Lysergamides The Big & Dandy Non-LSD Ergoloids Blotter Thread

[amanitadine]

^ Dude read the post that started this thread. What that was tested and found to NOT be LSD but a close cousin was VERY widely distributed and heavily promoted as "real LSD" but it was in fact NOT. So there goes your theory.

Just the tip of the iceberg. Dont you think chemistry makes progress in 50 years? What reason is there to religiously believe that there must be one and only one psychedelic molecule that is similar to LSD? THAT viewpoint is what seems illogical and sentimental if you ask me.

We've proven we can run in circles here, but the analtyical results that started this thread are inconclusive, maybe not even an ergoloid, and are as far I know are the only example of "non-LSD LSD" amongst the thousands and thousands that are analyzed as indeed being LSD. And I don't think it is to "religiously believe". In fact it quite the opposite. It is looking at the available facts, not some "feeling" that this LSD is weird. This point has been made repeatedly in this thread by many people, and as it stands I have to agree, until some actual statistically significant quantifiable evidence shows up. If there is all these other ergoloids outh there, how do none of em ever show up in the gazzilions of samples anazlyzed? (except for one time, apparently). Is it some sort of conspiracy?

Cheers

 

[DwayneHoover]

^"gazzilions" of samples analyzed? Where you getting that number, bud? By what methodologies? What were the controls? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific research publications? I think you are making quite a big assumption about all these countless samples that have been 100% conclusively analyzed. Sounds like urban legend to me. I would guess perhaps a few thousand samples analyzed out of millions of distributed hits. So that's a totally scattershot random input sample, subject to many biases, result of unscientific unreviewed unscientifically valid "results" that doesnt really let you draw any proper statistical conclusions. I bet the "unknown" ones you just never hear about, because, well, there's nothing to report.


Most of the time law enforcement and even "drug ID services" are looking for a short list of "known drugs of abuse". If a field test using reagents tests positive for LSD they say it is LSD, even though somewhere in this thread it is reported that in fact the reagent commonly used for quick LSD field tests CROSS-REACTS with ALL ergoloids. So alot of those may in fact have been non-lsd.

Also, my guess is that if a GC/MS is done and it comes back CLOSE to LSD's peak then many groups will just say "Oh well it must be LSD then" and report is as such. They will NOT spend alot of time doing investigative work to figure out what that slightly off not-quite-right-but-close peak really is... knowing human nature they will make the easiest possible presumption and make an announcement that puts feathers in their cap that it was that evil evil LSD.

 

[Shambles]

So why is the one ("inconclusive") GC/MS test result definitely accurate and every single other one ever seen not accurate then? As mentioned many times already - proper drug ID services give you the complete details of what is on your tab right down to the mcg dosage. Just cos you don't seem to have easy access to such services in the US doesn't mean that applies elsewhere in the world. Why just that one test that doesn't definitely say anything one way or the other? It's definitely in LE interests to kick up a fuss if a previously unknown drug is circulating on blotter. It would be big news if such a thing was widespread. Front page "New Killer Drug Raped My Hamster" stuff. Why would they cover it up? Occam's Razor and all that...

 

[Solipsis]

Just out of curiosity: how much fuss is actually kicked up by DOX and DOB-dragonfly in the past?

Wouldn't there have to be an incident for it to become big in the media?

 

[any major dude]

since a great deal of what's talked about here is no longer Ergoloid related maybe we should just have this as the non-LSD blotter thread?

i was about to say the same thing.

may go through it later to remove the specific ergoloid stuff

 

[SKL]

^ thatwould be good

 

[sit]

Apologies - I responded to a specific comment from averagetool in terms whose scope did go way beyond that of the original theme of the thread. I can see that my comments were provocative in terms of the initial topic, because there's really nothing in my experience to disprove the existence of non-LSD ergoloid blotters; if they do exist, then people like myself (and Shambles - sounds like we're coming from very similar experience-sets, Shambles ) are clearly not the intended market for them. But hopefully people can appreciate that our scepticism over that issue derives from years of contending with idiotic and demonstrably inaccurate urban myths, as well as the weird history of American snobbery about European acid, even if they believe that this isn't an example of all that (which maybe it isn't, for sure).
I'm new to the site but not to the thread- it was reading this fascinating thread in detail which actually prompted me to join. But from a new-members perspective, it seems that there would be a lot of value in separating the specific discussion of ergoloids and the reliability or otherwise of the gc /ms tests ( and of those available to Dutch users) from the discussions of experiential variability in general, if only to prevent idiots like me from muddying the waters....

