Fundamental might be my overstating it. What I mean is that due to the steric bulk of the N-benzyl ring, the electronegativity of the methoxy group or groups on the second ring, and the different shape of the molecular electron orbitals, the N-benzyl PEAs bind to the 5HT receptors in a different fashion than ordinary PEAs. The various functional groups are positioned differently relative to the receptor. I was trying to make the distinction that contrary to several discussions I've had about this compound, this is not '2C-C with a mescaline stuck onto it', and that because the N-benzyl PEAs sit in the receptor differently, there's not going to necessarily be any correlation between this substitution pattern and mescaline. An example of a structure activity relationship for mescaline being the decrease in activity as methoxy groups become ethoxy groups, with the decrease in activity varying depending on which methoxy group or groups gain a carbon. This relationship will likely not be found with N-benzyl PEAs with the meta, para, meta alkoxy substitution.
I don't mean that there is anything special about the orientation/resulting subjective effects of N-benzyl PEAs – or this compound specifically – relative to the receptor, just that the orientation is different than for the more ordinary PEAs, so SARs like the mescaline alkoxy pattern mentioned above will thus not translate.
And that brings me to this compound: namely, why? Because it can be done? Good enough reason for me! But because it looks to the human eye like a bit of a mescaline molecule pasted sloppily onto a normal PEA? Not good enough of a reason. So I was wondering if somebody who's got more chemistry in their mind than I could recognize a rationale other than vendors thinking that trimethoxy pattern looks clever.
As for possible effects, I cannot say, nor can I speak truthfully of binding affinities or active dose levels. Mostly I was somewhat... perturbed to see vendors trying to talk this up. I suppose that the N-benzyl PEAs in general were pretty much complete unknowns when they hit the market, but at least Nichols' team at Purdue had researched them to a degree. Given the extreme potency of these compounds I do not like the idea of vendors dreaming up new substitution patterns and placing their orders from the orient when there is, to my limited knowledge, absolutely no data on such compounds as this whatsoever.
As for ADD, I'm majoring in organic chem, so that forum is great fun (and good learning) for lurking, but a wee bit intimidating to be posting in with my level of understanding of chemistry. Also it is my impression that dreaming up new compounds and then posting threads when vendors are known to look into that forum from time to time may not be the most responsible idea, and is somewhat discouraged there. But since this is potentially being foisted upon the online RC scene I felt a need to try to find out if there's anything known about this one at all, so I compromised for PD.
It's worth pointing out that this may be a lark, either not enough interest can be drummed up for it or synthetic issues may arise, though without specifics I do not see huge obstacles. Looking back on this post for spelling I'm thinking maybe I'm getting old, lack of interest in new compounds like this, and it being my birthday yesterday. But then again it could just be prudent caution, think I'll go with that one instead
