• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Daniel Lednicer

I've promised to donate the 'Planned Parenthood' charity. Now, I've never found the name of Daniel's wife. If anybody happens to know, I will donate it in her name which I think would cheer him up.
 
http://postimg.org/image/6lr6gewoz/

MDPC

I have discussed the p-Me analogue of BDPC with Dr. Kednicer since he 'forgot' to make it when they found the properties of BDPC and went on to detail it's effects (a day in a lab like his would be $1000/day in 2015 money). Obviously, it would have a shorter duration because the p-Me is a good point for metabolism so I asked him about it's use in balanced anesthesia in cases where remifentanil or alfentanyl cannot be used. Both have anvantages BUT both have disadvantages so this could be a practical medical use. If it's analgesic potency is very high and it's duration short, it's duration is likely to differ less than the fentanyls.

Whatever, it's an interesting compound that will never get made. One thing is that the fentanyls are not THAT potent, this could (should) be stronger weight-for-weight than BDPC (lower MW). Of course, it tt's being framed to take pride of place above my PC. If you want to talk to Dr. Lednicer, all he asks for is donations to 'Planned Parenthood'.

Have a good day,
CC
 
Last edited:
From Dan - as we banged our heads together over the forgotten test.

qchZGfd.jpg


With the simple compounds, the p-Br & p-Me were equipotant but during development, he forgot to test the p-Me. So nobody knows the activity of MDPC is. One would presume the -Ch3 to be a nice metabolic handle to remove it BUT, with this being a 2-aromatic system, the benzene is likely to fit into the lipophilic where the p-Me actually binds to another lipophilic pocket which will accommodate something slightly larger - and wherever that is, it's of great interest. Dan lost his wife last summer but he's still writing & painting miniatures. He asked me to make a donation to 'pro-choice' and I feel sure that if someone approached him to draw a miniature of any of his work, he would price on costs + a donation.

He's a great guy. I offered to let him visit UK and stay with us but his health isn't good. In the last few years, we have lost quite a few of the greats in 'intelligent design' and Jacob Szmuszkovicz is in his 90s. I have his address so I'm going to write a letter to him. Truly, the greats in this field mustn't be forgotten and I'm considering writing a book on them while as many of them as possible are still with us. After the mid-80s, HTS became the standard and yet the number of compounds being tested for just 1 action is SO inefficient. If you could test a compound to see ALL of the activities it may have, the system would be far more productive but it takes out the beauty of going through a series of papers to see how their minds work. I'm sure some people here know the feeling when they find something new.... it really is 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
 
BTW - obviously he's just copying from his own patent, but this is my new hobby, getting great chemists to sketch stuff and paying to charity (they ALL seem to ask for a contribution to charity),
 
Hi Clubcard! I realize this is unrelated, but I am just starting to tackle organic chemistry with a shaky understanding of general chemistry, do you have any recommendations for books? All I got was organic chemistry I for dummies. My interest is purely medicinal chemistry. Thanks in advance, hope you are doing well.
 
Frankly - if you can afford a student edition - ChemOffice. Used by all chemists and the 'Word' of chemistry. It's truly amazing and although it isn't cheap, let me tell you, if you value even minimum wage, it will up your output by triple that amount.

Learn WHO perfect intelligent Design and follow the patents - these guys didn't use HTS - they logically looked at a molecule and tried the most obvious modification.

I hope this helps,
Sean
 
Clubcard, he's just starting organic chemistry and probably doesn't even know what HTS is (high throughput screening).

I suggest Organic Chemistry by Clayden, Cotcha.
 
This is how you embedd images:

4rNNYoL.png


=

4-(4-methylphenyl)-4-(dimethylamino)-1-(2-phenylethyl)cyclohexanol.png


methylphenyldimethylaminophenylethylcyclohexanol? Slightly confusing choice for the acronym.
 
Yeah I don't really understand the focus on this. It is one series of compounds that was ultimately dropped from development, and they never got around to making a particular analog. These omissions happen all the time in studies.
 
I'm not obsessed, I'm a friend of the designer and he's a stumped as me. My point is, many people who like music get LPs signed, a great many people like sports and collect autographs. If it's still of interest to the original designer and someone discusses it with them, is it so strange to collect ephemera from them? For each Lifeline booklet, I get 1 page of the original art. I find it hilarious that people would waste their own time so say it's not worth their time....
 
clubcard said:
I'm not obsessed, I'm a friend of the designer and he's a stumped as me. My point is, many people who like music get LPs signed, a great many people like sports and collect autographs. If it's still of interest to the original designer and someone discusses it with them, is it so strange to collect ephemera from them? For each Lifeline booklet, I get 1 page of the original art. I find it hilarious that people would waste their own time so say it's not worth their time....
Click to expand...

I never said you were obsessed, but this is at least the third or fourth time that you posted about this particular molecule. This is supposed to be a site for discussion, not a blog, and we are asking questions in response to your post. Many papers omit an obvious experiment or fail to make a particular compound in a series, so I don't think it is weird to wonder what makes this omission so interesting. There aren't a lot of other ways to discuss what you posted.

The examples you gave -- collecting LPs, autographs, etc -- are not good parallels to this situation. I never questioned why you are interested in the chemist who performed the work, or the work itself. I am asking why you think it is so strange that he never prepared a particular analog in a series of compounds. A more apt situation would be a Pink Floyd fan wondering why they omitted Interstellar overdrive from a particular setlist in 1967.
 
Last edited:
I just like that the absence was attempted to be brought up and resulted in the absence of a post. Maybe the cosmos of chemistry has its reasons for shielding us from this one. ;-P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top