DCK vs 2FDCK

[Esperighanto]

Maybe it was the dose, but I found DCK to be pretty bland and the most boring of the ACHs I've done.

DCK was more boring and blank than even nitrous in my opinion, a complete waste of time for me personally. Others around me often found it somewhat comparable to normal ket though. When I mixed DCK and ket, I found it just "flattened" the magic/psychedelia of ket.

2F-DCK however I found to be significantly more "magical"/psychedelic, especially when combined with ketamine. The most I'd ever used was ~200mg of 2F-DCK alongside ~300mg of ketamine within the span of maybe 3 hours all together. I would prefer 2F-DCK (or moreso 2-FXE/2F-O-PCE/"CanKet") compared to ketamine any day of the week, I've just found it tends to be more difficult to find and pricier than ket, often costing twice as much or even more than ketamine for some tragic reason.

2F-DCK on its own feels like a genuine trip, whereas ketamine only does if I'm in the right headspace and use an adequately large amount. Combining 2F-DCK (as well as 2-FXE) with traditional psychs felt more like mixing two psychs, I mixed it with 2C-B, DOM, LSD, miprocin, allylescaline, 25C-NBOMe, 25I-NBOMe and 25B-NBOH. Every time it was amazing, but in those mixes, I could've replaced it with a higher dose of ketamine relative to 2F-DCK/2-FXE and it would've been indistinguishably similar imo. DCK I found so boring that I only mixed it with LSD, 2C-B, DOM and miprocin, and found all of them to almost feel flattened or more boring in a way similar to having mixed large amounts of benzos with those psychedelics.

 

[HofmannBlotter]

I prefer 2F-DCK over DCK.

More gentle and forgiving, low doses are great.

 

[3DQSAR]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've read about 150 (mainly Parke-Davis) patents as well as many papers on the development and legal control of the compound that became known as ketamine.

I'm uncertain why, but Parke-Davis only ever dealt with -Cl and -OCH3 as the ortho substituents. Now one of the things about patents is that you seek to stop others from producing what are known as 'me too' drug. Ones that fall outside the scope of the patent. So I really don't know why they didn't patent examples with other halogens or pseudohalogens.

I would be interested to hear how people compare ketamine and MXE. is the later just more potent or is it also subjectively different?

What I found very odd was Parke-Davis patenting the 2-chloro-5-methoxy homologue i.e. ketamine overlayed with MXE. For now we are simply referring to it as CMXE but a US company only took out a GB patent for it (odd), the patent only covered a handful of compounds (very odd in the light of 'me too') and they don't reference the GB patent in any of their later US patents (plain weird).

It's like they wanted to ensure that the held a patent whilst trying to hide the fact that they indeed held the patent.

What was going on with that? I would love to know.

 

[Esperighanto]

What was going on with that? I would love to know.

As tragically mundane as it is, the real answer probably comes down to "corporate strategy" or some shit along those lines. Working in that world as the resident IT/Cybersecurity goon has exposed me to a ton of corporate dumfuckery that absolutely astounds me on the daily.

 

[3DQSAR]

As tragically mundane as it is, the real answer probably comes down to "corporate strategy" or some shit along those lines. Working in that world as the resident IT/Cybersecurity goon has exposed me to a ton of corporate dumfuckery that absolutely astounds me on the daily.

I too sense it was a strategy of some sort. It may be the case that obtaining a GB patent is a common trick used by US-based companies who wish to ensure that one one hand they do legally control a novel compound but at the same time don't want competitors to know if it's existence. I have noted a few other examples of this practice from around that era.

In the days before on-line patent searches, I imagine it would be a very effective way of having ones cake and eating it, so to speak. In fact, it might be an early example of someone indulging in 'lawfare' i.e. Parke-Davis had a success with ketamine, found an alternative but saw no advantage in developing it BUT at the same time, ensured that IF someone else developed it, they could 'reveal' the patent. I know, I know, too many unknowns.

Evidently PubChem doesn't search GB patents as the compound doesn't turn up on their database. Or it somehow got missed - which does happen.

Someone else found it - GB Patent 1202834

What interested me about it was that the -Cl and -OCH3 are para to each other. So if nothing else, it might be considered an insight into the receptor. Fastandbulbous stated that the ethoxy homologue of MXE would also be active and the patent sort of confirms that (not that I ever doubted the fact).

