidic acid are not a super safe thing to have running amok in your reaction vessel(s)

 

[Le Junk]

I'm going to email edata and ask if they can go further with another one of these supremes. I'll gladly pay whatever extra fees they impose for the effort. Is there anything specific I should be asking them to perform?

Le Junk

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm going to email edata and ask if they can go further with another one of these supremes. I'll gladly pay whatever extra fees they impose for the effort. Is there anything specific I should be asking them to perform?

Le Junk

You could propose that the substance may be stereo-isomerically pure, or propose it may be a structural isomer of MDMA(for example 2,3 MDMA; 5-Methyl MDA ; or 6-Methyl MDA)

and ask them to use advanced GCMS techniques to differentiate the possible isomer (Ion-Mobility MS can differentiate between structural isomers that have the same functional groups)


You may also request they perform a mosher's analysis.

You could also request they test the melting point: MDMA = 147-153 C; 5-Methyl MDA 6-Methyl MDA and 2-Methyl MDA = 214-215 C;

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm going to email edata and ask if they can go further with another one of these supremes. I'll gladly pay whatever extra fees they impose for the effort. Is there anything specific I should be asking them to perform?

Le Junk

If the pill you sent in tested as MDMA by GCMS -- and it also gives you a much harder longer roll -- it may just be a really high dose , and the methoxy-amphetamine metabolites (HMA, HMMA) and MDA are causing the effects

Absent that -- X-Methyl MDA (or another structural isomer) is a very reasonable possibility (X = 2, 5 or 6)

MDMA can't be the only mass spike seen, the binder will spike,

-- there is also a possibility that another active (research) chemical has the same mass as some binder component and is hidden in the analytical noise of the gas column

of note C₁₁H₁₅NO_{2 -- means MDMA and X-Methyl MDA will be in the same parent compound mass spike -- and the fact they have common functional groups will make it hard to distinguish parent/child products in the gas column -- if they exit the column around the same time -- without serous calibration, and a tech looking for it, it could easily be seen as the same thing}

 

[Broseph Smith]

I like turtles!

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

I just searched the e-data site for pills that tested ONLY MDMA from 2000-2016

The ONLY pills with mg identified are from Spain, Zurich, Bern, or Vienna/Austria) -- with the exception of 4 reports from USA (blaine, washington -2008 )of ~50 mg content.


There are people on this forum asserting there is evidence based on mg content of isomeric MDMA -- There isn't.

Furthermore (without searching 1100 records, but sampling) the form of test was reagent, mainly marquis, mecke, and mandelin -- which can't differentiate between MDA/MDMA/MDA/X-APB and can't exclude piperazines as they don't react with those tests


I welcome your response.

I think you will find that a lot of test centres don't allow open publication of results. For example there are 3 test centres in Holland I know of. All carry out GC/MS and give a mg per pill. The UK test centre also carrys out GCMS but doesn't publish the actually mg.

However you were on the better track of the actual GC/MS method and data bank. Human beings when given a problem look for a way to beat it. As you rightly stated GC/MS is only in basing its result on a know peak and trough profile and assuming the peaks it sees are MDMA because data gathered prior from a known pure sample showed the same.

It would be interesting to know how often the data bank for GCMS is updated. Also GCMS only tests and can identify known substances, there may well be small but very potent new chemicals within a sample but the reporter will always look at the highest % sometimes discounting others.

 

[Bearlove]

I think you will find that a lot of test centres don't allow open publication of results. For example there are 3 test centres in Holland I know of. All carry out GC/MS and give a mg per pill. The UK test centre Wedinos also carrys out GCMS but doesn't publish the actually mg.

We were contacted by a few of the Labs in Holland and asked to keep lab names off the site as this can cause problems with funding.

 

[BlueBull]

Merging this with the already existing thread and editing out the lab names

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

5-APB or 6-APB however, are 2 compounds that are remarkably identical to MDMA in effect -- some people say better a 200 mg dose of an APB would probably make you feel high for 2 days (75 mg can rock you for 12 hours)

I am not a scientist and cannot and would not begin to question any chemistry knowledge you've laid out in this thread. The last few posts look like they may be moving in a particularly interesting direction with Le Junk offering to go further and wanting to know what to ask.

