• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Professor Nutt's magic jizz (Sentia)

Nutt knows FULL WELL that the alcohol industry will ensure IF a synthetic replaces ethanol, it's a synthetic they own the patents to. But as long as people keep on buying shares, he and the other David (Nutt's personal cheerleader) are certainly making a huge profit.

Knew the man - epistemic trespasser.

That total believe that because he had domain expertise in one field, he was automatically an expert in all. He loves the whole fame thing. I would hate it. The product SHOULD speak for itself.

But cynically 'researching' synthetics that will NEVER EVER provide a return to investors would be soul destroying. Promising something you know to be a lie.

BTW GABA Labs LTD applied for a patent in 2017 (which ceased), one in 2024 (which ceased) and another in 2025 which if the pattern holds, will also cease. The point is that there is an 18 month 'secrecy' period in which the text of the application isn't available. But since they have NEVER revealed a patent by simply ceasing to pay for the documents to be examined, who knows? Could just be one page? But it does mean that investors can be told that there IS a patent application... that they can't read to see if it adds up.

I'm just glad we didn't sell him our second tranche (tranche 1 was pyrazolam, pynazolam and pyyezolam). The last emulated 'drunk' perfectly, just not 'two glasses of wine' but we now know why and have a single candidate that binds to ALL of the α5 subunits (tranche one only bound at the α5β1γ2). Alcohol is more subtle than we thought and one ligand that binds to all three α5 units was an interesting challange.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
Nutt knows FULL WELL that the alcohol industry will ensure IF a synthetic replaces ethanol, it's a synthetic they own the patents to. But as long as people keep on buying shares, he and the other David (Nutt's personal cheerleader) are certainly making a huge profit.

Knew the man - epistemic trespasser.

That total believe that because he had domain expertise in one field, he was automatically an expert in all. He loves the whole fame thing. I would hate it. The product SHOULD speak for itself.

But cynically 'researching' synthetics that will NEVER EVER provide a return to investors would be soul destroying. Promising something you knot to be a lie.

BTW GABA Labs LTD applied for a patent in 2017 (which ceased), one in 2024 (which ceased) and another in 2025 which if the pattern holds, will also cease. The point is that there is an 18 month 'secrecy' period in which the text of the application isn't available. But since they have NEVER revealed a patent by simply ceasing to pay for the documents to be examined, who knows? Could just be one page? But it does mean that investors can be told that there IS a patent application... that they can't read to see if it adds up.

I'm just glad we didn't sell him our second tranche (tranche 1 was pyrazolam, pynazolam and pyyezolam). The last emulated 'drunk' perfectly, just not 'two glasses of wine' but we now know why and have a single candidate that binds to ALL of the α5 subunits (tranche one only bound at the α5β1γ2). Alcohol is more subtle than we thought and one ligand that binds to all three α5 units was an interesting challange.
Click to expand...
So your holding the tranches?? Why don't you make synthetic alcohol, or sell it to nutt or something who else who will make it?
 
new2drugs said:
So your holding the tranches?? Why don't you make synthetic alcohol, or sell it to nutt or something who else who will make it?
Click to expand...

As I pointed out - the alcohol industry is huge and already has the infrastructure (including payments of duty and taxation where it applies) so IF a synthetic replaces ethanol - they will use one they hold the patent on. They understand how retailers are licenced to sell intoxicating drinks, what robust legal systems need to be understood and addressed at every step.

Because one assumes that like alcohol, sales to under 18s or sale to people who are obviously inebriated means retailers have to understand THEIR legal position and only the alcohol industry can do that.

Our only advantages are in having got pyeyzolam tested with a decent cohort size, issues were addressed and ONE ligand acts on three receptor subunits (all three α5). So if others need 2 or 3 ligands in the mix to make them 'alcohol-like', that's potentially more costly so we win because we figured out how to keep the costs down at scale

We did think about it quite a lot. If it seems a major alcohol multinational signals their intent, THEN we may submit our ligand and invest in proving that it's a facile ligand but so much more research has to be undertaken.

1)Safety (here we have a potential advantage) which is VERY costly and time consuming.
2)Cost (especially at large scales and ensuring that IF the prices of precursors change just because the suppliers know the use, we can switch to alternatives i.e. defend that low cost.
3)Shelf-life (however great, if it isn't stable in solution for 12 months, costs inevitably go up as more is wasted).

I mean, a synthetic drug has NEVER gone through a process to become legal. There is nobody to look at and see what they did right and what they did wrong. Designing ligand, done. Pilot scaling to 10Kg, done. But if that's 30mg in a 330mL can of cola (or whatever), you need to test the safety and stability of that. Do you see the issue here. If we had the money and the support and started tomorrow - on the shelves by 2034-2036 at best.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
I'm just glad we didn't sell him our second tranche (tranche 1 was pyrazolam, pynazolam and pyyezolam). The last emulated 'drunk' perfectly, just not 'two glasses of wine' but we now know why and have a single candidate that binds to ALL of the α5 subunits (tranche one only bound at the α5β1γ2). Alcohol is more subtle than we thought and one ligand that binds to all three α5 units was an interesting challange.
Click to expand...
Sounds good!

