The Big and Dandy NBOMe-2C-C (25C-NBOMe) Thread

[atara]

Huh. Is this with the freebase or the hydrochloride? I have some lecithin and am willing to give it a go, but I'm not sure what to do...

 

[skillet]

Interesting! That's more like the sort of dose range I'd expect given its (presumed) affinity. These compounds are pretty lipophilic so I guess it significantly improves bioavailability.

I'm also guessing that the higher potency of the chloro analog over the bromo and iodo compounds is (at least partly) due to its lower lipophilicity, so I'd be very careful trying this with the other compounds, they could well be potentiated even more.

 

[Solipsis]

Sounds like a pretty advanced idea, next up: administration in fullerene agents :D

 

[atara]

Wouldn't that mean the trifluoro- compound would be more potent due to the polarity of the CF3- substituent?

 

[skillet]

I dunno, but with CF3 the cLogP comes out at 4.63 compared to 4.45 for I...

Edit: But log P (also calculated with chemdraw) goes the other way, with I being more lipophilic. And obviously affinity still come into it.

 

[bluffythefluffy]

Thanks so much ebola? and nuke.

That's really valuable information.

When I said later dosing I meant about a week - but it does seem like these substances could have pretty serious tolerance issues.

 

[Erny]

Any idea on the longevity of this compound when in alcohol and/or water solution?

Asking because there are some reports of vastly diminished effects upon later dosing as confirmed by other first time users.

I would bet the issue was the fickle nature of sublingual administration, but it could be due to degradation.

Besides the structure of the chemical there are other things to affect it. Shelf life of each individual batch of any chemical depends on its purity. A purer batch lasts longer than the inpure one. The difference between them might be years for the pure batch against weeks for the impurest.

At the same time the nature of the impurities is more important than their percentage. If the impurities are solvents, by-products and reactants from the reaction medium itself, they might destroy the batch quite quickly. A seemingly pure batch made by one synthetic route and containing reactive (towards the main chemical) by-products may decompose sooner than a seemingly less pure made via another route. Such reactive impurities only become hostile in a liquid media, be it residual amounts of some solvents a solid product holds, a solution, or the crystals that tend to adsorb moisture from the air rather rapidly. The hygroscopicity of the chemical in solid form should thus be taken into consideration as well.


It is not always possible to deduce how long somebody might be able to store the chemical he has there, without even seeing it.


Returning to the ontopic, PEAs having N-2-MeO benzyl on the amino nitrogen seem to have a shelf life that is almost as good or even exactly as good as regular PIHKAL PEAs. The latter, when stored in a solid form, don't loose potency for years, some decrease might be noticed after 5+ years of storage. Anything as stable as theese simple structures having no weak places in their molecules, if the batch they are from was pure enougth, should probably last for months or even years with no substantial decomposition, when in solution.

When I said later dosing I meant about a week - but it does seem like these substances could have pretty serious tolerance issues.

The issues is actually their strong and long lasting tolerance to themselves and other NBOMes. There was a rumour some time ago that their cross-tolerance with other psychedelics like simple PEAs may actually be diminished. The person I heard that from made such conclusion based on a single experience of 4 people that were tripping together on NBOMe-2C-I and took 2C-B the next day. With some NBOMe, a strong dose taken the next day after the same or any other NBOMe is almost ineffective and produce very light effects.

But this rumor on the cross-tolerance issue was not confirmed by others to take it seriously, and remains to be elucidated.

One should normally wait at least two weeks before the next trip, but longer pauses are more preferable, for, when they are taken too often, they loose almost all of their magic.

Even the NBOMe-DOXs appear plenty potent enough to be just dandy (though less potent than the 'parent compounds', by an order of magnitude according to some reports).

I don't think so. This compound, NBOMe-DOB, is both very weak and unpleasant. It even produce almost no usual visual phenomena of psychedelic phenylethylamines. Feels like being just stoned for a time without any use. The thing brings in some sensoric noize, blurs the vision, makes you feel like having flu (though not as awful as TMA-2 or 6 may feel), and goes away after several hours of such disgrace. The intensity of it's effects remain at plus 1 by the Shulgin scale no matter how much of it was ingested. 30 mg don't differ much in potency from 20 mg, or from 5 mg, increasing the dosage does almost nothing.

Theese peculiarities may possibly be related to another parameter describing interaction of the ligand with the receptor, the intrinsic activity. NBOMe-DOB has it somewhere around 20%, at the border between partial agonists and antagonists. NBOMe-2C-X intrinsic activity is normally as high as 70-80%, like that of DOX or some potent tryptamines. NBOMe-2C-I has the lowest of those that had been measured, 60+% if I remember it correctly. The numbers are available in Ralf Heim's work.

I'm also guessing that the higher potency of the chloro analog over the bromo and iodo compounds is (at least partly) due to its lower lipophilicity, so I'd be very careful trying this with the other compounds, they could well be potentiated even more.

