• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

tilMETamine

I've read a few reports of people losing their vision after binging this stuff. I would stay as far away from it as possible. Some people have reported being blind for multiple days though their sight usually does come back. Not sure if anyone has had permanent vision loss from it. Not worth the risk with this stuff. It sounds insanely toxic
 
Last edited:
SuperPsych said:
I've read a few reports of people losing their vision after binging this stuff. I would stay as far away from it as possible. Some people have reported being bling for multiple days though their sight usually does come back. Not sure if anyone has had permanent vision loss from it. Not worth the risk with this stuff. It sounds insanely toxic
Click to expand...

In the past some RC vendors would provide NMR and GC/MS data on their products. But I sense that most vendors wouldn't know how to interpret such instrumental analysis.

IF someone has had a sample tested and NMR and GC/MS data, I would be interested to see if there is something else in there.
 
Ok I did end up sampling my sample. There were positive reports I read and some batch analysis has been done and has come back up to 98.5ish% pure so I decided to take the plunge.

Started with allergy test, then a 12mg crystal insufflated to kick it off. Been extremely depressed and disso dry for 5 months. 12mg offered a very beneficial mood lift, with little to no dissociation. 2 hours later, yearned for more. As I was only affected mood wise I did some reading and saw people reporting enjoying holes at 50mg. So of course I racked up 50mg to get to the bottom of this discrepancy of hate/love for the substance.

My disso tolerance is basically permanent at this point. 50mg I was easily walking around and functional. Oddly motivated to clean, so did that for a while. Then the disso drug pig took hold of me. One more 50mg bump. I quite enjoyed myself reading forums and some shit posting on anonymous boards. Girlfriend demanded I come to bed. Still not reaching a "hole" of any sort I quickly and sneakily dumped 88 mg and put it against my gums. It wasn't caustic or annoying to hold like I would a snus in my upper lip. It dissolved over 25 minutes and I did reach a nice hole state laying in bed with headphones on until morning.

Girlfriend woke up when the room filled with sun and I could converse easily with minimal slurring. Felt a little knackered from no sleep but nothing terrible. Now it is dark again and I am trying to sleep. I am having odd limb movements as I lay trying to sleep, almost asleep then arm jerks...then my leg.

Still experiencing floating through "rooms" as I close my eyes with blue textured visuals.

Drank some apple cider vinegar to acidify urine and drinking a bunch of water to help clear this stuff from me. It's like it's got memantine legs. I have taken 180mg doses of that before and holed beautifully all night. I expected the 2 day recovery time with that substance post hole. This is...surprising.

Does anyone have any information on the half life of tilETamine in mammals so I can compare and get an idea of how long this nasty linger will last?

This stuff WILL get people in a bad way used chronically or in large amounts. As a guinea pig I am posting to to fellow guinea pigs across communities to spread this word. Hand tremor is present as well and I am frantically typing on a cell phone. Excuse any errors as I am just sending this without a re-read.

-klfiend
 
Wow, the quality of instrumentation has come along in leaps and bounds!

I found an NMR of tiletamine as my first step.


Note that two of the three unique shifts in the thiophene ring are close together in the analysis you obtained but in the tiletamine NMR I found, the three peaks are roughly equidistant.

So I used some NMR prediction software - http://nmrdb.org/new_predictor/index.shtml?v=v2.157.0 and that also places two shifts close together rather than all three being roughly equidistant.

So just out of interest I tried drawing the 3 thienyl homologue of timetamine. I have to tell you now that it appears that the compound is actually 2-Methylamino-2-(3-thienyl)cyclohexanone rather than 2-Methylamino-2-(2-thienyl)cyclohexanone which I presume is what timetamine is supposed to be.

Now I am rusty and was only able to find one NMR or tiletamine (and whose veracity I am uncertain of), but you are free to use the software to decide what you think.

I would ask someone else to confirm or equally to reject my opinion. I'm more than happy to be wrong.

Oh, I also checked Pubchem and the compound is known: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220409555A1

All I can add is that their document references psychonautwiki which at least for me, just brings up a template with no structure. So to be fair to the company who performed the test, they may not have been clear on what tilmetamine is supposed to be. In fact, has anyone given an IUPAC name? Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what it's supposed to be - I thought it was the N-methyl homologue of tiletamine, but have no concrete proof.
 
Last edited:
klfiend said:
Experienced uncomfortably long vision changes with 3f-pcp.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to buy your 3f-pcp from a vendor who's name began with the letters AL....?

If so, you might have purchased 3CL-PCP, which can mess with vision for quite a while. I think 3F-PCP might also have some of said property, but not to the same extent as 3CL-PCP. The vendor beginning with letters AL... sold both, but for a period of time sold 3CL as 3F. Other vendors might have been guilty of this too, because there was bad batch of 3CL-PCP that likely a number of vendors got stuck with and might have restrictions sold it as 3F to get rid of it.
 
I'm somewhat surprised that we see endless arylcyclohexylamines offered when the 1,2-diaryl amine class is much simpler to produce. Isophendine must be the simplest psychoactive thus far discovered and while not as potent, the cost per dose is MUCH lower than a PCP or K homologue.
 
3DQSAR said:
I'm somewhat surprised that we see endless arylcyclohexylamines offered when the 1,2-diaryl amine class is much simpler to produce. Isophendine must be the simplest psychoactive thus far discovered and while not as potent, the cost per dose is MUCH lower than a PCP or K homologue.
Click to expand...
I agree, I'm shocked at the lack of diarylethylamines as well. Do you knwo if there's any SAR relationship between them and arylcyclohexylamines? If so, I could imagine people making "Diaryl-MXE" or "Diaryl-[Insert highly hyped up disso]" would do quite well.
 
