• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice to see some more REAL talk going on about this. Im just here for the ride. Get it bluelight, this must be figured out.
 
Drugs Data (formerly Ecstasy Data) responded to my query and I have sent them the Tamer Awad article and asked if it is possible that substances are being misidentified as MDMA. So far, they have been more responsive than International Energy Control. I will let all of you know what they say.

Also, for what it is worth, International Energy Control confirmed through email that they do not check MDMA samples for mercury. They said they would need a much larger sample size than what people send through the mail. (I had emailed them asking how much I would need to send for their PDF + mercury testing.) I replied to them and asked them if that meant no MDMA samples were ever checked for heavy metals, and they never responded. That was definitely the impression their email gave me.
 
indigoaura said:
Drugs Data (formerly Ecstasy Data) responded to my query and I have sent them the Tamer Awad article and asked if it is possible that substances are being misidentified as MDMA. So far, they have been more responsive than International Energy Control. I will let all of you know what they say.

Also, for what it is worth, International Energy Control confirmed through email that they do not check MDMA samples for mercury. They said they would need a much larger sample size than what people send through the mail. (I had emailed them asking how much I would need to send for their PDF + mercury testing.) I replied to them and asked them if that meant no MDMA samples were ever checked for heavy metals, and they never responded. That was definitely the impression their email gave me.
Click to expand...

Interesting data points. Thanks indigo. A good question there indeed.
 
I dont get that sometimes, when somebody is cooperating then all of a sudden doesn't respond to a legitimate and relevant enquiry which could be really helpful and useful for you to have some feedback on.

Like they have an ulterior motive for not telling you the truth all being sheepish and cagey. My imagination was running just then envisaging what sort of scenario in which they would not want to disclose any information or a simple answer.

I think they probably just couldn't be bothered to respond, leaving you to guess and infer but I even imagined they were embarrassed by their own inadequacies and and shortcomings in this field.

You never know maybe at heart it can touch a nerve for them to feel that their work is only so much use.

Haha, ignore me guys I'm just high and I imagine stuff all the time (which works out occasionally because sometimes what I imagine turns out to be true lol).

Hope you all do well this evening.
 
psy997 said:
I'd bet all my money on this.
Click to expand...
The truth hurts as they say. Still I wish all people could just be bigger men and be honest and say ok we are specialised in that and this has been neglected blah blah and just be honest about it you know what I mean?

But then I was born with a chip in my brain which forces me to be honest even if it is entirely inappropriate as you have surely all observed by now haha I really can't help myself, thank you all for bearing with me.
 
AutoTripper said:
The truth hurts as they say. Still I wish all people could just be bigger men and be honest and say ok we are specialised in that and this has been neglected blah blah and just be honest about it you know what I mean?

But then I was born with a chip in my brain which forces me to be honest even if it is entirely inappropriate as you have surely all observed by now haha I really can't help myself, thank you all for bearing with me.
Click to expand...

I seriously love this dude. lmao.
 
Drugs Data has replied to me, and they appear to be taking this issue seriously.

Their most recent email (in response to the Tamer Awad article: http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/1304/AWAD_TAMER_45.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ):

Thanks for the reply and the thesis, that's super helpful. Definitely
gets us on the same page.

The two main types of differences being described are:

1) where the methylene dioxy group is attached to the benzens ring (2,3
versus 3,4)

2) how the carbons are attached to the amine chain

right?

It looks like our supplier does have analytical standards for some of these, I haven't gone through them all yet, but for instance

So, I think the next step is that we (you and I together) need to try to make a complete list of the chemicals from this paper that might have similar mass spectrums to MDMA. And then figure out if they are available from Cayman or another source.

Figure 15 on page 130 and figure 30 on page 177 have several chemicals that have the big 58 major ion peak that is the thing we're mostly looking for in terms of
chemicals that Mass Spec could confuse with MDMA.

A bunch of those seem to be named things like "compound 22", so that's super difficult to move ahead with. I think I'm seeing that compounds 14 through 23 all have their major mass ion at 58, so

1 : 2,3-MDMA has a similar structure and mass spectrum. Available from
Cayman. https://www.caymanchem.com/product/13970/

2 : ?? What else can you find me in this document that is a named
chemical that we could find somewhere?

I'm going to forward this to our senior analytical chemistry advisor and
see if he can come up with a way to move forward with these interesting
questions.

But, if you or your friends want to try to go through that paper and try to find the page numbers and other identifying info for the structures or names of compounds that might possibly have similar mass spectrums to 3,4-MDMA , that would speed up this process a lot.
Click to expand...

I need some help with this from the more chemistry minded people here. @Glubrahnum @G_Chem Can one of you reply to the questions they are posing?

This is exciting, because it is the first time I have gotten back an email where someone really seemed to take this seriously.
 
indigoaura said:
This is exciting, because it is the first time I have gotten back an email where someone really seemed to take this seriously.
Click to expand...
Well done Indigo and that is what you get for persevering, fortunately there are serious people in this world and it was only a matter of time before somebody would acknowledge the increasing wafts of smoke serving as legitimate evidence with actually lots to examine on paper.

So definitely exciting you could say and and I think we could be confident that at least some revelation will come from this.

