I apologize for becoming a bit self-righteous myself, and in no way was I attempting to diminish the contributions you've made to this thread.
This is kind of you to acknowledge, and I appreciate it.
stating that this endeavor is a crock of shit
No, I'm sorry, I must've phrased things idiotically. It was never my intention to state that this endeavor is a crock, I was talking about people drawing simplistic conclusions from what is clearly pretty goddamn complex considering the subject matter at hand, something that many of us are very passionate about and find infinitely interesting, as I do, and so do
@vash445,
@user666,
@indigoaura @AutoTripper @dalpat077 @Mr. Krinkle,
@Le Junk (much love and respect to you all; even if I harshly disagree and it seems like I'm going hard in the paint on you, I swear it's just how I debate, so please know that I respect you all) … and others I've read intelligent posts from just on this thread alone. … It's funny: the thought occurred to me that perhaps that wording was going to make someone angry or offend someone for taking it too personally. I hope you accept my apology then for my careless wording, and trust that I'm being sincere in my words above.
Alright,
@user666 … I've got a lot of responding to do to you now, but chiefly I think you've misunderstood me in a few places as well. Just to reiterate, I'm not questioning the existence of MDMA impurities, and the reason I'm complaining about the term “meh MDMA” and its more clever portmanteau word forms, is that it lacks precision and could quite possibly refer to a
number of different impurities, and that's assuming it's widely accepted that the cause of so-called “meh” experiences is solely caused by impurities. I just don't think it's likely you're going to find enough mass agreement on the cause.
From reading this thread, I've definitely learned some new things. For example, while I knew of the existence of MDDMA and MDTMA, I did not know about the specific binding properties of both compounds and the unique variability in receptor preference regarding the
dimethyl analog. It would be super cool if we could safely attach radio isotopes to these compounds and then (again, safely) use x-ray imaging to observe their paths through the human brain, wouldn't it?
Granted but we have to call it something short or keep repeating the long phrase, such as: "substance which most laboratory tests identify as racemic 3,4-MDMA Hydrochloride but which exhibits alternate psycho and physiological profile of effects in most human patients".
Ok so I get that hyperbole can be effective, but you know goddamn good and well you made that phrase obnoxiously long, and furthermore I never suggested this should be done at all. Hell, if anything, I think we can narrow down quite a bit to MDDMA and MDTMA as the two culprits worthy of the most pursuit right now in terms of identifying whether they've been widespread throughout most of the world's MDMA distribution networks as the result of poor/sloppy synthesis. This is entirely plausible, but once more, I don't see how this could be proven easily and unambiguously as you'd need a lot of corroborating seizure evidence data and testing facilities would need to be adequately equipped to distinguish MDDMA from MDEA which have the same molecular weight and basic configuration/shape.
It's the nature of clandestine chemistry that gathering data from most, if not all, the major underground MDMA chemists in the world is probably virtually impossible. That's just conjecture though; who knows?
Just because its name is colloquial does not invalidate it existence. It is just a shorthand.
Yeah no shit, Sherlock; I'm not attacking the shorthand phrase. I'm saying there are assumptions and unproven statements in the phrase you claim it's shorthand for, to wit: “substance which most laboratory tests identify as racemic 3,4-MDMA Hydrochloride but which exhibits alternate psycho and physiological profile of effects in most human patients”. Let me break that down.
“substance which most laboratory tests identify as racemic 3,4-MDMA Hydrochloride but which exhibits alternate psycho and physiological profile of effects in most human patients”
Just a better wording alone would give us:
substance
identified via [method used, e.g.: HPLC, GC-MS, whatever] as racemic
n-methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine possessing an alternative [not “alternate” which means “every other” in science parlance]
psychostimulant profile of qualitative effects in
some human subjects
according to anecdotal reports.
