Gaian Planes said:
are you sure you didn't mix up samples?
I really don't see how you could find what you found. I think it takes longer because the 4-aco-DMT breaks down into 4-HO-DMT in the body and then crosses the BBB (the difference in effects are a result of the difference in absorption rates).
4-HO-DMT hits within 10 minutes, 4-aco-DMT takes 15-20 and the onset is much more gentle/easy. The onset of 4-HO-DMT is really close to flipping a switch (closest to on/off that I've seen with a chemical that is taken orally).
I am quite positive I didn't mix up the samples, yes. And I still believe it is just a theory that a 4-AcO-T breaks down into its corresponding 4-HO-T in the body before it crosses the BBB. Is there any proof that the acetoxy cannot cross the BBB itself? And is there any proof that it
does convert in the
human body? I see two possibilities based on the variation that I and, I seem to recall, at least 1 or 2 others here have experienced from what seems to be the normal set of effects of 4-AcO-DMT in the majority of users:
1 - 4-AcO-DMT (and thus probably any acetoxy ester of a tryptamine) is able to cross the BBB to some extent, and the extent to which it is able depends on an individual's neurochemistry/BBB permeability, and as it sits in the system it converts to the hydroxy at a rate dependent upon the individual. For some people, maybe their BBB won't let it cross at all and it converts slowly into 4-HO-DMT, which is why some people find it almost just like psilocin but slower. For some/most people, perhaps only a little can cross and most is coverted to the hydroxy, which is why most people seem to find its character different from psilocin but still quite close. And then for some, like me, it is able to cross fairly readily so not much would be converted to the hydroxy, and the effects are quite different from those of psilocin. (I find it only passingly similar to psilocin or mushrooms and quite a lot like DMT, although definitely not the same. But it has the same flavor of effects and state of mind to me, and even visual style).
Or
2 - 4-AcO-DMT does not in fact convert
in vivo to 4-HO-DMT at all, and it can cross the BBB, but the rate at which it does varies pretty widely. As you know, the volume and speed at which a chemical crosses the BBB can have a profound affect on its subjective effects - think of the difference that snorting vs oral vs IM vs IV can have. There are certainly chemicals in existence that seem to have very different effects between individuals even when taken by the same route of administration... it seems well within the realm of possibility that 4-AcO-DMT and maybe others like it could behave in that way as well.
Or perhaps a third option is true, that it is something between these two.
In any case, I cannot consider my reaction to be a fluke or a faulty observation (like if I had tried each once or twice and gotten different trips and decided what I did). I fully realize that each trip is different. But as you know, when you have many trips under your belt and have tried a substance quite a few times in various circumstances with the intention of making observations as honestly as possible, and you are experienced with psychedelics to the point that you are able to maintain a solid observer state in your mind, you can take note of the aspects of the trip that remain consistent throughout all trials for you. This is especially true of concrete, quantifiable observations such as time of onsert, character of body buzzing, colors and shapes seen, etc. Because of these observations of mine, and because as far as I know, there is no proof that the 4-AcO cannot cross the human BBB or that it necessarily breaks down in the human body, I absolutely believe that there is more going on with 4-AcO-DMT (and indeed the other acetoxy esters I've tried, but most notably this one) than what you assert.
If you have proof or evidence of one or both of those theories (inability to cross the BBB and conversion to 4-HO-DMT), I would love for you to link me to it because I would then have to take that into consideration. But I have never seen such evidence... I have only ever known it as the prevailing theory.
But it's never a good idea, I don't think, to discount or deny the experiences of others unless you feel they have misrepresented their own exprience or do not have a broad enough base of expriences to make any generalizations from.