What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[psy997]

If it doesnt mean anything, which I dont think it does, then it really doesnt belong in the thread

This sums up a lot of the problems with science as it's become. 'If it's not relevant, don't include it. I decide on what's relevant, and thus my own personal context determines what is seen and what is missed, but don't look at that part of the equation.'

We don't know what's relevant and what's not. To exclude information because we think it's not is totally unscientific.

 

[epic11]

This sums up a lot of the problems with science as it's become. 'If it's not relevant, don't include it. I decide on what's relevant, and thus my own personal context determines what is seen and what is missed, but don't look at that part of the equation.'

We don't know what's relevant and what's not. To exclude information because we think it's not is totally unscientific.

BAM! Right in the KISSA!!! Exactly. So much "science" is bought and paid for these days anyway.

 

[Hilopsilo]

I'm sorry, its just too absurd to me that you could come even close to the conclusion that 95% asians at the festival are connected to the asian mafia that has the good shit because one person saw some of them and they looked visibly higher than other people. Is that anymore likely than that they appeared more fucked up because their pupils seem bigger due to darker eye color? On average probably weigh less than the average attendee and therefore are more sensitive? White people been in this for longer culturally and are more likely on average to have a tolerance? all those come mind before direct gang affiliation lol

It has nothing to do with science being narrow minded, theres just nothing even remotely scientific about that scenario whatsoever. should it be that science is whatever we want it to be?

My point about not including extraneous shit is that this thread is clogged up with so much stuff that realistically belongs in the mdma-social thread, anyone new to the topic shouldnt have to wade through all the filler

And here we are off track again, im willing to drop this lol

Xtc data will come back MDMA.

You need a private lab.. I HAVE 1. WE have cosy NMR, PROTON etc. Polerimeters for entiomers etc. But i need both meh and magic multiple samples

Im saying if we send in the RC you and glub posted about earlier, we should have a go at it with reagents before even bothering to send it in to ecstasydata. like i said, It doesnt seem likely to me that it could be the culprit if it doesnt even fool reagents

The only thing that wont be fooled is NMR and the numerous options on it then interpt so get a 3d picture of the molecule on paper.

The MehDMA i gave to the NMR came back as MDMA only a couple percentage points lower purity than the MagicDMA i gave them. They did pick up "trace" amounts of MDP2P in the meh sample. All we can gather from this is that the Meh sample is of poorer quality, but to what degree and why doesn't compensating the dose for the slight difference in purity not fix the problem? Do trace amount of MDP2P impact the high? Maybe, but we know virtual nothing about MDP2P and it is unlikely that a precursor would be active in order of magnitude of the drug it produces. Until we can find out more, thats kinda that

 

[G_Chem]

@Hilopsilo - My conclusions come from my research not what MDMA I’ve taken.. Mostly taken from the Hive, as this conversation is old as time. As the other old school bee basically confirmed what I’ve BEEN saying... I’ve described those effects before.

Even since the time of the Hive certain synthesis routes provided a reliable product everyone loved, others were lackluster. For example, as the other guy said ketone made from O2 Wacker often aminates to a weaker product than that made by Benzoquinone/PdCl2. This has been reported many times before. I suggest you do yourself some research and you’ll likely come to the same conclusions...

And believe it or not there may be some people in this conversation that have tried their hand at MDMA synthesis once or twice, not me of course but I’m sure some people in the distant past.

Also if we are to discount others festival observations then let’s throw yours out too.

-GC

 

[indigoaura]

@Hilopsilo You have made very valuable contributions to this thread, as one of the only people who has had access to MehDMA and Magic MDMA at the same time, with divergent results from a larger sample size, and follow up lab analysis of both samples. Your contribution is impressive. However, originally, you were resistant to the concept that there may be something wrong with the product at all.

At the core, this thread contains a lot of contributions from people who share the same concern and are trying to add observations, links, test results, personal experiences etc. to try to come to understand what is happening. Some of those contributions are going to be more relevant than others, some will evolve into more significant realizations than others. In the process of all this sharing of information and experience, some side conversations may develop. An unexpected side effect of this conversation is that a community has formed in this thread. People feel like they know each other. A certain comfort level has been achieved. An admirable and rare thing in today's online climate.