Let's hope so anyway. Good work so far.
 
indigoaura said:
need some help with this from the more chemistry minded people here. @Glubrahnum @G_Chem Can one of you reply to the questions they are posing?
Click to expand...
These are the compound IDs, that I would recommend them to test in descending order of probability for matching Theory #1 or #2:

PubChem CID 24264757
CAS 68291-92-9
PubChem CID 85777948
PubChem CID 43583295
PubChem CID 19894326
CAS 68291-93-0
PubChem CID 14153432
CAS 1221725-76-3
PubChem CID 82605176
PubChem CID 14647597
PubChem CID 83685199
PubChem CID 584519

All of them have exactly the same molecular formula as MDMA ...and masses, too.

P.S.
Most of these compounds are not mentioned in that Tamer Awad paper, but some of them are mentioned in the Aalberg paper.
 
Last edited:
indigoaura said:
A bunch of those seem to be named things like "compound 22", so that's super difficult to move ahead with.
Click to expand...
The chemical formulae depicted in this post are graphically identical to the formulae used in that Tamer Awad paper.
Based on that graphical similarity/identity, now even someone who does not know the chemistry, can figure out what "compound 22" is, by visually correlating the formulae on pages 105, 131, 152.

So for compound #22 that would match the simplified name:
4-methoxy-3-methylmethamphetamine

...a quick Google search yields the IUPAC name:
1-(4-Methoxy-3-methylphenyl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine
or...
PubChem CID 21150468

For your convenience, below are Google translations of these compound names into PubChem Compound IDs ( CIDs ):

2,3-MDMA = CID 71750309
α,α-dimethyl-1-(2,3-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 13051794
1-(2,3-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine = CID 55254953
N,N-dimethyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 12816914
N-ethyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 10776
α,α-dimethyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 13020598
1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine = CID 129870
N-ethyl-1-(2,3-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 85777948
N,N-dimethyl-1-(2,3-methylenedioxy-phenyl)-2-ethanamine = CID 85777947

o-methoxymethcathinone = CID 82101005
p-methoxymethcathinone = CID 216281
m-methoxymethcathinone = CID 82281626

2-Methoxy-3-Methyl-methamphetamine = CID 3064708
2-Methoxy-4-methylmethamphetamine = CID 15128234
2-Methoxy-5-methylmethamphetamine = CID 24841335
2-Methoxy-6-methylmethamphetamine = CID 84733125
3-Methoxy-2-methylmethamphetamine = CID 91693755
3-Methoxy-4-methylmethamphetamine = CID 76548696
3-Methoxy-5-methylmethamphetamine = CID 91693756
4-Methoxy-2-methylmethamphetamine = CID 68364247
4-Methoxy-3-methylmethamphetamine = CID 21150468
5-Methoxy-2-methylmethamphetamine = CID 91693862
 
Last edited:
indigoaura said:
Drugs Data has replied to me, and they appear to be taking this issue seriously.

Their most recent email (in response to the Tamer Awad article: http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/1304/AWAD_TAMER_45.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ):



I need some help with this from the more chemistry minded people here. @Glubrahnum @G_Chem Can one of you reply to the questions they are posing?

This is exciting, because it is the first time I have gotten back an email where someone really seemed to take this seriously.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, thanks for this, and honestly having the balls to do it all in 2019. Thats passion, trust me.

Ill have some more data points soon as well.
 
I just told a buddy of mine that this "mehdma" shit feels a lot like mda without the visual part. Right after i said that, he said "omg i was about to say the same exact thing"

2 people agreeing on meh feelings once more. I think we have established this pretty strongly now, but there ya have it. Ive never worded it this way, but maybe theres something to it?
 
Glubrahnum said:
Also, it is important to protect your eyes from the UV and this can be done with a clear polycarbonate sheet. Even cheap polycarbonate safety glasses will make a diffference, but if you can get a thicker sheet then get it
...just remember: Protect your eyes from the UV with polycarbonate. Do NOT protect the TLC plate from the UV ! (protect the plate from the visible light, though).
Click to expand...

Sorry I've been out of the loop for a few days. I actually made a big box where none of the light could escape, and used my phone to view/take picture, again covering the only hole left so I wasn't exposed. I'll get hold of the uv pass filter and do some comprehensive testing. Thanks for all the help
 
epic11 said:
I just told a buddy of mine that this "mehdma" shit feels a lot like mda without the visual part. Right after i said that, he said "omg i was about to say the same exact thing"

2 people agreeing on meh feelings once more. I think we have established this pretty strongly now, but there ya have it. Ive never worded it this way, but maybe theres something to it?
Click to expand...

YES ! Last year I was sold white crystals that were supposed to be "MDA". I was really excited as I love MDA and had not seen any in many years. I consumed this batch twice and while the effects were pretty good it lacked the visual signature which is unique to MDA and that I always recognized very easily. If it was not for that lack of visuals I could have thought it was MDA as the body high was the same (stoning, couch lock) as was the duration (quite a bit longer than MDMA). At that time I did not bother to send it for analysis as I just figured it was just another empathogenic RC (I had not seen this thread yet at the time) It was different from the MehDMA I got a year later. Could there also be a MehDA ?
 
@Glubrahnum The link you posted to the Aalborg paper is broken. Do you have a title for the paper, or another way to access it? Also, where did those images of the regioisomers etc. come from originally? Are they from the Aalborg paper?

Also, they had this query today:

I still don't know what you mean by "isobaries".
Are you talking about barometry? Th Isobaric as in deltaP = 0?
I honestly have no idea.

Given the context, the closest I'm able to guess is that you're talking about how a specific chemical moves through a GC column under pressure.

If you know how to define it, I'd like to know!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top