The reversed order of potency of 2C-Hal-NBOMe should be viewed from a slightly different perspective to understand it. More lipophylic structures travel through the body and accumulate in the brain slower, than those that are less lipophylic. If we compare the amount of time between the intake and the peak seen in different NBOMe-2C-Hal, 3 hours for iodine and no more than 40 minutes for chlorine, it appears that they should actually be almost equipotent. The less hydrophobic NBOMe-2C-C reaches peak brain levels faster and thus seem like being more potent, NBOMe-2C-I travels through the body way slower and seem as if it is less potent.

And there were several people who claimed that in their personal experience with NBOMe-2C-I, B and C all the three were roughly equipotent.

N-2-MeO-benzyl moiety in their molecules seem to influence their affinity more than substituents in the 2,5-dimethoxy-X-phenyl part. So, the presence of this moiety levels their potency, no matter what is on the 2,5-dimethoxyphenyl side of their molecules. Related structures from PIHKAL differ from each other much, much more in their potencies, if compared with those bearing 2-methoxy benzyl.

 

[skillet]

Theese peculiarities may possibly be related to another parameter describing interaction of the ligand with the receptor, the intrinsic activity. NBOMe-DOB has it somewhere around 20%, at the border between partial agonists and antagonists. NBOMe-2C-X intrinsic activity is normally as high as 70-80%, like that of DOX or some potent tryptamines. NBOMe-2C-I has the lowest of those that had been measured, 60+% if I remember it correctly. The numbers are available in Ralf Heim's work.

The numbers for IA of the NBOMe's and NBOH's in Heim's thesis are all rather low, all around 30-40%.

The reversed order of potency of 2C-Hal-NBOMe should be viewed from a slightly different perspective to understand it. More lipophylic structures travel through the body and accumulate in the brain slower, than those that are less lipophylic. If we compare the amount of time between the intake and the peak seen in different NBOMe-2C-Hal, 3 hours for iodine and no more than 40 minutes for chlorine, it appears that they should actually be almost equipotent. The less hydrophobic NBOMe-2C-C reaches peak brain levels faster and thus seem like being more potent, NBOMe-2C-I travels through the body way slower and seem as if it is less potent.

Exactly, I guess it's a combination of rate of absorption and rate of accumulation in the brain. Co-administration with a surfactant should only affect the rate of absorption.

Edit: Do you know anything about effective dose ranges of the NBOH's?

 

[bluffythefluffy]

Many thanks Erny.

Hopefully the labs that made these didn't leave anything detrimental in them, as solutions have many obvious benefits for handling and administration.

 

[MattPsy]

Huh. Is this with the freebase or the hydrochloride? I have some lecithin and am willing to give it a go, but I'm not sure what to do...

Both forms work.

The freebase works maginally better, but it is hard to get it to a fine enough powder that it dissolves in a short time, as it is somewhat waxy to oily in texture - it will be hard to get lots of surface area exposed. For this reason the HCl salt is probably a better choice.
Also I should say that it was polysorbate 80 (aka Tween 80) that was trialled, however lecithin will probably work too, and other nonionic surfactants for that matter like Triton X-100. Tween 80 is traditional among bioscience, proven safe, hence it being the first choice. It is commonly used to formulate parenteral forms of water-insoluble drugs.

Also I doubt anything detrimental will be in the product; whether this is the case should be easy to test, simply from the potency of the material. If your doses are +/- 20% of what is to be expected, hell even 50%, then you know at worst you will be getting 20/50% of your total dose mass as impurities; considering the potency of the material, then, the impurities would have to be extremely toxic/active to be detrimental in such quantities. 2-methoxybenzaldehyde and 2C-C (two possible impurities) are not toxic. Neither are any of the reducing agents possibly used in the synthesis, in the micrograms or even low milligrams at least.

skillet: Yeah surfactants should really only affect the absorbtion rate as you say, except notably in the case of parenteral use (IV), where drug-micelle complexes may reach the BBB intact and possibly as a result a much faster and more complete membrane transport.

 

[bluffythefluffy]

To clarify, I meant detrimental to the longevity of the compound specifically, rather than to the health/experience of the user.

Absorption rate could have a pretty dramatic impact on effects though, right?

 

[MattPsy]

Yep. But unless that impurity was a CATALYST (ie. degrading/changing the drug, but not being consumed itself), it will only be able to degrade the same number of moles (molecules) of drug as there is impurity substance, leading to at worst the same % of drug being degraded as there was impurity (assuming a 1:1 reaction).

And yes definitely absorption could have a very powerful effect on effects experienced. I think a lot of the potency reduction we're seeing with NBOMe-2C-I vs NBOMe-2C-C, for example, is as a result of tolerance being built up WHILE the drug is still absorbing. NBOMe-2C-I takes a long time to be transported to the brain, so long that I theroise that tolerance builds up over that time period of only a hour or two so it seems less potent when it finally peaks. NBOMe-2C-C has a similar effect, sayif you have say 50% of your dose, and then the other 50% an hour later, you do not seem to get the full effect of the combined doses - actually, you only seem to get say about 65% of the intensity, but the duration is lengthened.
Same with smoking NBOMe-2C-C versus insufflating it. The boost in potency seems increased over that of simple bioavailability increase (ie. absorption), the effects are stronger too. All of this can be related back to rate of comeup.