I suggested and supplied a patent reference for the 2-chloro-5-methoxy homologue of K. It's interesting to note that the two substituents are para to each other. I guess CMXE would be the appropriate acronym,

What makes it all the more interesting is that the Parke-Davis (a US company) issued about 150 patents concerning K and it's homologues. BUT for CMXE they chose to obtain a British patent. My GUESS is that it was to prevent others from finding it. What heaps on the suspicion is that most patents cover many, many compounds but in the case of this patent, it was for a very small number of compounds.

It looks like on one hand they wanted to ensure they held the patent in a hurry but conversely didn't want others to know of the work.

GB1202834A 'Novel Cyclohexanone Compounds and Process Means for the Production Thereof'

Compound 1 - back in the day, patents would generally list examples from best to worst.

Before you ask, addition of a meta methoxy to isophenidine didn't appear to increase activity but the addition of an ortho chloro DID. The problem turned out to be that scaling the synthesis of the o-Cl derivative was difficult. But we did get samples and it was notably better. Other halogens and pseudohalogens are less successful. The complex metal hydrides used to reduce the imine to the amine also removed the -Cl meaning that it was much more work.

When people produce the -Br and -F homologues of ketamine, I always point out that it's Parke-Davis obtained all of those patents but not in a single case was any other halogen covered by said patents - and I PRESUME they tested such compounds and noted some sort of issue with them. They DID cover examples with an ortho methoxy so I wouldn't be surprised if the 2,5-dimethoxy homologue was quite active.

But TBH, none of them would be as cheap as isophenidine. It has that NMDA/DRI balance that produces the very specific effects that make K so special.

BTW why the N-isopropyl? Because of the N-monosubstituted amine homologues of PCP, it's the N-isopropyl that is the most active by far. An N-isopropyl also makes the compound a reasonably potent DRI but less so than an N-methyl or N-ethyl. Balance, you see.
 
3DQSAR said:
I suggested and supplied a patent reference for the 2-chloro-5-methoxy homologue of K. It's interesting to note that the two substituents are para to each other. I guess CMXE would be the appropriate acronym,

What makes it all the more interesting is that the Parke-Davis (a US company) issued about 150 patents concerning K and it's homologues. BUT for CMXE they chose to obtain a British patent. My GUESS is that it was to prevent others from finding it. What heaps on the suspicion is that most patents cover many, many compounds but in the case of this patent, it was for a very small number of compounds.

It looks like on one hand they wanted to ensure they held the patent in a hurry but conversely didn't want others to know of the work.

GB1202834A 'Novel Cyclohexanone Compounds and Process Means for the Production Thereof'

Compound 1 - back in the day, patents would generally list examples from best to worst.

Before you ask, addition of a meta methoxy to isophenidine didn't appear to increase activity but the addition of an ortho chloro DID. The problem turned out to be that scaling the synthesis of the o-Cl derivative was difficult. But we did get samples and it was notably better. Other halogens and pseudohalogens are less successful. The complex metal hydrides used to reduce the imine to the amine also removed the -Cl meaning that it was much more work.

When people produce the -Br and -F homologues of ketamine, I always point out that it's Parke-Davis obtained all of those patents but not in a single case was any other halogen covered by said patents - and I PRESUME they tested such compounds and noted some sort of issue with them. They DID cover examples with an ortho methoxy so I wouldn't be surprised if the 2,5-dimethoxy homologue was quite active.

But TBH, none of them would be as cheap as isophenidine. It has that NMDA/DRI balance that produces the very specific effects that make K so special.

BTW why the N-isopropyl? Because of the N-monosubstituted amine homologues of PCP, it's the N-isopropyl that is the most active by far. An N-isopropyl also makes the compound a reasonably potent DRI but less so than an N-methyl or N-ethyl. Balance, you see.
Click to expand...
Fantastic information, thank you!!! I've got my day's reading planned now, thanks to this.
 
You know what's a nightmare? The inventor(s) aren't named!!! So IF they published an academic paper which explained CMXE, how does one go about finding it?

If you or indeed anyone finds such a paper, I would LOVE to read it.
 
Methoxphenidine
1-[1-(2-Methoxyphenyl)-2-phenylethyl]piperidine, Methoxydiphenidine, 2-Meo-diphenidine.
Fb: [127529-46-8]

In the patent table, Ex 32 Ki = 170nM, whereas Ex 31 = 0.19nM extraordinary potent.
Hence, replacing anisyl ether with a ketamine sort-of Clofedanol style chlorine gives the greatest chance of success in this series of compounds.

Nancy M. Gray & Brian K. Cheng, EP0346791 (1994 to GD Searle LLC).
 
It's the balance of NMDA antagonism and DRI that are key. You have to balance those two disparate actions.

We produced methoxyphenidine and while more potent than isophenidine, it wasn't orders of magnitude more potent as far as I know, just twice the potency - maybe because the N-isopropyl has significantly higher affinity?

Methoxyphenidine was chosen for political reasons. The idiots had just ordered a vast quantity of piperidine and the LAST thing they wanted to hear was that it wouldn't be used.

MXP also killed a few people - I don't know what toxicity was involved, but I can, hand on heart state I was against it.

I have said this before, but affinity ≠ efficacy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top