• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto

Molly vs X pills?

well as long as youve already made your ruling, ill cease paraphrasing Dr. Shulgin on any mdxx related subjects. and yes i agree, it defies all logic, which the human brain chemistry has repeatedly been proven to do. im smart enough to know that im NOT smart enough to refute alex shulgin. imho, Dr Shulgins educated opinion>Folleys rationale. but that just me.....thats me.
 
and dr shulgin > bluelight mods as well :P i think he has a little more experience on the subject. im sure he doesnt even quite understand it, but he obviously has a reason for suggesting this. shulgin stated that ppl will completely stop getting effects from mdma after a while(a week or so), then they eat mda instead and theyre rolling balls all of a sudden. what, is he lying when he says this? ya it makes no sense, but it still happens. the brain is far more complicated than you or i could ever begin to understand.
 
Shulgin is not a scientist, he's a chemist. He's was not educated on how MDMA effects neurochemicals, he just knows how to make them and makes guesses on the rest of it like we all do

I'm sure if he had the same information we have now, he would not have made that statement.


shulgin stated that ppl will completely stop getting effects from mdma after a while(a week or so), then they eat mda instead and theyre rolling balls all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification of what he said, but that's not exactly a scientific study. That's just him giving some dude MDMA for a week, then giving him MDA and he got high on it. It's pretty easily explained, MDA releases a lot more dopamine than MDMA does, but is still mostly serotonergic. So you might still get high on the MDA, but that's probably just the dopamine, and if you would have waited for your serotonin to replenish you would have a WAY better high.


ill cease paraphrasing Dr. Shulgin on any mdxx related subjects.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, friend. I simply corrected one of his statements that is widely circulated, but that is completely wrong... at least from an HR stand point. It's been discussed many times before, and many smarter people than myself have said the same things I have. I'm not taking a shot at you, I'm just trying to correct a statement that can get someone in trouble
 
There was another thread about this very thing.

Where is all this Shulgin information??

I have looked through PIHKAL and also future drugs I dont see anything?

Here are some of his books feel free to look through and find these refeences because without them the whole Shulgin thing is a bit speculative.

http://www.4shared.com/folder/nM4gT-vL/General_Synthesis.html

He is a chemist and not a neuroscientist as a result I think his opinion on the matter should be treated as an educated opinion but not a professional opinion.

Just because he has a doctorate in Chemistry it doesnt make him a doctor of neuroscience.

The likes of Professor David Nutt from UK doing current studies on this topic I feel is a lot more relevant.

Whilst were on the topic of Neuroscience here are all my latest books:

http://www.4shared.com/folder/HgxxoNqT/Neuroscience.html
 
and none of us are neuroscientists either, let alone chemists who have researched this class of chemicals and how they affect people. i realize he didnt do any studies proving a lack of cross tolerance, and i know that its not his main area of expertise. i know there is no proof anywhere. but i will take his word over anyones on the subject because he has researched this subject more than most scientists, whatever their feild is. period. that may be dumb to take the word of one person as ironclad fact(even einstein got it wrong the first time) but thats what i choose to do. and at futura, now im on a mission to find the quotes that i read, but i have a feeling that if you cant find it, i wont be able to either.
 
^^ hello faced, ive only had a brief look. Im not saying its not there. Browse through that lot if you get a minute.

That version of TIHKAL wont tell you shit as its the online version. I doubt it will be in TIHKAL as MDMA is the wrong class of drug for that book but you never know.

I will try and source the book scan version which has the story section at the front. The online version only has the drug write ups.

I have his lab notes as well I will add those to that 4shared link.

Would be good to establish exactly what he does say.

I am also confused by Shulgin as we dont know for sure what he means in his dosing quotes. We have assumed HCL but it might be just the MDMA molecule dose. At this moment it is only educated guess work.

Shulgins Lab Notes now added to that link. I suspect Lab Notes 1 might reveal something in the MDMA notes.

Im not sure he is the man for the complete run down on dosing advice / duration with MDMA. However, definitely a road we should cover as this Shulgin thing keeps getting quoted and I dont know where its from.

I will chime again once I have tracked down the book version of TIHKAL.
 
Last edited:
facedbeyond82 said:
and none of us are neuroscientists either, let alone chemists who have researched this class of chemicals and how they affect people. i realize he didnt do any studies proving a lack of cross tolerance, and i know that its not his main area of expertise. i know there is no proof anywhere. but i will take his word over anyones on the subject because he has researched this subject more than most scientists, whatever their feild is. period. that may be dumb to take the word of one person as ironclad fact(even einstein got it wrong the first time) but thats what i choose to do. and at futura, now im on a mission to find the quotes that i read, but i have a feeling that if you cant find it, i wont be able to either.
Click to expand...

I never said you had to believe my word over Shulgin's, I just asked you not to repeat that quote any more...

In the wrong context it could get someone hurt. Especially in the way you were implying, saying that you can take MDA after an MDMA and be perfectly fine and get the full effects from the drug.... that's simply not true, and since MDA is even more neurotoxic than MDMA, can be dangerous.



and nothing Sasha has done has made him an expert on neuroscience, it's an extremely complex field that takes many, many years of solid research to master. He may know a lot about chemistry, in fact he may be one of the bests chemists alive, but again, that doesn't qualify him to be making any kind of claim like the one you mentioned. ESPECIALLY when he has almost no evidence to support it, and I have plenty to refute it


Again, I'm sure if he was a part of this discussion now he would take back what he said... or at least amend it a little.
 
Well from a harm reduction standpoint it really was stupid of me to say that. but i look at it like this, some drugs just work, despite all logic. look at buprenorphine, its an opiate that is weaker(partial-agonist) than heroin(full agonist), but when ingested while already on heroin, it will make you sick depsite it being another fairly strong opiate. all logic would tell us that if we are on a large dose of an opiate like heroin, and then take another large dose of any opiate, we would get higher right? but thats not the case at all. you go into immediate withdrawal and ppl make that mistake all the time since simple logic would tell you its just another opiate like dope. it CAN be explained quite easily if you understand buprenorphines' binding properties strength over other full agonists binding properties, but all simple people like us would NEVER believe it to be possible. i heard it many times, "how can i possibly be LESS high if i take MORE opiates now, thats complete bullshit bro"..... but i always tell them, ya it makes little sense to our simple minds, but yet it is a fact. my point was basically that you shouldnt just assume that something as complex as the human brain will always react in a way that "makes sense" to us. because it simple does not. neuro-pharmacology is not an exact science and a little research(which is obviously your strong point folley) would reveal this to you. hundreds of drugs have been created by complete accident and take years of clinical trials to be released simply because the brain is such a complicated machine and we cant just rely on what seems logical..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top