Recruiting [AUS] Looking for donations of pee to understand the metabolism of research chemicals
- Thread starter BrunoUT@S
- Start date
Divine Moments
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,782
^ Thanks for the update 
Good on you everyone who has participated thus far - keep it up! It's a great feeling to know that you've helped the progress of medicial/scientific research.
Good on you everyone who has participated thus far - keep it up! It's a great feeling to know that you've helped the progress of medicial/scientific research.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Messages
- 4,414
Dr Ramsey is fantastic, I agree. But so is Bruno Raimondo, of University of Tasmania, who is heading up this study.
As for 'stuff going to LE', all research that is publicly available when published is picked up by LE. They are part of the public. However, they absolutely do not get access to private research data unless they are part of the research team themselves. That's generally not the way public health researchers operate as we have different goals to LE.
Just my 2 cents
As for 'stuff going to LE', all research that is publicly available when published is picked up by LE. They are part of the public. However, they absolutely do not get access to private research data unless they are part of the research team themselves. That's generally not the way public health researchers operate as we have different goals to LE.
Just my 2 cents
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Messages
- 4,414
You make some very informed and valuable points.
I don't know the reasons why this research team have chosen urine testing over test of other bodily fluids. But I would bet that the reason that they are asking for urine samples is related to validity of self report - as you suggest, 5 people may say they have used MXE, but what does the urine suggest? So if you are giving them a questionnaire asking about the harms they may have experienced, it's helpful to have a validation tool for what they consumed.
So I disagree with your statement that there is no use in detecting a 'a possibly toxic metabolite after it has left the body and already done damage' - ok it's not so useful for that individual, but it would be useful to develop better responses for people who take that drug in the future.
Having said this I'm no expert in this kind of testing - in terms of the pharmacology and practicalities of it.
"All research needs funding unless I am mistaken (unless someone is doing a phd thesis) and our government is notoriously tight when R+D is concerned."
Just to comment on research funding in Australia, yes, we should always ask who is funding the research, even if someone is doing a PhD thesis! (as these can also be privately funded or supported). You ask the question about funding and then you look at what agreements people have as researchers with the funders, and assess the potential for bias. But it's not the case that all research must be funded for the good of some corporation or government entity - for example, although my salary is ultimately funded through the federal government (this is 2 steps removed though), I am conducting 2 studies at the moment that are 'internally funded' by the university - so I have no external funder to answer to or report to. I feel very confident with these 2 studies in saying that there is no funder interference. All the university is interested in is me completing the research competently/ethically and publishing academic outputs from it. So, yes it is possible to conduct academic research in Australia without political or corporate interference.
I don't know the reasons why this research team have chosen urine testing over test of other bodily fluids. But I would bet that the reason that they are asking for urine samples is related to validity of self report - as you suggest, 5 people may say they have used MXE, but what does the urine suggest? So if you are giving them a questionnaire asking about the harms they may have experienced, it's helpful to have a validation tool for what they consumed.
So I disagree with your statement that there is no use in detecting a 'a possibly toxic metabolite after it has left the body and already done damage' - ok it's not so useful for that individual, but it would be useful to develop better responses for people who take that drug in the future.
Having said this I'm no expert in this kind of testing - in terms of the pharmacology and practicalities of it.
"All research needs funding unless I am mistaken (unless someone is doing a phd thesis) and our government is notoriously tight when R+D is concerned."
Just to comment on research funding in Australia, yes, we should always ask who is funding the research, even if someone is doing a PhD thesis! (as these can also be privately funded or supported). You ask the question about funding and then you look at what agreements people have as researchers with the funders, and assess the potential for bias. But it's not the case that all research must be funded for the good of some corporation or government entity - for example, although my salary is ultimately funded through the federal government (this is 2 steps removed though), I am conducting 2 studies at the moment that are 'internally funded' by the university - so I have no external funder to answer to or report to. I feel very confident with these 2 studies in saying that there is no funder interference. All the university is interested in is me completing the research competently/ethically and publishing academic outputs from it. So, yes it is possible to conduct academic research in Australia without political or corporate interference.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinions on the research. Let me make a few points:
1. Background on me - I was responsible for work like this: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/37 . I'll let you decide from there as to what side of the fence I'm on.
2. LE already know what to screen for in urines. Ironically John Ramsey is a big part of this as his work has created TICTAC http://www.tictac.org.uk/Introduction/ which sells a library of drug structures based on what has been identified already and predicting what is likely to be identified so forensic chemists can check against these when they do LC/MS GC/MS or the more fancy new techniques etc. So, this study ain't going to provide LE with anything new.
3. What I care about is knowing what metabolites are. Here's an example - most of the animal research just gives rats an injection of, for example, AM-2201, and doesn't take into account that people are going to heat it to ingest it. And it turns out that heating it lops off the fluorine and converts the drug to something else (e.g. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/microgram-journals/2012/mj9_52-56.pdf ). So, the rat data there has missed the point (and rats aren't going to necessarily metabolise things in the same way as humans or have other medications etc on board). The thing that is a particular issue in that case is that HF gas is being produced which is amazingly nasty stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroflouric_acid ) . That's just one example. What happens with MXE? Does it have the same potential for liver impact that ketamine does? Hard to tell because we can't dose people
4. it does matter if the damage has already happened to someone, because if we understand it and why it has occurred then other people can arm themselves with that information and make more informed decisions about what they choose to do. That can only be a good thing.
