• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that post was me! Here is a little more about me and the exact message I got from Energy Control in Barcelona when I mailed them my samples of my most recent DW busts. I completely agree with your analogy...perfect

I am in my early 40s and I had the wonderful pleasure of meeting Alexander (or as he was introduced to me as Sasha) Shulgin in 2012 and through friends I was able to have my first amazing experience with MDMA that was literally life changing. I was so moved and able to come to important realizations about life that have lasted in the years since and I was go grateful to get a chance to have coffee with Dr. Shulgin and thank him for his contribution to my life and his wonderful work before he passed away. Anyway, in the years since I have had one other time I was able to try this again and it was also fantastic and life changing. To make a long story short, I have ordered several times from the dark web to no avail, only to receive product that when tested at home with a kit and then sent to Barcelona lab (Energy Control) who described both batches as 85 and 83 percent MDMA with NO adulterants detected. However, our experiences (controlled environment as usual in a nice place with the same friends etc) were EXACTLY as the person who started this post described a few years ago and as Hilopsilo did as well. We were suspicious when it felt like we were all on meth and our eyes were normal, and the subjective experience was not the MDMA feeling I had the first two times, even though I had carefully tested it at home and sent it off to Energy Control for testing (I am a very careful user of any drug). Everyone agreed who was there that something was wrong and I have since been trying to get to the bottom of the mystery and I have learned a lot in the post that you started about what might be going on here.

This was the last exchange I had with the EC technician:

I retested the samples and they are indeed MDMA with no other active ingredients. Our methods are able to distinguish between MDMA and other substances such as bk-MDMA and MDA, so that possibility is ruled out. That being said, we have received a few sparse reports about unexpected effects from samples that test as MDMA and are currently investigating it. For now it's all speculation, but around internet forums there's a theory is that there is a new synthetic route being used to produce MDMA that has a different enantiomer mix than what was previously being produced. This video offers a good explanation on what enantiomers are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GjsRnsoL8


Since R-MDMA and S-MDMA are different optical configurations of the MDMA molecule but have the same chemical structure, they are very difficult to distinguish from one another. Additionally, most synthesis routes for substances with one chiral center yield a 50/50 mix of the two enantiomers. Nevertheless, we have not yet found any synthesis routes that offer benefits (be they economical, improving availability or yield, etc) over currently existing ones. In most cases, it seems to come down to the fact that set and setting can have a profound effect on the effects produced by a substance, to the point that people can feel like the same batch of a substance feels like a completely different drug. If you want, you can research into the effects of R-MDMA, S-MDMA, and different proportions of each to see if it correlates with the difference in effects that you experienced. We're working to implement a way to distinguish the two and find out if there's any substance to the theory, but for now there is no evidence to back it and very few reports regarding this discrepancy, so it has been hard to get good data. Fortunately, R-MDMA and S-MDMA appear to share the same safety profile as racemic MDMA, as in the end they are the same substance.


Let me know if there's anything we can help with.


Kind Regards,
AT

They were great and even listened to my long story and retested each sample twice at my instance that the experience didn't match the test results. I am simply not yet willing to chalk it up to "lost magic" as I just don't want that to be true.

Thanks for this great forum, at least I think I have enough evidence to suggest there is hope for me to find the real stuff again....
 
morph76 said:
This was the last exchange I had with the EC technician:

"I retested the samples and they are indeed MDMA with no other active ingredients. Our methods are able to distinguish between MDMA and other substances such as bk-MDMA and MDA, so that possibility is ruled out."
Click to expand...
This is supposed to be a complete professional analysis ?!

1) No info whether it was 2,3-MDMA or 3,4-MDMA
2) No info about the enantiomer ratio
3) No info about the salt type (hydrochloride, tartrate, etc...)
4) No info about the detection thresholds of potent adulterants such as synthetic opioids
5) No info about excipients and percentage of purity in the sample's mass.
6) No info about crystalline morphology nor polymorphism.

...and last but not least: No info how well their analytical methods can distinguish isobaries of MDMA.
Distinguishing isobaries is not as easy as distinguishing MDMA from bk-MDMA or from MDA, because isobaries have the same molar mass and the same molecular formula ...while MDA and bk-MDMA do not !