However. What I have quoted you saying here is, IMO, bunk. Define 'remarkably identical'. Because you must have a different definition to me. There is no way I could say those two quoted compounds are even anywhere close to 'remarkably identical' to MDMA. It is hyperbole like that which made vendors lots of money from selling inferior products. And there is no way apb products, dosed at even 200mg, make you "high for two days".

When you write stuff like that, stuff I certainly know about, I have to then reluctantly wonder about other stuff you write. Because what you've written in that quote is simply incorrect. And no, I'm not even doubting "some people" say 'better than MDMA'. But I learned discernment many years ago.

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

I think you will find that a lot of test centres don't allow open publication of results. For example there are 3 test centres in Holland I know of. All carry out GC/MS and give a mg per pill. The UK test centre Wedinos also carrys out GCMS but doesn't publish the actually mg.

We were contacted by a few of the Labs in Holland and asked to keep lab names off the site as this can cause problems with funding.

Exactly why I didn't mention them by name ?

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think you will find that a lot of test centres don't allow open publication of results. For example there are 3 test centres in Holland I know of. All carry out GC/MS and give a mg per pill. The UK test centre also carrys out GCMS but doesn't publish the actually mg.

However you were on the better track of the actual GC/MS method and data bank. Human beings when given a problem look for a way to beat it. As you rightly stated GC/MS is only in basing its result on a know peak and trough profile and assuming the peaks it sees are MDMA because data gathered prior from a known pure sample showed the same.

It would be interesting to know how often the data bank for GCMS is updated. Also GCMS only tests and can identify known substances, there may well be small but very potent new chemicals within a sample but the reporter will always look at the highest % sometimes discounting others.

I overlooked that e-data does do GCMS in the US -- however, they don't report mg content.

My point was that GCMS has issues differentiating between isomers that have functional groups in common -- the mass of both substances is the same, as are the masses of child compounds.

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

I overlooked that e-data does do GCMS in the US -- however, they don't report mg content.

My point was that GCMS has issues differentiating between isomers that have functional groups in common -- the mass of both substances is the same, as are the masses of child compounds.

Correct and GCMS I say again is only based and can only identify on what is in the data bank. Clearly you do have some deep knowledge of chemistry however as has been stated before chemistry is not a known science where everything is known. Look at the periodic table do you use the new one or the old one?

Look at cocaine. After the war on drugs in South America the availability of growing areas was drastically reduced. It's suggested they took out over 60%. However production increased. It is known that cocaine manufacturers have found new ways to increase yields way above what was thought possible. New adulterants have been found namely Levisamole. These are in the product at source not added after. No one yet knows why. Theory suggest that new methods of manufacture have increased that yield but changed the high of cocaine. Le Junk also has said this many times. He no longer finds cocaine the same.

Theories you have suggested all surround the known synthesis you know. Rest assured there are chemists out there who are capable of going outside the box. There remit will be to produce a compound which mimics MDMA for far less money and time using more available precursors. That my friend is what chemical engineering is. To find ways to produce a product at a lower cost. It's what all the big chemical companies do. There are industrial chemicals now which use new methods of manufacture never before considered possible.

 

[Jabberwocky]

There remit will be to produce a compound which mimics MDMA for far less money and time using more available precursors.

There is already a list.

However, what is proposed is something that matches MDMA mass C₁₁H₁₅NO<sub>2

There are only so many ways you can re-arrange C11H15NO2 and end up with an active non-toxic substance.</sub>

 

[Dresden]

Face the facts. The quality of the MDMA experience depends on the precursor source.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Face the facts. The quality of the MDMA experience depends on the precursor source.

There is no scientific evidence or theory to support that assertion.

Zero

Zip

Nada

MDP2P is MDP2P (fyi: PMK = MDP2P = piperonal methyl ketone = MD-phenyl-propanone)

Regardless of Whether the Precursor to MDP2P is safrole, sassafras oil, piperonal, or PMK-glycidate FYI: to get PMK-gly you have to add the glycidate to PMK (MDP2P)

PMK-gly is to MDMA-HCL as PMK/MDP2P is to the freebase of MDMA

 

[Dresden]

Well then I guess this is your chance to invent a new chemical theory.