 

[sockpuppet]

edit

 

[any major dude]

no worries. as of the moment, based on the available evidence, it seems that the vast majority of blotters sold as LSD are indeed such. The small, but notable, presence of other things on blotter has been & will probably always be a source of contention. Especially if the non-LSD ergoloids start to see wider distribution. Unfortunately this will be hard to test for as i don't think reagents work so well with blotter, not to mention the amount of any drug on standard sized blotters is going to be minuscule.

Every so often some DOx or FLY type substance is going to be sold as LSD, but that seems fairly infrequent these days. Out of the countless times i've bought LSD, i've only gotten a DOx once. This usually only happens in your more backwater markets though. Hopefully the incidence of it won't increase

 

[DwayneHoover]

I have a few times, perhaps 5% of acid trips, gotten something that was VERY dysphoric and created primarily icky body load and little or no psychedelic effects. No way of knowing what it was of course. Definitely was NOT lsd, please believe me. But that means 95% were LSD, albeit assininely weak in some cases... damned profiteering blotter-layers... put JUST BARELY enough on so that people cannot claim you are ripping them off... assholes.

But the "bunk" IS out there, whatever it is, not just blank, but SOMETHING that feels horrible and gross. SO that's why I argue so vociferously when people claim that ALL ACID IS REAL PURE LSD... that's just a ridiculous thing to claim, and I am tired of arguing about it so dont even bother.

I do have a friend who SWEARS to high heaven that all acid no matter the form he has done since oh about 1975 has been crap and was either so weak as to be pointless without spending a huge amount on one trip, or had some kind of impurity that made him feel "ick" and physically sick. I have personally given him some I was sure was real LSD, just a bit mild, for going to see a movie, and at one point laying down listening to music afterwards, he said "that was pretty intense"... but by the next day he was swearing it was crap again. I think there is some sort of sentimentalism for his youth at play...or perhaps his numerous other physical issues (Hep C, Rheumatoid Arthritis, other issues, including now-kicked narcotics addiction, due to pain issues... oh and inability to sleep more than a few hours a night... oh and also a really bad prostatitis syndrome... yea he's kinda a wreck, so that probably has more to do with his hate of ALL acid he's done since 1975 that anything in or not in the drug itself.... poor guy.

 

[Shambles]

Just out of curiosity: how much fuss is actually kicked up by DOX and DOB-dragonfly in the past?

None that I know of as it's such a vanishingly rare occurrence (at least in the UK where I'd be more likely to hear media reports on it - you seen our tabloid press ). Was meaning more that it would be big news if this was a widespread and seemingly worldwide phenomenon as some are suggesting. Almost every other drugs is surrounded by warnings that you can never be sure what you get when you buy it. Never seen that argument being put forward for acid and can only presume that's because there's really no evidence to support that being the case. Or very little evidence anyway.

Dwayne: I don't think anyone is saying that everything sold as acid is definitely acid. Don't think anybody has ever said anything like that. It's the size of the problem that's in dispute - specifically in relation to LS? which is said to very closely resemble the effects of the real thing not to be bunk or toxic-feeling. Other random crap on blotter (DOx, BRDFLY and so on) is a well-known reality but not a very widespread one outside of a few areas. Something that closely mimics the effects of LSD that isn't LSD is a new thing and presumably far harder to pin down without proper testing carried out over time. So far there really isn't any hard evidence for it happening but some very knowledgeable and experienced users seem very sure that this is happening. My position is simply that I want to see evidence for it being the case and until I do I see it as an unconfirmed rumour that's worth keeping an eye on.

 

[SKL]

But the "bunk" IS out there, whatever it is, not just blank, but SOMETHING that feels horrible and gross.

This is definitely not a description that applies to the n-alkylated lysergamides I describe, FYI, just to clarify.