5. yes, the method is imperfect. we're doing this off the side of our desks. That said if two people say they took MXE and have different things in their urine, because someone was sold something that wasn't actually MXE, that would still be apparent as you would (most of the time at least) see the parent drug in there at some level, so that would be a tell.
1. Background on me - I was responsible for work like this: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/37 . I'll let you decide from there as to what side of the fence I'm on.
2. LE already know what to screen for in urines. Ironically John Ramsey is a big part of this as his work has created TICTAC http://www.tictac.org.uk/Introduction/ which sells a library of drug structures based on what has been identified already and predicting what is likely to be identified so forensic chemists can check against these when they do LC/MS GC/MS or the more fancy new techniques etc. So, this study ain't going to provide LE with anything new.
3. What I care about is knowing what metabolites are. Here's an example - most of the animal research just gives rats an injection of, for example, AM-2201, and doesn't take into account that people are going to heat it to ingest it. And it turns out that heating it lops off the fluorine and converts the drug to something else (e.g. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/microgram-journals/2012/mj9_52-56.pdf ). So, the rat data there has missed the point (and rats aren't going to necessarily metabolise things in the same way as humans or have other medications etc on board). The thing that is a particular issue in that case is that HF gas is being produced which is amazingly nasty stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroflouric_acid ) . That's just one example. What happens with MXE? Does it have the same potential for liver impact that ketamine does? Hard to tell because we can't dose people
4. it does matter if the damage has already happened to someone, because if we understand it and why it has occurred then other people can arm themselves with that information and make more informed decisions about what they choose to do. That can only be a good thing.
5. yes, the method is imperfect. we're doing this off the side of our desks. That said if two people say they took MXE and have different things in their urine, because someone was sold something that wasn't actually MXE, that would still be apparent as you would (most of the time at least) see the parent drug in there at some level, so that would be a tell.
Last edited:
lovepsychadelics
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,374
Ok you both make excellent points and I take back my previous statements, in the spirit of good will I will delete previous posts. Thank you for the information and I guess I was myself being biased. Dealing with kids frothing at the mouth and semi-conscious and trying to guess at a best treatment plan/regime when you have no idea about what they have consumed does get draining after a while. Basically I'd really like something to assist treatment and identify possible interactions between medications used to treat the obvious symptoms caused by these substances.
I agree 100 % with your example of AM 2201 and heating, heat is possible catalyst and may cause a reaction modifying the molecular structure, that is why some individuals actually consume the product orally (in beverages/salads etc), but most users just treat it like cannabis and smoke the "herbal incense". I'm actually concerned the latest incense brands may have trace amounts of Hydrogen sulphide. Unfortunately AM 2201 is ancient history as far as "herbal incense" products are concerned.
Hate to try to treat these OD's and only make things worse, which can/has/will happen. Liability is also an issue when treating said conditions. Frustrating. I know Ramsey's work is responsible for a number of urine screening tools. Ironic but they quickly become out dated/useless as the next generation of these drugs makes it's way into the market place. I believe some 700 000 UK citizens regularly use/purchase these "designer drugs" which is a good reason for Dr Ramsey and his team to continue their work. I wish you much success with your own studies and I hope some positive outcomes can be achieved for the greater public health of all.
To be completely honest I wish that these research chemical drugs had never come about but they have and I fear they will be here for some time to come. So anyone out there please contribute I see no reason to be concerned about LE as reptile has posted previously. I myself have used/experimented with said substances in the past and cardiac arrhythmia, liver and kidney damage have been the result. The irony was I thought (at first) I was not using anything that was all that harmful but bitter experience has taught me otherwise.
I agree 100 % with your example of AM 2201 and heating, heat is possible catalyst and may cause a reaction modifying the molecular structure, that is why some individuals actually consume the product orally (in beverages/salads etc), but most users just treat it like cannabis and smoke the "herbal incense". I'm actually concerned the latest incense brands may have trace amounts of Hydrogen sulphide. Unfortunately AM 2201 is ancient history as far as "herbal incense" products are concerned.
Hate to try to treat these OD's and only make things worse, which can/has/will happen. Liability is also an issue when treating said conditions. Frustrating. I know Ramsey's work is responsible for a number of urine screening tools. Ironic but they quickly become out dated/useless as the next generation of these drugs makes it's way into the market place. I believe some 700 000 UK citizens regularly use/purchase these "designer drugs" which is a good reason for Dr Ramsey and his team to continue their work. I wish you much success with your own studies and I hope some positive outcomes can be achieved for the greater public health of all.
To be completely honest I wish that these research chemical drugs had never come about but they have and I fear they will be here for some time to come. So anyone out there please contribute I see no reason to be concerned about LE as reptile has posted previously. I myself have used/experimented with said substances in the past and cardiac arrhythmia, liver and kidney damage have been the result. The irony was I thought (at first) I was not using anything that was all that harmful but bitter experience has taught me otherwise.
Last edited:
totally agree, and hats off to you for working at the pointy acute end, it's certainly something that I don't have the mettle for. It'd certainly be a good thing if there was a way to get the heat and pace out of the RC market, and let consumers/medicos/researchers have a bit more clarity about what they're actually taking so that there's less adverse outcomes/clearer HR advice into the future (but in the current cat and mouse game for legality I can't see that's going to happen)
crazybitch73$
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2013
- Messages
- 21
,is this study still open?