 

[Brenner]

Treat it as science, and start the process by attempting to falsify the initial hypothesis of pure r-isomer.

This could be done by extracting the MDMA -- testing for purity by melting point, and then using a polarimeter, Mosher's process, or some other low cost but scientifically effective process.

If we made the free base from the purified MDMA -- and then used r-tartaric acid (chiral) to precipitate MDMA-tartrate, if it was only 1 isomer it would all precipitate out, OR NONE WOULD -- if the free-base partially precipitated -- racemic


The next steps could be done in any order. Simply because GCMS says it's MDMA -- does not mean it actually IS MDMA.

Regardless of protestation to the contrary, skeletal, functional, and geometric isomers (that have many functional groups in common) can be very difficult to differentiate with standard GCMS.

5-Methyl MDA and 6-Methyl MDA are both isomers (not stereo) of MDMA , as is 2,3 MDMA

The methyl MDA compounds have a profile of effect that is similar to what is reported.

Just because something is pressed the same -- does not mean it's the same batch.



Le Junk identified that the "mongy" MDMA made him cracked out and high for 2 days -- that is not what r-MDMA does, it has a very slight action (+1) even at 200 mg that is gone in 6 hours

5-APB or 6-APB however, are 2 compounds that are remarkably identical to MDMA in effect -- some people say better a 200 mg dose of an APB would probably make you feel high for 2 days (75 mg can rock you for 12 hours)

the mongy effects sound alot like higher doses of 5-Methyl or 6-Methyl MDA -- wonder if they look like MDMA to a GCMS

They could be slightly different but in the sample noise

Interesting. So as someone who appears to know quite a lot about this are you going to try it out?

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions in post 249, which are largely based around the paragraph where he uses red writing. But then having seen another post in another thread by him where he tries to use his 'pure science' to tell me I've been taking the wrong dose of MDMA for 15 years out of 27 years usage, I'm not holding my breath.

His scientific theory may be great, I don't know, I don't have the knowledge to argue that, but his relations with the real world - the practical applications of his science? - are skewed to me and many others with long term experience of MDMA use.

 

[Brenner]

I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions in post 249, which are largely based around the paragraph where he uses red writing. But then having seen another post in another thread by him where he tries to use his 'pure science' to tell me I've been taking the wrong dose of MDMA for 15 years out of 27 years usage, I'm not holding my breath.

His scientific theory may be great, I don't know, I don't have the knowledge to argue that, but his relations with the real world - the practical applications of his science? - are skewed to me and many others with long term experience of MDMA use.

To be honest bud I'm not fussed - whatever gets us to the bottom of the debate. Everywhere I look on the darknet its just dealers touting the usual dutch made MDMA, or even if they say its not dutch made when I read the reviews it sounds like it is based on the fact its only lasting 2 hours and needs a dose of 200mg etc. I wouldn't be surprised if most (if not all) of the darknet MDMA is all from the same dutch lab pumping it out, hence its really all the same - whatever the same is (isomer balance or synth route etc.)

Somewhere out there is a small lab that knows and has the capability to make this stuff properly as it was in the late 80s. Tracking them down via the internet is going to be nigh on impossible though - and for obvious reasons since they'd be rumbled by authorities if it were that easy. God knows what this new stuff is doing to us, all of the studies are probably based on administering pharma grade mdma....

 

[Jabberwocky]

based on the fact its only lasting 2 hours and needs a dose of 200mg etc.

Even 200mg of r isomer barely gives a + 1.

Here in the US, except for le junk - things are fine

if there is r isomer going around, it was made from r mda, or precipitated with a chiral acid (tartate). Not some fantastical synth.

Tartaric acid can be chiral.

More likely it is a structural isomer that's not in the database, -- or a different salt, mdma citrate, or bitartrate has much less mdma per mass than hcl

For example. Mdma bitartrate has 2 moles Tartaric acid to 1 mole mdma. Mdma only constitutes about 35% mass of the salt, so 200mg mdma bitartrate is 70 mg of mdma and 130 mg tartrate

Other salts have different absorption profiles