 

[Esperighanto]

I too sense it was a strategy of some sort. It may be the case that obtaining a GB patent is a common trick used by US-based companies who wish to ensure that one one hand they do legally control a novel compound but at the same time don't want competitors to know if it's existence. I have noted a few other examples of this practice from around that era.

In the days before on-line patent searches, I imagine it would be a very effective way of having ones cake and eating it, so to speak. In fact, it might be an early example of someone indulging in 'lawfare' i.e. Parke-Davis had a success with ketamine, found an alternative but saw no advantage in developing it BUT at the same time, ensured that IF someone else developed it, they could 'reveal' the patent. I know, I know, too many unknowns.

Evidently PubChem doesn't search GB patents as the compound doesn't turn up on their database. Or it somehow got missed - which does happen.

Someone else found it - GB Patent 1202834

What interested me about it was that the -Cl and -OCH3 are para to each other. So if nothing else, it might be considered an insight into the receptor. Fastandbulbous stated that the ethoxy homologue of MXE would also be active and the patent sort of confirms that (not that I ever doubted the fact).

They may have gone for a 5-Methoxy substitution as it's probably easier to make 5-MeO-2-Cl-Benzene than it is straight 2-Cl-Benzene, and I suspect that production concerns over rare precursors are likely a blocker for getting a company to view a drug as consistently profitable.

When you say ethoxy homologues of MXE, do you mean as in there being an ethoxy group on the 2-position, or as in the alkyl group being switched from a methyl to an ethyl group? I suspect both would work, the first would probably be referred to as something like "ethoxetamine", the second would probably be 3'-MeO-O-PCE? Whatever the 2-FXE/CanKet equivalent of a 3-Methoxybenzyl instead of a 2-Fluorobenzyl group would be.

 

[3DQSAR]

They may have gone for a 5-Methoxy substitution as it's probably easier to make 5-MeO-2-Cl-Benzene than it is straight 2-Cl-Benzene, and I suspect that production concerns over rare precursors are likely a blocker for getting a company to view a drug as consistently profitable.

When you say ethoxy homologues of MXE, do you mean as in there being an ethoxy group on the 2-position, or as in the alkyl group being switched from a methyl to an ethyl group? I suspect both would work, the first would probably be referred to as something like "ethoxetamine", the second would probably be 3'-MeO-O-PCE? Whatever the 2-FXE/CanKet equivalent of a 3-Methoxybenzyl instead of a 2-Fluorobenzyl group would be.

No, the ethoxy in place of the methoxy as demonstrated by MXE.

They did also try the positional isomer in which the -Cl was ortho (as in ketamine), the -OCH3 meta (as in MXE), but that didn't work. That's why I suggested that the patent might give us further insights into the receptor domain. The patent also covered the -OCH2CH3 so we know that it also works.

While the precursor would be more unusual, if you intend to produce the stuff for a worldwide market, I don't think it would be prohibitively expensive. I suggest that it's more likely that as the patent-holder of ketamine, they would only be competing with themselves.

By the time the patent on ketamine expired, it wouldn't have been possible to develop the stuff before the patent on the derivative expired.

In addition, back then ketamine was the preserve of anesthesiologists and they are loathe to try something new if they have experience of an existing product. It's only if there is some clear advantage that they will move to newer medications. I had the chance to talk to a consultant who was old enough to have begun his career when phenoperidine was the opioid used in surgery. The problem was that it's potency had rather a large (in fact huge) variability among patients so fentanyl (Sublimaze) was a success BECAUSE it solved that issue.

I think it's important to consider what is considered a benefit to medical professionals and what is of benefit to psychonauts. AFAIK no studies on CMXE have turned up, but I would be very surprised if it were less potent than MXE which would offset the increased cost, I suppose.

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. My field is more within the drug design field and it's fascinating how drugs that psychonauts would love singularly failed in the licit marketplace simply because few doctors saw a clear advantage. Phenazocine and desoxymorphine are examples of medicines that reached market but failed to sell. But I think it reasonable to suggest that both would likely be very popular with some people.

 

[Bitchniggaz]

2-fdck was the least fun dissociative ive ever had, not a bit of the warmth of ketamine and just plain odd dissociation. i cant recommend this one. dck on the other hand has got really good reviews, never had it...

I liked it personally, but only did it intramuscular.
Similar to Ket but cold in nature and lasted a bit longer.

Was great during the vinter just laying in my couch holing out for hours on end and watching the snow outside.

Never tried DCK, however i overall prefer the short dissios like K.