• 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

Is bk-MBDB neurotoxic?

No, I'm not "disputing" the claim that PCA is neurotoxic. I don't know either way. I mean, when you say "neurotoxic" do you mean neurotoxic as in MPTP or non-neurotoxic as in MDMA? Having been misled by the scientific community for years on the MDMA issue, I have lost all respect for their methodology and/or veracity on this type of subject. PCA was used in human trials whether you like it or not. I have a feeling that these people didn't just drop dead like flies. You're the one with a subscription to MedLine, do us both a favor and look it up yourself. Ultimately, though, this isn't a competition to see who has read more scientific papers, and believe me, I've read at least one before for all that's it's worth (i.e., not much). But I do know enough about ecstasy to know that it doesn't cause holes in your brain, and that is more than you seem to know about it. Are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf? You can't bemoan the fact that this section of the scientific community has lost its credibility over the long running MDMA fiasco. That is the price of blatant misrepresentation, pure and simple, like it or not.
 
You're still upset about something that was retracted 7 years ago. Believe it or not, the current scientific consensus is that MDMA is neurotoxic to some degree. pCA is far, far worse.

And no: there is no single published study of pCA in humans. If it's ever happened, and it seems especially unlikely since there's no record of it, the only conspiracy theory would have to be Army / CIA studies. There's a lot known about MK-ULTRA now, and pCA has never been mentioned, though.

But I do know enough about ecstasy to know that it doesn't cause holes in your brain, and that is more than you seem to know about it.
Click to expand...

Still on about this, huh? This is what happens when you learn your science from cartoons and CNN. All of this referred to either dead spots in neuroimaging or lesioning, both of which it does, the latter in particular response to overheating.

If you had actually read these papers, you'd actually know what they were talking about. When a reporter sees these things and explains them as 'holes' a reasonable explanation for the public, and then the public tries to take that explanation and interpret as a scientific one, you have people saying that MDMA causes holes to form in the brain, as in holes holes, not the somewhat metaphorical holes that was actually meant.

What you should actually be complaining about is the poor job the media does in science reporting. You've obviously gotten 99% of your information second hand which explains why you don't understand what it's actually about.
 
>>Just out of curiosity, what other DARIs have you tried?
>>

So far, coke, mdpv, and methylphenidate. all jittery, fiendy messes for me. :)
The best test case to show definitively that DARIs don't vibe with me would be desoxypipradrol, right? Well...I don't trust myself enough to toy with it.

ebola
 
No, I'm not "disputing" the claim that PCA is neurotoxic. I don't know either way. I mean, when you say "neurotoxic" do you mean neurotoxic as in MPTP or non-neurotoxic as in MDMA? Having been misled by the scientific community for years on the MDMA issue, I have lost all respect for their methodology and/or veracity on this type of subject. PCA was used in human trials whether you like it or not. I have a feeling that these people didn't just drop dead like flies. You're the one with a subscription to MedLine, do us both a favor and look it up yourself. Ultimately, though, this isn't a competition to see who has read more scientific papers, and believe me, I've read at least one before for all that's it's worth (i.e., not much). But I do know enough about ecstasy to know that it doesn't cause holes in your brain, and that is more than you seem to know about it. Are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf? You can't bemoan the fact that this section of the scientific community has lost its credibility over the long running MDMA fiasco. That is the price of blatant misrepresentation, pure and simple, like it or not.
Click to expand...

Well, if I say neurotoxic then I obviously don't mean non-neurotoxic. It's kinda in the name... 8)

And honestly, if you don't believe 100's of studies where they specifically use pCA to preferentially destroy serotonergic neurons, then what WILL you believe? Like, I'm really curious what it will take to change your mind on these things. Obviously you're against reading anything scientific, but take the word of your smoke out buddies as the Holy Book.

Sometimes I think we're just unwitting victims of a massive trolling....
 
ebola? said:
Quick side-question:

methylone doesn't really work for me.
Nor does any DARI that I've tasted.