 

[any major dude]

this is my favorite thread on BL right now

What were your dosages for smoked (or vaporised) 25C-nBOMe, MattPsy? Any difference in duration from other ROA's?

So is the decrease in subjective effects a likely result of rapid receptor down regulation due to the very high (5-HT2a at least) affinity? There seems to be somewhat similar occurrences with LSD, but they seem to be much less pronounced. Any other possibilities?

 

[MattPsy]

Oh, I should probably confirm the dosages involved, since this stuff is about to hit primetime it would seem, for better or for worse (probably worse, people can't seem to use the existing 2Cxs and DOxs responsibly!) ...
Insufflated: threshold ~ 100ug, +2 @ 250ug, +3 @ >400ug
Vapourised, as HCl salt (freebase sometimes shows signs of decomposition if vapourising): threshold ~ 30ug, +2 @ 50ug, +3 @ 150ug. Reduced duration. Favourite method for author.
Oral: no appreciable activity past 1mg, 'ceiling' level is reached, probably pharmacokinetic in origin.

Repeated dosing past the 1hr mark seems to only increase duration and return intensity to first dose levels, not beyond, probably a function of very rapid receptor downregulation.

As earlier in this thread.
Yup, downregulation. Nothing else seems to be able to fully account for the subtleties of the phenomenon. Perhaps downregulation specific to one mode of receptor functional signalling, to account for why it is more pronounced than with LSD et al..

When smoked the duration is about 2 hours less IME, come up is very rapid, peaking within 5 minutes. Be very careful doing this. Don't even think about doing this without a microgram scale. It is however very awesome.

 

[love_sex_desire]

^ A friend vaporised some 25C and it sounds like vaporised doses of 25C-NBOMe are in the same range or slightly lower than other routes (under a mg) and lasts about an hour, with strong euphoria. I'm going to try this compound soon and I am contemplating whether to jump right into vaping, or trying the finnicky sublingual route or the possibly painful insufflated route. It sounds like vaporised is better than sublingual or insufflation, if you can trust yourself enough to dispense an accurate amount onto some aluminum foil! If you have a very accurate sinlg emg scale maybe weigh 5 mg and split it up into five single mg piles and then further split each single mg pile into ten 100 ug piles for each, though that obviously wont be very accurate.

 

[MattPsy]

Using foil will be hopelessly inaccurate, you'll get much different efficiencies depending on technique. Use a glass pipe if you're going to do it at all. If you can afford to get some of the most exotic psychedelics in the world, you can also afford to use it in a proper, repeatable way.

Also, it lasts for more like 5-6 hours IME, as has been the experience of some other 10 friends of mine, 1 hour does not sound right at all...

Like I said if you don't have a microgram (I use one accurate to 10 mics, which is good enough, to 100 wouldn't be...) scale just don't do it at all. People will die if they do this, I almost guarantee it. And then this compound will be scheduled like all the other ones.

I'm not sure you realize just how small 100 micrograms looks like. It's TINY, almost not visible. You CAN'T cut up a 1mg pile into 10. People couldn't do that with DOx (and that was 10mg piles into single mgs), they got their arses handed to them on a silver platter, so what do you reckon the chances are like for something more like 10 times as difficult?

 

[any major dude]

i was thinking liquid measurement then evaporation for the vaporisation route, if i do it at all, gonna try sublingual first. I've also got an excellent apparatus that i've been using for vaping single digit mg quantities of cannabinoids. its basically a glass hookah tip (used as a bulb) attached to a piece of surgical tubing & a small bit of glass tubing for a mouthpiece. I've got a proper base pipe, but found this much more effective for smoking small quantities of things.

 

[skillet]

It should be possible to dissolve at least 20mg per mL of isopropanol, in other words, too much to measure such a small dose accurately. Another thing to keep in mind if vapourising - the potential for a relatively large amount of practically invisible residue to build up. If you use a pipe it's probably best to clean it every time, foil - use a fresh piece.

 

[any major dude]

for safety's sake i'd dilute it to near homeopathic proportions. Something like 200µg/mL. That way 0.5mL =~1 vaporised dose. Still unsure as to whether i'm going to do it though. Had planned to test sublingual dosage out this weekend, but i've had a bit of an upper respiratory infection that's prevented me from doing so. Definitely going to try that ROA first

 

[MattPsy]

It doesn't dissolve very well in IPA as the HCl salt, nor acetone, certainly not anywhere near as much as 20mg/mL... Even 4mg will not dissolve in 1mL of warm IPA. The freebase dissolves okay in IPA, sorry, I don't remember the figures from the rough experiments, only that it works far better.