I don't quite understand your need to control it all.

You may not personally feel that my contribution is relevant, but I think it demonstrates what is currently going on in my city at an EDM event. Since I have been disconnected from the scene, I did not previously have ANY information about what the EDM community looked like in my city. There has been discussion over how widespread the bad product is. There has been discussion over how much the scene has been impacted. I don't feel it is outside of the context of the thread to share observations that cast light on that. So, now at least I know that one subgroup here seems to have access to legitimate product, and that may connect later to other relevant info or it may not. Not really for you to decide.

This thread HAS become unweildly, and I do think we need a document or sticky post or something that we can update with pertinent information only. That way, those that just want to get major updates can click there and have an easy way to see recent developments. But to try to control the evolution of the conversation within the thread seems pointless to me.

 

[Hilopsilo]

@Hilopsilo - My conclusions come from my research not what MDMA I’ve taken.. Mostly taken from the Hive, as this conversation is old as time. As the other old school bee basically confirmed what I’ve BEEN saying... I’ve described those effects before.

Even since the time of the Hive certain synthesis routes provided a reliable product everyone loved, others were lackluster. For example, as the other guy said ketone made from O2 Wacker often aminates to a weaker product than that made by Benzoquinone/PdCl2. This has been reported many times before. I suggest you do yourself some research and you’ll likely come to the same conclusions...

And believe it or not there may be some people in this conversation that have tried their hand at MDMA synthesis once or twice, not me of course but I’m sure some people in the distant past.

Also if we are to discount others festival observations then let’s throw yours out too.

-GC

I'm very interested in that subject, like I said you've clearly done your research, I'm not discounting what guy from the Hive is saying, I just feel we can't make definitive statements until we have some sort of actual evidence to back it up. You gave the synthesis method an endearing nickname, that just reads as being damn sure is all i'm saying

So it "aminates" a weaker product, why? What about it is weaker and who exactly is saying so? Thats the sort of stuff we need to compile in a neat way, I'm not saying you have the time for that, but there is no way anyone can expect myself or anyone else genuinely interested in the topic (and we need those) to piece through 140 pages picking up scraps of information you've dropped along the way. I'd LOVE to see some posts where chemists are discussing how they've taken MDMA from different routes they've done and noted differences.

My festival "observation" was my own experience and 30+ close friends, I actually knew these people, actually knew what they drug they took, from which batch it came and how much they took of said drug and when. But hey, in the moment of being THAT high that Sunday night, I had a fleeting theory that the real cause of all this was that the drinking water from the groundwater at the festival grounds contains a specific chemical compound that potentiates MDMA ,and by sunday has built up in your system to blast you into that other dimension when you take MDMA, and simply everyone has a lackluster experience that first night the MDMA itself has nothing to do with it; just by Sunday night you're feeling the love so much that the MDMA gives you what you want this time Science? Well, you have nothing to prove that isn't true

 

[epic11]

@Hilopsilo You have made very valuable contributions to this thread, as one of the only people who has had access to MehDMA and Magic MDMA at the same time, with divergent results from a larger sample size, and follow up lab analysis of both samples. Your contribution is impressive. However, originally, you were resistant to the concept that there may be something wrong with the product at all.

At the core, this thread contains a lot of contributions from people who share the same concern and are trying to add observations, links, test results, personal experiences etc. to try to come to understand what is happening. Some of those contributions are going to be more relevant than others, some will evolve into more significant realizations than others. In the process of all this sharing of information and experience, some side conversations may develop. An unexpected side effect of this conversation is that a community has formed in this thread. People feel like they know each other. A certain comfort level has been achieved. An admirable and rare thing in today's online climate.

I don't quite understand your need to control it all.