Now, it's pretty clear that M1 releases 5ht rather than blocking reuptake (only lejunk will tell you that blocking 5ht uptake can be "fun" ;)). Does m1 release DA or mainly block reuptake?

ebola
Click to expand...

it feels like a strong release ala mdma or speed. i dont like it as the comedown 2 hours later is god awful and lasts for ages.

it doesnt feel like a dari as ritalin cocaine etc have mild crashes(for me) where the only problem is a desire for more as oppossed to neverending paranoia and fear and anxiety(speed)
 
ummm...As far as I can tell, I get the opposite from you in terms of negative after-effects of DARIs vs. releasers...I don't think that personal bioassays are gonna do it here... :)
ah well...time to fetch a journal article, i guess...

ebola
 
ebola?,

Cocaine and methylphenidate can be quite edgy drugs to experience all around. Methamphetamine is, for me, much smoother.

Personally, I like all three, just in different ways. MDPV and 2-DPMP are much more terra incognita at this point, so be careful.

I agree with Shulgin that, in order to truly experience a drug's true nature, then it must be tried in human beings. There's only simply so much that can be learned by giving drugs to animals, not that that avenue of research isn't helpful, because it is up to a point.
 
Last edited:
Rectify said:
ebola?,

Cocaine and methylphenidate can be quite edgy drugs to experience all around. Methamphetamine is, for me, much smoother.

Personally, I like all three, just in different ways. MDPV and 2-DPMP are much more terra incognita at this point, so be careful.

I agree with Shulgin that, in order to truly experience a drug's true nature, then it must be tried in human beings. There's only simply so much that can be learned by giving drugs to animals, not that that avenue of research isn't helpful, because it is up to a point.
Click to expand...

Are your parents religious?
 
No, not particularly. Why? Do you have Aquarius rising and the Sun trine Neptune in water signs?
 
Because you think the same way religious people think. I understood that right away.
 
You accept things as being true or false without looking at the actual methodology or numbers but whether or not it jives with your personal feelings about an issue. Taking a war buddy's statements as truth over carefully gathered and analyzed data, or rejecting MDMA's neurotoxicity because you think that science once said it caused holes to form in the brain (because you saw this on CNN or an ONDCP commercial):

That's religious thinking.

Looking at the research, how it was done, the results, etc and deciding whether or not to accept it's conclusions based on that isn't religious thinking. It's heavily logical thinking, but not religious in character.

(btw- if you have ever, even once looked at the actual research, you would have known that no scientist ever claimed that MDMA caused actual holes to form in the brain, but that the term holes referred to dark spots in PET and SPECT scans. You can't think for yourself if you don't even know what the study actually said; The Catholic Church loves people who don't think for themselves.)
 
Rectify said:
So do you. For you, it's science.
Click to expand...

There are differences amongst cumulative traditions, such as religions, sciences, etcetera, mainly regarding methodology and how dogmatics, exegesis, and communication within the tradition, are performed.

This means you cannot call science religion, because there are differences that makes these kinds of comparisons empty and solely retorical. For example, how evidence is produced, handled, presented, interpreted, traded, and valued with regards to earlier evidence makes your statement faulty.

I'm not an expert of any kind, I'm a student, and as one I'm used to the ways scientific traditions regulate and legitimate argumentative methods and feel that you do not live up to those standards, mostly because you do not consider scientifical evidence worthwhile to use unless it conforms with dogma, at least this is what it looks like from my end.

I'm not a preacher of any kind, I'm a worshipper, and as one I'm used to the ways scholastic and mystic cumulative traditions regulate and legitimate argumentative methods and feel that you do not live up to those standards, mostly because you engage in debate in a milieu without accepting the local customs as requirements for acceptance.
 
Anyhow back to the subject at hand, as the above hasn't offered any more clues to answering my original question. So I may ask a few new ones........

Can anyone offer some insight into why bk-mbdb is strong stimulant, compared to say mbdb alone? Also would NE activity potentate any neurotoxic effects?
 
Well, methylone has a slightly lower DAT/SERT affinity ratio than MDMA (MDMA = 3.861, Methylone = 1.727), so it's more dopaminergic than MDMA (after one accounts for the fact that methylone is less potent overall, so the absolute methylone dose will about 25%-30% greater than that of MDMA). So perhaps the beta-keto analogue of MBDB is also more dopaminergic. However, in the case of MBDB and bk-MBDB, the function would mainly be that of a monoamine uptake inhibitor, rather than a true amphetaminergic substrate (releaser).

