• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Professor Nutt's magic jizz (Sentia)

Nutt knows FULL WELL that the alcohol industry will ensure IF a synthetic replaces ethanol, it's a synthetic they own the patents to. But as long as people keep on buying shares, he and the other David (Nutt's personal cheerleader) are certainly making a huge profit.

Knew the man - epistemic trespasser.

That total believe that because he had domain expertise in one field, he was automatically an expert in all. He loves the whole fame thing. I would hate it. The product SHOULD speak for itself.

But cynically 'researching' synthetics that will NEVER EVER provide a return to investors would be soul destroying. Promising something you know to be a lie.

BTW GABA Labs LTD applied for a patent in 2017 (which ceased), one in 2024 (which ceased) and another in 2025 which if the pattern holds, will also cease. The point is that there is an 18 month 'secrecy' period in which the text of the application isn't available. But since they have NEVER revealed a patent by simply ceasing to pay for the documents to be examined, who knows? Could just be one page? But it does mean that investors can be told that there IS a patent application... that they can't read to see if it adds up.

I'm just glad we didn't sell him our second tranche (tranche 1 was pyrazolam, pynazolam and pyyezolam). The last emulated 'drunk' perfectly, just not 'two glasses of wine' but we now know why and have a single candidate that binds to ALL of the α5 subunits (tranche one only bound at the α5β1γ2). Alcohol is more subtle than we thought and one ligand that binds to all three α5 units was an interesting challange.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
Nutt knows FULL WELL that the alcohol industry will ensure IF a synthetic replaces ethanol, it's a synthetic they own the patents to. But as long as people keep on buying shares, he and the other David (Nutt's personal cheerleader) are certainly making a huge profit.

Knew the man - epistemic trespasser.

That total believe that because he had domain expertise in one field, he was automatically an expert in all. He loves the whole fame thing. I would hate it. The product SHOULD speak for itself.

But cynically 'researching' synthetics that will NEVER EVER provide a return to investors would be soul destroying. Promising something you knot to be a lie.

BTW GABA Labs LTD applied for a patent in 2017 (which ceased), one in 2024 (which ceased) and another in 2025 which if the pattern holds, will also cease. The point is that there is an 18 month 'secrecy' period in which the text of the application isn't available. But since they have NEVER revealed a patent by simply ceasing to pay for the documents to be examined, who knows? Could just be one page? But it does mean that investors can be told that there IS a patent application... that they can't read to see if it adds up.

I'm just glad we didn't sell him our second tranche (tranche 1 was pyrazolam, pynazolam and pyyezolam). The last emulated 'drunk' perfectly, just not 'two glasses of wine' but we now know why and have a single candidate that binds to ALL of the α5 subunits (tranche one only bound at the α5β1γ2). Alcohol is more subtle than we thought and one ligand that binds to all three α5 units was an interesting challange.
Click to expand...
So your holding the tranches?? Why don't you make synthetic alcohol, or sell it to nutt or something who else who will make it?
 
new2drugs said:
So your holding the tranches?? Why don't you make synthetic alcohol, or sell it to nutt or something who else who will make it?
Click to expand...

As I pointed out - the alcohol industry is huge and already has the infrastructure (including payments of duty and taxation where it applies) so IF a synthetic replaces ethanol - they will use one they hold the patent on. They understand how retailers are licenced to sell intoxicating drinks, what robust legal systems need to be understood and addressed at every step.

Because one assumes that like alcohol, sales to under 18s or sale to people who are obviously inebriated means retailers have to understand THEIR legal position and only the alcohol industry can do that.

Our only advantages are in having got pyeyzolam tested with a decent cohort size, issues were addressed and ONE ligand acts on three sites. So if others need 2 or 3 ligands in the mix to make them 'alcohol-like', that's a huge extra cost.

We did think about it quite a lot. If it seems a major alcohol multinational signals their intent, THEN we may submit our ligand and it may be cheaper than their 2 or 3 ligand solution (because all three components have to undergo toxicity testing). But it's a big IF.

I mean, a synthetic drug has NEVER gone through a process to become legal. There is nobody to look at and see what they did right and what they did wrong. Designing ligand, done. Pilot scaling to 10Kg, done. But if that's 30mg in a 330mL can of cola (or whatever), you need to test the safety and stability of that. Do you see the issue here. If we had the money and the support and started tomorrow - on the shelves by 2034-2036 at best.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top