You may not personally feel that my contribution is relevant, but I think it demonstrates what is currently going on in my city at an EDM event. Since I have been disconnected from the scene, I did not previously have ANY information about what the EDM community looked like in my city. There has been discussion over how widespread the bad product is. There has been discussion over how much the scene has been impacted. I don't feel it is outside of the context of the thread to share observations that cast light on that. So, now at least I know that one subgroup here seems to have access to legitimate product, and that may connect later to other relevant info or it may not. Not really for you to decide.

This thread HAS become unweildly, and I do think we need a document or sticky post or something that we can update with pertinent information only. That way, those that just want to get major updates can click there and have an easy way to see recent developments. But to try to control the evolution of the conversation within the thread seems pointless to me.

Thanks. Once again, your words nail the point. You never said anything as fact.

 

[Hilopsilo]

@Hilopsilo You have made very valuable contributions to this thread, as one of the only people who has had access to MehDMA and Magic MDMA at the same time, with divergent results from a larger sample size, and follow up lab analysis of both samples. Your contribution is impressive. However, originally, you were resistant to the concept that there may be something wrong with the product at all.

At the core, this thread contains a lot of contributions from people who share the same concern and are trying to add observations, links, test results, personal experiences etc. to try to come to understand what is happening. Some of those contributions are going to be more relevant than others, some will evolve into more significant realizations than others. In the process of all this sharing of information and experience, some side conversations may develop. An unexpected side effect of this conversation is that a community has formed in this thread. People feel like they know each other. A certain comfort level has been achieved. An admirable and rare thing in today's online climate.

I don't quite understand your need to control it all.

You may not personally feel that my contribution is relevant, but I think it demonstrates what is currently going on in my city at an EDM event. Since I have been disconnected from the scene, I did not previously have ANY information about what the EDM community looked like in my city. There has been discussion over how widespread the bad product is. There has been discussion over how much the scene has been impacted. I don't feel it is outside of the context of the thread to share observations that cast light on that. So, now at least I know that one subgroup here seems to have access to legitimate product, and that may connect later to other relevant info or it may not. Not really for you to decide.

This thread HAS become unweildly, and I do think we need a document or sticky post or something that we can update with pertinent information only. That way, those that just want to get major updates can click there and have an easy way to see recent developments. But to try to control the evolution of the conversation within the thread seems pointless to me.

My initial skepticism was the lack of virtually any convincing evidence (this was before any talk of other compounds that could fool a test, which I think is our biggest lead) and quasi-psuedo-science being thrown around, lots of "what ifs" that were considered leads simply because we can't prove them wrong, which is exactly what I think newcomers might see here and be turned off of the subject when it looks like we're overly confident of things we cannot confirm or flat-out, for lack of a better term, grasping as straws.

I feel if we keep it scientific, and by that I mean in terms of our methodology, just being critical thinkers and poking holes in our own damn ideas, we're more likely to gain the attention of people who can contribute in a meaningful way and take us seriously, rather being turned off by what on the surface can definitely appear to be a bunch of burnt out ravers. I'm still a bit resistant to it, like I've said before I still cannot say with 100% certainty there is a difference, I'm like 99% sure, but I have no proof and there are so many factors involved that there is a slight chance my experience can be chalked up to one or a combination of those (the better music? the music being louder? slight increase in purity? more relaxed and open by the 3rd night, more mentally "broken in"? something was mentioned earlier in the thread or elsewhere on BL that there might be a reason you roll harder the second time you roll on a weekend?)

Apologize if I came off harsh, I don't mean to belittle anyone or there experiences

I don't mean to be controlling, but if a skeptic said "alright, give me what you got on this, I'm listening", sending them this thread, a lot of it would undermine the good points being made and surely, at least to them, confirm their initial misgivings about the topic

 

[indigoaura]

I absolutely see your point @Hilopsilo . That is why we need to make an easier to access link with all the info. To any moderator: Can we make a sticky post that is locked that only the author can edit?

This is my current thoughts on where we stand overall (to anyone trying to catch up).


Primary Observation: Different batches of lab tested MDMA produce significantly different effects.

Who is making this observation? Both new and seasoned users across multiple continents.


Secondary observation: Different synthesis methods seem to result in product with varying effects.

Who is making this observation? Chemists from former website, The Hive


Why is this happening?

