• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Opioids SR-17018 Is the future of opioid detox medication. Painless easy cheat to avoid withdrawal that is too good to be true, but it is legit and real.

The original producers are, I'm sure, pragmatic. After all, if a dubious company in the USA will order the stuff in kilograms (in fact likely in 10s of Kgs) then the pretense of it being for detoxification becomes pointless. As long as they legally made their money, that's all that matters.

It always amazed me that people thought the producers acted out of altrusim.

Most of the things they sell turn out not to become popular and if one does, the 'why?' of it becoming popular is of no interest. All that matters is the profit.

I'm still amazed people haven't figured out the ALL of the orphines are made by ONE producer. I mean, sure, if an example becomes popular, competitors will spot the fact but they offered dozens of them with cychlorphine being sold on the dubious statment 'as potent as carfentanil' and I see cybrorphine appeared on Wikipedia on 16th July 2026. Now look at who created both pages - heck, check who created the page for EVERY orphine. If I worked for the DEA, whoever THAT is would get the knock. Meodipt seems to know all about the class before anyone else... EVERY time.

So yeah, whoever that is clearly is the producer OR is an asset of the producer who is rewarded for posting on Wikipedia (thus creating the illusion of them being establised medicines). Because being building Wikipedia pages isn't a criminal act.
 
4DQSAR said:
We have reports of people VAPING the stuff which makes perfect sense. The pKa of eople are buying multiple bottles of tablets at £8 each, that IS a rational business model.
Click to expand...
no fucking way??? thats insane, must feel crazy vindicating for your though damn
 
4DQSAR said:
So yeah, whoever that is clearly is the producer OR is an asset of the producer who is rewarded for posting on Wikipedia (thus creating the illusion of them being establised medicines). Because being building Wikipedia pages isn't a criminal act.
Click to expand...
They are incredibly recent for how unknown they are, the one you mention has data from july already. Might just be a autistic drug nerds specific thing but its very strange
 
Yep - Look at R6372.

The fact potency value is stated based on a citation which contains NO potency evaluatio makes me think something is going on here beyond 'drug nerd'.

The species for which the potency value is derived in not specified either - so to me that looks like someone who has been TOLD the human potency but thinks people won't check the citation (singular). I mean, don't you ALWAYS state the species when giving a potency value?

BTW
U.S. Patent 3,155,670 does cover it.
P. A. J. Janssen and C. A. M. van der Eycken in: Drugs Affecting the CNS (A. Burger, ed.), Vol. 2, p. 25, Dekker, New York (1968) gives a potency of x400 morphine in animal (mouse) models.

This again makes me think the person isn't slogging away to find obscure compounds (for which there is no rational reason for a Wikipedia page to even be created) is closely following what novel opioids are being produced in China. To the point of pages being created on the same day a novel compound is first offered has bad optics.

Another reason I don't trust Wikipedia. Because nobody is paid, someone offering an income for creating pages that won't instantly be removed (given the person has Wikipedia awards/rank thus power over which pages are allowed to remain and those that get removed) does rather invite Chinese producers to subourn such people.

But DO check. Do believe it because it's me saying it. Come to your own conclusions - I'm fallible so in truth I would asppreciate others confirming or equally dismissing my suspicions.

It concerns me because too many people blindly trust Wikipedia and you only need one bad apple to have someone able to lend a LOT of credibility to what is in truth a totally untested compound where we have no idea whatsoever how potent or how toxic they are in man.

You know me - I have NEVER told a single person to consume anything ever. I therefore cannot benefit from my providing information and in HR, trust is something that when lost can never be recovered.
 
4DQSAR said:
The fact potency value is stated based on a citation which contains NO potency evaluatio makes me think something is going on here beyond 'drug nerd'.

The species for which the potency value is derived in not specified either - so to me that looks like someone who has been TOLD the human potency but thinks people won't check the citation (singular). I mean, don't you ALWAYS state the species when giving a potency value?

BTW
U.S. Patent 3,155,670 does cover it.
P. A. J. Janssen and C. A. M. van der Eycken in: Drugs Affecting the CNS (A. Burger, ed.), Vol. 2, p. 25, Dekker, New York (1968) gives a potency of x400 morphine in animal (mouse) models.

This again makes me think the person isn't slogging away to find obscure compounds (for which there is no rational reason for a Wikipedia page to even be created) is closely following what novel opioids are being produced in China. To the point of pages being created on the same day a novel compound is first offered has bad optics.

Another reason I don't trust Wikipedia. Because nobody is paid, someone offering an income for creating pages that won't instantly be removed (given the person has Wikipedia awards/rank thus power over which pages are allowed to remain and those that get removed) does rather invite Chinese producers to subourn such people.

But DO check. Do believe it because it's me saying it. Come to your own conclusions - I'm fallible so in truth I would asppreciate others confirming or equally dismissing my suspicions.

It concerns me because too many people blindly trust Wikipedia and you only need one bad apple to have someone able to lend a LOT of credibility to what is in truth a totally untested compound where we have no idea whatsoever how potent or how toxic they are in man.

You know me - I have NEVER told a single person to consume anything ever. I therefore cannot benefit from my providing information and in HR, trust is something that when lost can never be recovered.
Click to expand...
I see your suspicions, but do you have any timeline of when a article was created correlating it with chinese manufacturers offering/synthesizing them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top