P.S.
To those that just joined this thread:
The "loss of magic" cannot always be attributed to tolerance because I have conducted experiments with the bad "MDMA" on multiple VIRGIN SUBJECTS that could not have had any tolerance.
You can read the results of this experiment in Post #401

Note, that there was no Mydriasis in Virgin Subjects after high doses of this bad "MDMA" - you cannot ignore this for Pete's sake !
 
Last edited:
Glubrahnum said:
The "loss of magic" cannot always be attributed to tolerance because I have conducted experiments with the bad "MDMA" on multiple VIRGIN SUBJECTS that could not have had any tolerance.
You can read the results of this experiment in Post #401
Click to expand...

You gave shit drugs to people and they had a shit time. Baffling!

Had you tested that MDMA for any one of the six points which you state are crucial for a complete professional analysis?

If not, I'll direct you back to the aforementioned sentiment: Shit drugs, shit party, shit time.

Everytime I had MDMA in groups, pupil dilation was variable from person to person. My eyes always lit up like a Ferris wheel at Christmas time, others looked almost normal. It means very little about the quality of the MDMA in my opinion.
 
Not impressed with this response from Energy Control. I am doubting whether to spend so much $ to send them my samples. But Edata in the US is equally as incomplete in their analysis.

I tried to email Energy Control to start a discourse about all this, but they never got back to me. When they say, "very few reports regarding this discrepancy," how can they really know that? People are sending them samples for a reason. Very possibly, that reason is that the sample did not "feel right."

It reminds me of how you go to a doctor and try to report a side effect to a medicine and the doc says, "That is not possible. That is not a listed side effect." Well, shit. If everyone tells you it is not possible and it is not listed, then how does it ever become a listed side effect?

Also, Kaden, not sure why you are attacking Glubra. He is not a company that is providing professional analysis to users in exchange for large sums of money. He is just a person who observed some virgin ecstasy users. No virgin user I EVER saw had a lame time on real MDMA. So, if the tests are saying it is MDMA and four virgin users are having a shit time without the expected "classic" signs of intoxication, then there is a serious in-discrepancy occurring.
 
indigoaura said:
Also, Kaden, not sure why you are attacking Glubra.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not. I just don't believe that there is anything surprising about an anecdotal report of people taking low-quality drugs and experiencing low-quality effects.

If the tests are saying it is MDMA
Click to expand...

Which test was used though? The lab that sends you an email saying: "I don't fucking know" when you ask them to elaborate on impurities, or the six point criteria involving isobars, isomers, polymers etc, which is loony even by my standards.

Maybe simplify your approach? Test melting points, try A/B extraction and distillation. Send the impurities for testing rather than the contaminated MDMA.

Impure drugs. I'm sure that's the issue you're having; dirty, impure product.

The possibility of some new composition or crystal structure disguising itself flawlessly as MDMA is unlikely even as a novelty product. For such a product to be a widespread phenomena, I consider conspiracy theory.
 
Kaden, have you been following this whole thread? One reason why we are looking at the idea of an "imitator" more seriously is that a recent more advanced raman analysis revealed MDPH as a significant portion of the tested product. MDPH has the same molar mass as MDMA and may not show up with a lab like EC. We have absolutely been looking at impurities etc. throughout this discussion.
 
Maybe six times from 2012 until 2015 and then I have not had any good experiences buying (three different purchases since 2015 have been a bust---even though all tested with EC as MDMA, no adulterants--and Glubrahnum has noted that is ALL the information I received about them after over 300 dollars of testing expenses, a little over one hundred for each sample---but to be honest I wouldn't have known what to ask to get that information at the time---wish I knew you then :).

After three buys since 2015 and all experiences with them were anywhere from fairly unpleasant to meh (maybe tried each one twice and had friends volunteer to try who also report terrible to meh experiences). I tried to learn as much as I could on the internet to see if I should just give up forever of having those 2012 to 2015 experiences again from the first batch. Found your thread and it has sparked my interest in trying again to find the old day stuff.

In my research before talking to you, I found these if anyone here is interested.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/isomers.htm



http://countyourculture.com/2011/05/23/mirrored-magic-mdma/
 
I think it is now beyond reasonable doubt that there is definitely 'something up' with the majority of so called MDMA available today. As an 'old timer' who was lucky enough to experience the proper stuff in its heyday, I've only found the good shit once since I got back in the saddle around 2014 - and it's not for the want of trying...
 