Theory 1: There are contaminants in addition to MDMA that may or may not show up on GCMS testing, and these contaminants compete with MDMA for receptors and/or absorption.
a) Undetectability due to identical/similar elutions and spectrums (e.g. see this)
b) Undetectability due to a very low level of a very potent substance.
c) ...or both

Theory 2: The questionable “MDMA” is actually one of many possible isobaries of MDMA and is indistinguishable from MDMA with GCMS testing.
a) Undetectability due to identical/similar elutions and spectrums (e.g. see this)
b) Undetectability due to a very low level of a very potent substance.
c) ...or both

Relevant Link: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/1304/AWAD_TAMER_45.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Theory 3 (Secondary): Not all MDMA is HCL and other salt forms may produce different results.

Theory 4 (Secondary): Isomer ratios may impact overall effect.

Theory 5: The Magic MDMA always contained a potent but unknown synergistic synth byproduct, that made it "magic." Pure MDMA does not contain it, and that makes it "Meh".
a) Undetectability due to identical/similar elutions and spectrums (e.g. see this)
b) Undetectability due to a very low level of a very potent substance.
c) ...or both

"Potent" = a substance that is pharmacologically active in the microgram or nanogram range. Its small amount puts it in a ppm or ppb range in the sample ratio. This makes it undetectable by spectrometry because it hides in the noise (grass) ...unless it is concentrated by targeted trituration. There are psychoactive drugs that are active in extremely small amounts, for example carfentanil, LSD, Detomidine. Now, I am not stating that MDMA contains these three - they are just examples illustrating that such potent substances are possible and actually exist (Glubrahnum).

The takeaway from this is that theories #1 and #5 (and maybe #2) should have these three subpoints:


Follow up question: Is the MDMA being deliberately altered by chemists, or are these changes the accidental results of evolving synthesis methods?


Primary Rebuttals:

• Nothing is wrong with the product, the issue is “loss of magic” in the user.

False. These undesirable effects are reported from both virgin and experienced users. Experienced users note typical/expected “magic” with other batches.

• MDMA just produces a wide variety of effects depending on set and setting.

False. Reports indicate the same negative effects across multiple experiences and multiple users with some batches, and the same positive experiences across multiple experiences and multiple users with other batches. The effect appears to be batch dependent.

 

[Hilopsilo]

Just bumping this to parse it out a bit more

Do you mean this ?
View attachment 14908

If "yes" then this is a legal research chemical CAS 68291-92-9 and it can be easily found in Canada and China for $50 / 100mg and since it is an isobary of MDMA, it can mimic MDMA in a Mass Spectrometer.

I wonder if it is "sleepy", too.

It would be a good chemical to test the accuracy of a Testing Center with

They are not been produced at all during any synth methods thats really streching alot of things.

Considering that pmk is the starting material it would be impossible for those things to be created during a mdma lab.

Those things would also not react the same way with all testing kits. They would also be easily distinguishable in numerous NMR methods.

Can we get a confirmation if this is true? Do we know if all the other mass equivalent compounds we've been considering react like MDMA with reagents? Can we infer based on how we know reagents work? If these mass equivalent compounds turn rainbow when you hit them with reagents thats a dead end as far as I'm concerned

old hive bee here, some bluelight user pointed me to this thread. Won't be around much but here my input that you might appreciate and therefore a start to work on.

It's called cooking remember? different cooking recipes and procedures results in different outcomes.

you can cook a nice chunk of meat in the microwave and then sear it with a blow torch, appearance and smell will be awesome, but taste and texture (the pleasure) won't be anywhere near as a proper, slow, oven cooked roast.
same goes for chemicals, certain routes just don't produce what's expected or it is of inferior quality.

Leuckart: high quality "MAGIC" mdma plus side products as mda, stimulating, best for clubbing, work intense/time consuming synth, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

AL/Hg and NaBH4 reduction: best for cleanest "MAGIC" MDMA, milder than Leuckar but more intimacy and sensuality, psychedelic in it's way, work intense/time consuming, specially NaBH4, medium high yielding depending on chemist experience

Pt/Pd hydrogenation: worst product of all, this is your mehMDMA. Very little labour involved, high yielding, once the reaction is set it's just a matter of waiting for completion. Add this to the use of higher mass producing acids as tartaric or citric for the salting and here you have your 300 mg tablets that give the crappy, boring experience that is so common today.

