THCified
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,307
Nothing against china, just possible the nose bleeds are due to a bad batch.
OMG!
Seems like there's nothing new about Nek, he?
Nothing against china, just possible the nose bleeds are due to a bad batch.
11 pages of people saying "I took more and more and nothing happened, I got a nose bleed though" compared to, say for example, the MXE mega threads of delusional ranting by people who are trashed off their faces.
I had a quick look in the entry for ketamine on wikipedia, and the efficiacy of different ROAs is as follows...
"93% intramuscularly, 25-50% intranasally, 30% sublingually, and 30% rectally"
so you are right that aside from IM, nasally looks the next best option. However as sublingual isnt far behind, at least where ketamine is concerned I at least expected to get something. Oh well....
Sentence of the week :D :Din the end i found that by drilling a hole in the top of my head and pouring in the whole baggy and using a finger (or two, hell next time i will just fist my brain) i experienced a slight lift in mood with some minor visual disturbances.
People who are aiming for a wonk rather than a hole, or those with no tolerance, might find this drug satisfactory, if they take it in such a way that avoids nasal damage - and this seems to be entirely possible. And it may be useful in combo.
Sorry for the late reply.. No excuse for this delay except I'm totally
swamped at the moment, combined with bemusement upon being advised by a
couple of customers that the integrity (and therefore my integrity?) of
the material I'm selling is being questioned in scientific circles.
Thus I'm sort of guessing this is the motivation of your enquiry, to try
to get to the bottom of this speculation?
Well it's maybe an understandable concern given the number of idiot
vendors about, but really I'm not a mug, I spend a few grand a month
just on independent testing and I'm *super* careful - this material is
as stated and of good purity.
Bottom line is I'm reluctant to risk putting into the public domain (i.e
issuing to random people asking) high-res unwatermarked analytical data
because typically the said idiot vendors will nick the docs to help
faciliate them defrauding researchers by pretending they have good
quality & genuine material that is represented by the nicked data.
Trust is built over years...e.g:
Was my 3-MeO-PCE ever not as described?
Was my ODT ever not as described?
Did any other chemical suppliers even manage to obtain these rare chemicals?
So you think I'd now drop the ball and sell N-EK not as described? No
chance.
I'm sure there is lots of "N-EK" being sold that isnt as described, but
not at ***.
Wow, I can't believe people keep ordering and trying this stuff. It seems very clear from this thread that what people are getting is NOT n-ethyl-norketamine. It's most likely a bad synthesis. Everyone should look up Adder's thread, when he made a bunch of different arylcyclohexylamine analogs and tested them. I have much more faith that he synthesized them correctly, than some shady vendor. He reported that it was more potent than Ketamine, which makes sense looking at the rest of the SAR.
Reports of bleeding noses for days!? Kidney ache and can't seem to pee? Something is definitely wrong here. I bet when the first GCMS comes in, it turns out it's a bad synth with a bunch of unreacted precursors or something. Buyer beware...
sorry, but I can not follow your argumentation. what makes it so "very clear"?It seems very clear from this thread that what people are getting is NOT n-ethyl-norketamine.
I strongly disagree here. I have much more faith in one of the most reliable RC vendors of all times than in Adder's thread. Adder also claimed that 2-Meo-Ketamine was about the same potency as ketamine, which turned out to be wrong.Everyone should look up Adder's thread, when he made a bunch of different arylcyclohexylamine analogs and tested them. I have much more faith that he synthesized them correctly, than some shady vendor.
theoretical SAR extrapolation is not an exact science, it's more educated guessing, and the final proof is in the experiment. that's what is called the scientific method.He reported that it was more potent than Ketamine, which makes sense looking at the rest of the SAR.
sorry, but I can not follow your argumentation. what makes it so "very clear"?
I strongly disagree here. I have much more faith in one of the most reliable RC vendors of all times than in Adder's thread. Adder also claimed that 2-Meo-Ketamine was about the same potency as ketamine, which turned out to be wrong.
theoretical SAR extrapolation is not an exact science, it's more educated guessing, and the final proof is in the experiment. that's what is called the scientific method.
I noticed while reading through the thread, that you seemed to have a more expected experience than most people on here. Possibly the stuff you're getting is better quality. When you read some of these posts, I maintain it does seem very clear that there is something wrong with some people's "N-Ethyl-Norketamine". I guess it's possible that lengthening one chain from a methyl to an ethyl could cause mega nose bleeds, problems peeing (to be fair, not exclusive to n-ethyl-norketamine), big drop in potency, but it just doesn't make sense. Why would it become super caustic to the nose when nothing else with a similar chemical structure is? It doesn't follow pcm -> pce, MXE, etc, either. Also, people (e.g. Nicklazz) mentioning 200mg doses without much disassociation, no tolerance at all?
You're right, the final proof is in the experiment, but a bunch of people using a chemical they randomly sourced with no data on it's purity other than a guy saying "it's good, trust me" isn't "the scientific method".
Don't get me wrong, I've mused on this exact chemical for years, hoping to try it some day. It just doesn't seem right to me.