 

[sit]

None that I know of as it's such a vanishingly rare occurrence (at least in the UK where I'd be more likely to hear media reports on it - you seen our tabloid press ). Was meaning more that it would be big news if this was a widespread and seemingly worldwide phenomenon as some are suggesting. Almost every other drugs is surrounded by warnings that you can never be sure what you get when you buy it. Never seen that argument being put forward for acid and can only presume that's because there's really no evidence to support that being the case. Or very little evidence anyway.

Dwayne: I don't think anyone is saying that everything sold as acid is definitely acid. Don't think anybody has ever said anything like that. It's the size of the problem that's in dispute - specifically in relation to LS? which is said to very closely resemble the effects of the real thing not to be bunk or toxic-feeling. Other random crap on blotter (DOx, BRDFLY and so on) is a well-known reality but not a very widespread one outside of a few areas. Something that closely mimics the effects of LSD that isn't LSD is a new thing and presumably far harder to pin down without proper testing carried out over time. So far there really isn't any hard evidence for it happening but some very knowledgeable and experienced users seem very sure that this is happening. My position is simply that I want to see evidence for it being the case and until I do I see it as an unconfirmed rumour that's worth keeping an eye on.

Precisely agree - on all counts.

But is is more than an unconfirmed rumour, as SKL argues very persuasively throughout the thread that it is?

Really sorry if I missed this in re-reading the whole thread, but were the doubts that were raised earlier in the thread about the valid interpretation of the gc /ms results that were referred to at the start of the thread ever resolved?

 

[Shambles]

As far as I recall that GC/MS result remains "inconclusive" but maybe someone who knows better will update on that. Even if it is confirmed that's one result showing shenanigans and thousands not showing shenanigans which would suggest it's still a relatively rare phenomenon. It's the fact that SKL and others who raise the issue are such good sources of information that are not prone to making stuff up or indulging in conspiracy theories that makes it such an intriguing possibility. But in the absence of any definite evidence I have to remain sceptical as well as being open to the possibility.

I'd love to see far more testing take place to see just what the score is in a wider sense cos if this LS? really is that hard to distinguish from the real thing it could easily slip under the radar without raising too many alarm bells. There's masses of different blotter doing the rounds in the UK at the moment and almost all is getting rave reviews but sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to get samples across the range tested. Especially as it seems to be EU acid that's in question, at least so far.

 

[sit]

As far as I recall that GC/MS result remains "inconclusive" but maybe someone who knows better will update on that. Even if it is confirmed that's one result showing shenanigans and thousands not showing shenanigans which would suggest it's still a relatively rare phenomenon. It's the fact that SKL and others who raise the issue are such good sources of information that are not prone to making stuff up or indulging in conspiracy theories that makes it such an intriguing possibility. But in the absence of any definite evidence I have to remain sceptical as well as being open to the possibility.

I'd love to see far more testing take place to see just what the score is in a wider sense cos if this LS? really is that hard to distinguish from the real thing it could easily slip under the radar without raising too many alarm bells. There's masses of different blotter doing the rounds in the UK at the moment and almost all is getting rave reviews but sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to get samples across the range tested. Especially as it seems to be EU acid that's in question, at least so far.

It would surely be a great service to all if people with access to the Dutch testing facilities would be prepared systematically to post results in a dedicated thread. I'm never clear if there is some impediment to them doing so that I'm not aware of...

 

[Shambles]

Nothing beyond the hassle of doing it really. The only problem I could see is that blotter art is not all that reliable to confirm identity but if the intent is to just test as many tabs as possible to get a snapshot of what's out there then that is maybe not such a problem. There are other testing services available in places other than the Netherlands too, I believe (Energy Control in Spain, for example). Not sure what the score is on overseas submissions for testing is though.

 

[DwayneHoover]

As far as I recall that GC/MS result remains "inconclusive" but maybe someone who knows better will update on that. Even if it is confirmed that's one result showing shenanigans and thousands not showing shenanigans which would suggest it's still a relatively rare phenomenon.

Repeat after me:

"I am not a statistician and know zero about proper scientific mathematically meaningful application of sample quality and size and what can be concluded from 'lsd testing results'."​

Look, saying "here we have 1 sample where it was non-lsd and 100,000 where it was lsd == a conclusion that non-lsd is vanishingly rare: IS TOTALLY INCORRECT!!!