Also: PMK synth has its weak points. In the Hive times people were experimenting with alternate routes to produce pmk from safrole, O2/Wacker was one of them, quickly abandoned because the resulting ketone was inferior and the amine derived from it was weaker and missing what makes mdma special.
So chinese PMK glicidate might be also partially responsible for the missing effects of today's crappy mdma.

So just to clear (or confuse) a bit further: magic and meh are actually the same substance from a formula point of view, that's why no test can detect or differentiate the one from the other.
Why the two produce so different effects? no idea, my experience in pharmacokinetics is very limited.

This feels soooooooo close to something very useful, I just feel like if all these chemists are noticing differences between the result in terms of effects, magic versus meh, yet can't decipher the actual difference between them, theres gotta be more information/investigation that was done, someone had to have had some ideas. Maybe there is somewhere we can sift through such discussions? I really want to see those solid connections being made between synth routes and the effects of the product by literally the people making it, I can't believe they'd just throw their hands up and give up on figuring out why, since it would truly seem like this crazy anomaly in chemistry

 

[psy997]

This feels soooooooo close to something very useful, I just feel like if all these chemists are noticing differences between the result in terms of effects, magic versus meh, yet can't decipher the actual difference between them, theres gotta be more information/investigation that was done, someone had to have had some ideas. Maybe there is somewhere we can sift through such discussions? I really want to see those solid connections being made between synth routes and the effects of the product by literally the people making it, I can't believe they'd just throw their hands up and give up on figuring out why, since it would truly seem like this crazy anomaly in chemistry

I think the problem is generally that cooks don't always have access to the kind of analytic equipment necessary to parse out such abnormal differences between products. At least, that's my guess. And, I imagine there's conversations from the old hive - if archived - that could have valuable information.

I'm sorry, its just too absurd to me that you could come even close to the conclusion that 95% asians at the festival are connected to the asian mafia that has the good shit because one person saw some of them and they looked visibly higher than other people. Is that anymore likely than that they appeared more fucked up because their pupils seem bigger due to darker eye color? On average probably weigh less than the average attendee and therefore are more sensitive? White people been in this for longer culturally and are more likely on average to have a tolerance? all those come mind before direct gang affiliation lol

Yes, and no-one came to any conclusion. Possibly relevant pieces of information were shared, possible connections theorized, and that's it. Anything more than that was projected by you onto indigo.

 

[Glubrahnum]

Theory 1: There are contaminants in addition to MDMA that may or may not show up on GCMS testing, and these contaminants compete with MDMA for receptors and/or absorption.
Theory 2: The questionable “MDMA” is actually one of many possible isobaries of MDMA and is indistinguishable from MDMA with GCMS testing.
Relevant Link: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/1304/AWAD_TAMER_45.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Theory 3 (Secondary): Not all MDMA is HCL and other salt forms may produce different results.
Theory 4 (Secondary): Isomer ratios may impact overall effect.

I'd like to add Theory 5, not because I am a proponent of it, but because I am trying to make the list exhaustive, namely:

Theory 5: The Magic MDMA always contained a potent but unknown synergistic synth byproduct, that made it "magic". Pure MDMA does not contain it and that makes it "Meh".

Note: Any time I write "potent" I mean a substance that is pharmacologically active in the microgram or nanogram range. Its small amount puts it in a ppm or ppb range in the sample ratio. This makes it undetectable by spectrometry because it hides in the noise (grass) ...unless it is concentrated by targeted trituration. There are psychoactive drugs that are active in extremely small amounts, for example carfentanil, LSD, Detomidine. Now, I am not stating that MDMA contains these three - they are just examples illustrating that such potent substances are possible and actually exist.

