I don't follow the RC scene and I don't visit all threads on ketamine analogues, that'd be really time-consuming. I had this one subscribed. I don't know exact problems stuff from vendors present. I haven't seen spectroscopy work on "NENK", so I haven't analysed it either (and I'm not good at it which I posted about earlier). I don't follow the N-ethylnorketamine thread. As for suggested impurities present in the product, it's a purely theoretical explanation for the product causing effects different from those of the compound supposed to be there. "One carbon difference" may yield a compound with substantially different pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics, e.g. morphine vs. codeine and in the arylcyclohexylamines series - enlarge the cyclohexyl ring and you end up with something very weak comparatively, add one methyl group at position 2 or 4 in the cyclohexyl ring and the result is opposite. Thus, one carbon can make a difference.
I don't find myself in a position to comment on everything betting my life, I'm well aware that there are much more knowledgeable people here having an access to a lab any time they want. If some line in my post reads "was done", it doesn't mean I did it by myself, e.g. no spectroscopy work was done by me, it takes a lot of time and practice to master this branch of science. Anyway, if I desperately wanted to prove myself right, I guess I would have to violate the terms of agreement I ticked registering here and violate law, releasing materials just like that without essential papers. And it doesn't necessarily concern sharing syntheses patterns used per se but the university rights. There are many students here and many graduates, and I believe the law in the UK or in the US doesn't differ much in this aspect from the law in Poland. Students can't publish anything by themselves, they need an advisor who has a degree in concrete field of science higher than Master of Science. I have posted I'm no longer a student of chemistry and I don't study at my old university either any more. Gaining various permissions and posting content violating BL rules somewhere else simply isn't worth the trouble to embarrass some people (I'm currently preoccupied with something needing as much devotion as chemistry needs). It's not important for me to be recognised here as a superbly talented chemist or whatever. I've never considered my works to be special and I don't feel a need to boost my ego because I feel underestimated. I've never posted here or on forums on chemistry to gain popularity. I can take criticism but offence isn't a part of constructive criticism. Everyone has a right to disagree with me, but I don't think showing disagreement needs additional titles as "some young kid", which was definitely used in a pejorative way (I am young but I'm not a child or teenager either), or "bullshit".
edit:
"I haven't seen spectroscopy work on "NENK", so I haven't analysed it either" that goes to: "I hadn't seen it by then, so I haven't analysed it". The image didn't load before I hit "Post Reply". Still, I would have to pass it to my colleague and discuss it with him to give you my honest opinion sounding like I know what I'm writing about.