You know zero concrete info or numbers about any of this, all data is annecdotal and totally uncontrolled/unreviewed so means nothing.

Saying there is ONLY this ONE non-lsd result is just not true, there is know way to know or prove that. I bet there are hundreds of "unknown" or "non-lsd" results you never hear about. Did you gather data from every possiblt law enforcement and community testing location on the planet before coming to your sweeping conclusion? Didn't think so. You read a couple web pages here and there and are proclaiming this sweeping generalized conclusion, which IMO is improper.

What role did "selection bias" have to play in all the positive results?

The fact that the one random sample grabbed from millions of hits around the world TURNED OUT TO BE NON-LSD seems to me to prove it is far MORE common than most suppose... if it were "vanishingly rare" then the odds are like ZERO that this one random test would have hit on it!!!

THUS: this result of one hit tested out of tens of millions == non-lsd means: NON-LSD IS FAIRLYT COMMON.

OK I admit, my conclusion is exactly as valid as yours... meaning LITTLE OR NO MATHEMATICALLY MEANINGFUL CONCLUSIONS CAN BE STATED BASED ON THESE AND ALL CLAIMED TEST RESULTS, DUE TO THE 100% UNCONTROLLED SAMPLE DATA.

Didnt anyone here read one article or take one college course in "Statistics 101?" If so please speak up.

 

[DwayneHoover]

It would surely be a great service to all if people with access to the Dutch testing facilities would be prepared systematically to post results in a dedicated thread. I'm never clear if there is some impediment to them doing so that I'm not aware of...

results from one testing group in one country, based only things people sent in themselves MEANS NOTHING. It is an uncontrolled unscientific self-sample thus no "overall global conclusion" can be drawn from such numbers even if you could get them.

 

[sit]

results from one testing group in one country, based only things people sent in themselves MEANS NOTHING. It is an uncontrolled unscientific self-sample thus no "overall global conclusion" can be drawn from such numbers even if you could get them.

I really don't think that the abusive tone of these responses is necessary. And the content of their claims is demonstrably inaccurate and misconceived.

If anybody was claiming that global information could be derived from a localised series of random test results, then your objection would be valid (although it's tone would remain unnecessarily patronising, arrogant and hostile).

However, nobody has claimed that a global conclusion could be drawn from any such results. Nobody has made that claim at all.

As Shambles has said, it would merely be an indicative conclusion as to what was in circulation amongst certain specified populations. There may be any number of reasons for being interested in this information.

The claim that this information would have no value whatsoever outside of its localised context is itself without any coherent grounding in good statistical practice.

What inferences could or could not be drawn about the relevance of that data at different population scales and in other location would be dependent upon a range of other variables, about which different potential users of the information might or might not have relevant knowledge (for example, about the relationships between the distribution networks from which the samples were derived, and the ones to which they themselves had access). You don't know that they wouldn't have any such knowledge.

 

[Shambles]

^ Agreed. Is it too much to ask that we keep it civil and lay off the condescension and patronising bollocks just slightly, Dwayne?? The fact that the one random sample grabbed from millions is still inconclusive says a fair bit in the grand scheme. How often have you been busted with large quantities of acid and gone through the whole court testing rigmarole? How often have you had your doses independently assayed? We may all have our various opinions but I don't see anybody else making patronising comments that appear to be designed solely to piss people off and start a bitch fight.

The fact that the one random sample grabbed from millions of hits around the world TURNED OUT TO BE NON-LSD seems to me to prove it is far MORE common than most suppose... if it were "vanishingly rare" then the odds are like ZERO that this one random test would have hit on it!!!

This wasn't a random test. It was a test on blotter felt to be suspicious by the user(s) which was then tested with results that make it no more clear. This is not the same thing as the thousands of tests that positively identify LSD and LSD alone as the content of blotter. If it were that widespread then why no other results so far seen? Inconclusive doesn't cut it in court. And those other testing services you are so fond of dismissing are HR services with excellent reputations for accuracy worldwide. Keep your parochial paranoia to yourself and deal with the actual evidence we all have in front of us, maybe. If you have evidence that this is a widespread phenomena then shit or get off the pot.