The takeaway from this is that theories #1 and #5 (and maybe #2) should have these three subpoints:
a) Undetectability due to identical/similar elutions and spectrums (e.g. see this)
b) Undetectability due to a very low level of a very potent substance.
c) ...or both

 

[Hilopsilo]

I'd like to add Theory 5, not because I am a proponent of it, but because I am trying to make the list exhaustive, namely:

Theory 5: The Magic MDMA always contained a potent but unknown synergistic synth byproduct, that made it "magic". Pure MDMA does not contain it and that makes it "Meh".

Note: Any time I write "potent" I mean a substance that is pharmacologically active in the microgram or nanogram range. Its small amount puts it in a ppm or ppb range in the sample ratio. This makes it undetectable by spectrometry because it hides in the noise (grass) ...unless it is concentrated by targeted trituration. There are psychoactive drugs that are active in extremely small amounts, for example carfentanil, LSD, Detomidine. Now, I am not stating that MDMA contains these three - they are just examples illustrating that such potent substances are possible and actually exist.

The takeaway from this is that theories #1 and #5 (and maybe #2) should have these three subpoints:
a) Undetectability due to identical/similar elutions and spectrums (e.g. see this)
b) Undetectability due to a very low level of a very potent substance.
c) ...or both

So just parroting the response I've gotten from two people I've mentioned this theory to, that both have a chemistry background like yourself and an interest in the subject: they were very skeptical that something so potent-by-weight, whether thats beneficial or detrimental to the experience, would be inadvertently created in comparison to the potency of the actual product. "Orders of magnitude" was the phrase they both used. As in, yes, things like LSD and fent are incredibly potent at those dosages, but so are the chemicals closely related to them, its not as if LSD is active at 50ug but 1-P-LSD is active at 100mg. Or MDxx have different potencies, but they're active in the same general dosage range. I dont have a background in chemistry, but that does sort of make sense

Are there any examples of chemicals where byproducts do indeed have an orders of magnitude potency? All that comes to my mind is cannabis and the entourage effect of terpenes, which everytime i try to research it always sounds quite vague on what its actually doing

As for theory 2, i think it would be helpful if we compiled all our testing resources and as much info as we can get on their methods. Since, I was told that underivitized GCMS is the one that can't tell apart mass equivalent compounds, as the study says, but that underivitized GCMS is a thing of the past and is therefore irrelevant (but we'd need to confirm the methods of testing resources touting GCMS)

 

[Glubrahnum]

Oh, I agree #5 is very unlikely, but as long as I don't have a full understanding of brain's biochemistry, I cannot exclude it.

 

[indigoaura]

@Glubrahnum I added your comments to my post.

What if I just made a thread and called it "Ongoing Summary of "What is wrong with the MDMA available today?" I would post what I just summarized, add to it as requested, and also find the link to the post that breaks down this thread by topic with links. I would add that link at the bottom of the post.

What does everyone think of that? Moderators could lock comments on it so all the comments come here to the main thread.

 

[yourgothgirlfriend]

idk man, i've been able to get rock-form mdma very easily. it's actually harder for me to find the presses

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Unicorns and fairy dust.

QED.

 

[psy997]

@Glubrahnum I added your comments to my post.

What if I just made a thread and called it "Ongoing Summary of "What is wrong with the MDMA available today?" I would post what I just summarized, add to it as requested, and also find the link to the post that breaks down this thread by topic with links. I would add that link at the bottom of the post.

What does everyone think of that? Moderators could lock comments on it so all the comments come here to the main thread.

The thing to do may be opening a conversation with moderators and seeing what they find most appropriate - considering, if I remember correctly, we already had an ancillary thread closed and merged back into this one.

 

[Glubrahnum]

What if I just made a thread and called it "Ongoing Summary of "What is wrong with the MDMA available today?"

It would have to be a locked thread in which only elected members or analytical minds and scientists can post. No unicorns.

 

[indigoaura]

Yes, it would have to be locked. I assumed whoever posts the thread would have to be the person to update it, but if there is a way to assign multiple people to add to it, that would be great. That way, if someone goes AWOL, more than just one person could update. But, definitely locked.