In Glubra?s defense, he isn?t an lab analyzing drugs at a cost, he?s just a guy doing his part to come to an answer. He did check the sample he gave to others via some analysis technique I can?t remember at the moment and at the time he had just began to enter this conversation.

I agree too that this is likely impurities but what impurities.. It seems we?ve done circles quite a few times, so we should slow down until we can find more about MDPH. While I?d agree it?s the best lead so far, I don?t wanna get ahead of ourselves.

We need to strategize a way to help determine if the sample contains MDPH or not. Reagents being our best bet. Glubra, you did say this most recent batch went straight black right? Was this the MDPH batch?

As for testing product that is known to be good.. I have plenty I could send in but one batch in particular I KNOW is as legit as it gets. I?ve had this stuff for at least 5yrs, and had one of my strongest rolls ever on it (note I had been taking MDXX for 7-8yrs at this point too!) and everyone who tried it talked up and down how it was the best they?d tried. It has changed a bit however, used to be clear/slightly opaque crystals and now they seem slightly more cloudy than before. The only reason I still have some is because I lost a few .1g until recently. I?ve also got a few good batches of known safrole MDMA.

If we ever find a lab that can tell us anything I?d be happy to send some in, if someone can cover the tab lol. I?m poor AF. Hilo?s lab is currently our best bet with percentages and more common impurities being listed.

Gotta go, more later,

-GC
 
Hilo's lab never confirmed they would take mailed samples, right?

I feel stuck as well. I have three sub-par samples I would love to see a detailed analysis of. Together with GC's "good" sample, we might be able to gain understanding of what is going on if we could just get reports on all of them.

And Morph...I seriously doubt that 6 uses would lead to any reduction in effects. Most of us went strong with excellent effects for many years. As I said earlier in the thread, my experience only changed when my supplier changed.
 
Thanks Indigoaura. To be fair, it was 12 times in 7 years (six times with the good sample and six more times trying to find the good sample again) but I think after reading more and more of this post, I would qualify as someone who is relatively inexperienced. But I do know that I now have three samples I could contribute and would happily send samples to some laboratory that could contribute something to this project (I certainly have no interest in consuming from those batches anymore). As you know, I tried Energy Control and it really didn't help to explain the massive subjective differences.
 
I am seeing reports online that you can build a spectrometer for your smart phone. GC and Glubra...any thoughts on this? Would it work?
 
Looking like that is not the type off spectrometer we need, but I am just trying to think of all options. Seriously, if I could buy the right kind of equipment for a reasonable price and just analyze my own samples, I would.

(Also, I am seeing listings on the DW saying to dose at 300 mg. CLEARLY this is not MDMA if you need 300 mg to get an effect. Ridiculous.)
 
I can try shooting them an email or going in and asking them, just haven't had time lately and it is in the most undesirable part of town. I imagine they'd be weary of taking samples coming through international mail.

Ideally, we should try and keep track/a record of who has samples of what, I personally have a sample of really good stuff and a sample of stuff that is most definitely not good and maybe I can pitch the idea to them, they're pretty interested in all this so they may be down for it afterall.

I can't imagine a smartphone spectrometer would pick something up that these labs are not.
 
indigoaura said:
Kaden, have you been following this whole thread?
Click to expand...

Yes Indigo. I have read the thread. The thread has been read and is in my head.

One reason why we are looking at the idea of an "imitator" more seriously is that a recent more advanced raman analysis revealed MDPH ..
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is interesting. I don't believe that it could be passed off as MDMA or remain undetected though, not on any kind of mass scale. Very similar design, but different chemical properties AFAIK.
 
I guess one way to know for sure if conventional harm reduction labs will detect the MDPH would be to send that sample to Ecstasy Data and see what they detect. Do you still have it, Glubra?
 
I think the most methodical way of looking at this would find out the specific details of the testing processes/techniques that these large testing centers use and parse out what they can and cannot detect. And anything that they *can* detect should be thrown out as a hypothesis. To my understanding a lot of processes *can* detect things but only if they are specifically looking for them.

Or yeah as indigo says, send in a sample containing ____ and see if they catch it. Hell, if for whatever reason that is the case, some other imposter, maybe the creators of it sent samples in to figure out what would go under the radar. Or, perhaps the creators aren't even aware its any different.

On another note, I sent an email to Energy Control and Ecstasy Data asking whether or not they use deriviatized or underivatized GCMS so we can figure out if this is just a dead end or not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top