Oh, the data above are from a Rothman group paper in 2003 and a narc study by Nagai et al. in 2007. The narc paper is classic, ending with the sentence: "We propose that these drugs be strongly restricted to keep society and its people healthy." You can almost hear the sphincters of the investors tightening to keep those rods firmly in place at all times. All that because of a little inhibition of the dopamine transporter.... ;)
 
organicshroom said:
Bk-MBDB in my own subjective experience felt like it had mild DA activity but quite strong NE release or uptake inhibition, significantly more than MDMA. The compound kept me awake for 36hours from one 250mg oral dose, and my resting heart rate doubled from 50-60 to 110-120bpm for about 6-8 hours then dropped back to 80 for a following 12 hours. My heart rate didn't fully drop back to normal till the following day after a good sleep. Also I had some uneasy mild panic feelings for the first hour or two of the initial exposure, for me bk-mbdb was over stimulating, but still had enough SE and DA release to make it an empathetic warm experience.
Click to expand...

Kicked your ass too eh? Remember we were talking about this in the big and dandy bk-mbdb thread? I found the first 1-2 hours were slightly empathic but nowhere near worth the 40 hours of pulse pounding insomnia followed by one shitty sketchy week.

I'm starting to think I might not ever take this drug again. I firmly believe you can tell a drug's toxicity by how it makes you FEEL after the main effects are gone, and this has toxic reaction written all over it. The worst hangovers from MDMA are caused by high serotonin depletion caused by high doses...high serotonin depletion causes high toxicity.

I'm have a good feeling that: high level of insomnia/anxiety/sketch = toxicity.
 
^ 250mg was just simply too much........Over stimulation!

In saying that, I believe me and you are just the odd ones out with this anxiety/dysphoria issue, about 10 other people whom has also consumed this compound have enjoyed it, with the only complaint being that they have trouble sleeping. I strong believe SET & SETTING is very important with this drug, more so than mdma, and if you get it right, it can feel amazing.

I don't believe the anxiety is a sign of toxicity at all, just a psychological reaction from strong SE and NE activity. You can be feeling wonderful on a mdma/meth binge, while frying your brain at the same time. The general feeling at the time is no accurate gauge of toxicity. B1 for me, has no ill effects once I've had a good sleep, no comedown or anxiety that may result from the days following a heavy session of MDMA apart from general stimulant fatigue.
 
Last edited:
Riemann Zeta said:
Well, methylone has a slightly lower DAT/SERT affinity ratio than MDMA (MDMA = 3.861, Methylone = 1.727), so it's more dopaminergic than MDMA (after one accounts for the fact that methylone is less potent overall, so the absolute methylone dose will about 25%-30% greater than that of MDMA). So perhaps the beta-keto analogue of MBDB is also more dopaminergic. However, in the case of MBDB and bk-MBDB, the function would mainly be that of a monoamine uptake inhibitor, rather than a true amphetaminergic substrate (releaser).
Click to expand...

Thankyou for that, that was the answer I was after. :) I was wondering, what makes you say that (bk)-mbdb has primary monoamine uptake inhibition rather than monoamine releaser action? Also would this inhibition action be the case over the SE, DA and NE systems?
 
Can anyone offer some insight into why bk-mbdb is strong stimulant, compared to say mbdb alone? Also would NE activity potentate any neurotoxic effects?
Click to expand...

Amphetamines notice a large drop in potency when the propyl chain is replaced by a butyl.

Cathinones on the other hand gain potency and seem to cause heavy periphery effects. BK-MBDB and butanone both really raise heart rate etc.

So BK-MBDB would have little to no SE effects in my opinion as beta ketones have far less SE affinity than their amp cousins, the butanone skeleton means the E/NE effects are high at a low dose, meaning you never get anywhere near an SE effecting dose without heart failure.

The best cathinone analogues are the beta keto versions of very high affinity SE releasing amps, i.e. 4 methylmethamphetamine, 4 methoxymethamphetamine, BK-IMAP ...
 
^ Having tried 4-methylmethcathinone, my experience tells me that bk-mbdb has higher SE activity, but lacks the strong dopamine activity of 4-MMC. Also wouldn't 4-methoxymethcathinone be potentially dangerous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top