Can I freebase it into a waxy solid that's smokeable n makes a fizzing noise as it burns n makes me feel absolutely shit faced room spinning buckled super drunk for two minutes then suddenly wears off just leaving a feeling of general grog?
 
BadBoy377 said:
Sounds good!

Can I freebase it?
Click to expand...

It is a 'freebase' or, rather I should say it contains neither a free carboxylic acid nor a basic nitrogen (at least at physiolgical pH) so while yes, you certainly can nebulize the ligand... that would just add risk with no real benefit.

We sort of assumed it would be presented in a similar way to alcoholic drinks i.e. the dilution means taking too much becomes practically much harder. I would start low. Maybe if an 'ethanol equivelence' can be found, shart with drinks that are no more potent that regular lager/beer as very few people come to harm if they stick to weaker forms.

Something pure where 40mg will result in the user ending up fast asleep (but won't vomit so there's a mercy) is probably not a good thing.

We did have several cohor members who INSISTED that 30mg 'wasn't enough' but add 10mg and all of them just fell asleep.

But tranche 2 also demostrates a plateau in it's effects. To be sure it's still going to equate to pretty damned wasted but eat more and duration increases, not subjective effects. One person took 80mg and slept for 24 hours - but was fine. No toxic symptoms.
 
Please excuse me butting in, but can anyone point an old timer in the direction of current pill reports . . ?

Good to see you still alive and kicking SHM 🙏
 
Last edited:
BadBoy377 said:
Sounds good!

Can I freebase it into a waxy solid that's smokeable n makes a fizzing noise as it burns n makes me feel absolutely shit faced room spinning buckled super drunk for two minutes then suddenly wears off just leaving a feeling of general grog?
Click to expand...

BTW on second thoughts - yes, there is a reversible condensation reaction taking place so at a low pH a basic amine WOULD be the predominent form of the ligand. In fact those are far more water-soluble and would form stable addition-salts.

I suppose my only concern would be that a drink would have to be slightly acidic and I'm uncertain just how stable that prodrug form is in solution...

BUT it does offer another way to produce an assymetrical dimer (which is the 'secret ingredient') of the tranche 2 compounds. Truth is it is two ligands bound via a hydroxycarboxylic acid but this offers a potential alternative. So I WILL check that one.

Cheers!
 
Fishface said:
Please excuse me butting in, but can anyone point an old timer in the direction of current pill reports . . ?

Good to see you still alive and kicking SHM 🙏
Click to expand...

Blimey, it’s only Fishface 8o

*waves*

This is the most recent version of the regional thread I can find.

You might be better off checking PillReports itself though tbh.

Hope to be seeing more of you around and about the place!
 
Shambles said:
Blimey, it’s only Fishface 8o

*waves*

This is the most recent version of the regional thread I can find.

You might be better off checking PillReports itself though tbh.

Hope to be seeing more of you around and about the place!
Click to expand...
Lets Go Dancing GIF by NBC
 
Fishface lives!! 😂

Unfortunately SHM hasnt been heard from in years - I believe he has dispensed with our worthless carcasses for another board.
 
4DQSAR said:
As I pointed out - the alcohol industry is huge and already has the infrastructure (including payments of duty and taxation where it applies) so IF a synthetic replaces ethanol - they will use one they hold the patent on. They understand how retailers are licenced to sell intoxicating drinks, what robust legal systems need to be understood and addressed at every step.

Because one assumes that like alcohol, sales to under 18s or sale to people who are obviously inebriated means retailers have to understand THEIR legal position and only the alcohol industry can do that.

Our only advantages are in having got pyeyzolam tested with a decent cohort size, issues were addressed and ONE ligand acts on three receptor subunits (all three α5). So if others need 2 or 3 ligands in the mix to make them 'alcohol-like', that's potentially more costly so we win because we figured out how to keep the costs down at scale

We did think about it quite a lot. If it seems a major alcohol multinational signals their intent, THEN we may submit our ligand and invest in proving that it's a facile ligand but so much more research has to be undertaken.

1)Safety (here we have a potential advantage) which is VERY costly and time consuming.
2)Cost (especially at large scales and ensuring that IF the prices of precursors change just because the suppliers know the use, we can switch to alternatives i.e. defend that low cost.
3)Shelf-life (however great, if it isn't stable in solution for 12 months, costs inevitably go up as more is wasted).

I mean, a synthetic drug has NEVER gone through a process to become legal. There is nobody to look at and see what they did right and what they did wrong. Designing ligand, done. Pilot scaling to 10Kg, done. But if that's 30mg in a 330mL can of cola (or whatever), you need to test the safety and stability of that. Do you see the issue here. If we had the money and the support and started tomorrow - on the shelves by 2034-2036 at best.
Click to expand...
Sorry who is the WE you speak of? Your company?
 
Fishface said:
Ismene! Good to see you’re still here even if SHM has flown the coop!
Click to expand...

I thought SHM had died or was in lonely despair - it was only recently revealed he is having a right old time of it at his new board and is happy to see us flushed down the shitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top