You can't so easily make a claim like “most human patients” without any properly gathered statistical data and expect to be taken seriously.
substance which most laboratory tests identify – “Most” lab tests? Ok so not all lab tests, then? What do the other tests identify? I seem to recall
@indigoaura talking about MDEA contamination, and as has been discussed, distinction between MDEA and MDDMA is notoriously tricky given their identical atomic weights and imperial formulas. If a lab detects 100% pure dl-MDMA (it's not really necessary to mention the optical isomers, nor that we're discussing the racemate MDMA, and of course it's also assumed the methylenedioxy ring is on the 3- and 4-position unless noted otherwise, but I guess you were attempting to be satirically wordy), then there is zero reason why someone shouldn't have a full-on “magical” MDMA experience according to the “some-impurity-is-causing-meh” theory.
@indigoaura couldn't understand why pills he's had tested by Energy Control International in Spain seem to show only mostly the expected MDMA and I think there was a mention of MDEA as well, but don't quote me on that. The bottom line though is that IEC didn't have an analytical standard for
n-dimethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (and assumably neither do they have one for
n-trimethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine). Until they have this standard, they cannot accurately test for MDDMA and MDTMA, which seems like the two compounds this thread has more or less settled on pursuing, and I have to agree with the logic of doing so as these compounds have already been proven to blockade the serotonergic activity of MDMA.
Will this account for EVERYONE'S so-called “meh” experience? Who knows? You'd also have to have your pills and powders sent to IEC to know with any certain, and again, only
after they have the analytic standards and also contingent upon trusting that the folks at IEC know what TF they're doing… which they probably do, but I sometimes I see a serious lack of skepticism around here… I'm encouraging everyone to remain skeptical until you're certain, and to keep your expectations realistic.
What would you consider an objective proof of its existence without identifying the culprit, e.g. a contaminant ?
There is no such thing. Identify the culprit and I'll call that objective proof of its existence. You can't tell me that you think “most people” aren't experiencing MDMA as they're supposed to without telling me any of the numbers behind “most”, quoting an assorted pile of anecdotal trip reports, and not be able to identify the substance responsible, or as you put it: “the culprit”. Think about what you just asked me for a minute: what would you consider exists despite not having empirical, testable, identifiable proof of said existence? Let's see, there's God, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Loch Ness monster, Frankenstein, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and an invisible, weightless impurity in MDMA.
Unless I'm mistaken, “meh MDMA” refers to any street sample of purported “MDMA” that consistently and widely renders easily noticeable subpar qualitative effects in human users for reasons yet unknown.
@indigoaura narrows this scope by claiming that “meh” product (note: the “meh” quality is something we have to take people's word for here) tests as mostly MDMA and believes whatever as-of-yet-unidentified impurities hold the mystery to what's causing his disappointing experiences with these particular batches. “Meh” does not refer explicitly to one substance identified as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine because that's fucking stupid; it is already called MDMA. The “meh” is the combined product it sounds like, most likely, of MDMA and something else.
Why did you bring the size of the source of funding into this question, anyway ?
No one mentioned the size of the source of funding. I was giving a few examples, the sizes of which can vary quite a bit. Moreover,
@indigoaura has stated that the goal of this endeavor is to secure research funding. Who do you think is going to provide that funding, champ champ?
but the alternate effects profile that stands behind this term is not unscientific
I beg to differ. The “effects profile” you mention as deriving from “meh MDMA” – have those been determined in a double-blind study, then? No. These are all still anecdotes, which while they have
some scientific significance, I cannot call these science in general though. It's kinda like how, researchers might read a lot of anecdotal trip reports from Erowid before conducting a study. They might mention this in the resulting paper, even quoting some of the anecdotes, but it's a huge stretch calling just that alone “science”. But you know, whatever, man. I don't really feel like arguing semantics.
That is needed to define the cause of Meh-MDMA's existence, not proving its existence. You seem to be conflating these two issues.
In a casual sense, proving meh-MDMA's existence isn't too difficult. Nearly everyone has had shitty MDMA before that definitely
felt like it had
some MDMA in it, but also some shit was just
off. That's fine. No arguments outta me over here; I've had plenty of these experiences myself. Since then, I've had PLENTY of awesome MDMA experiences, too.
So I reject the notion that ALL MDMA in 2021 is meh-MDMA which some people on here seem to believe. Also, just because I agree that it certainly seems like shitty MDMA is out there as do hundreds or even thousands of people, that does not scientifically confirm it exists, nor have a seen a proper poll conducted on a wide-enough sample of subjects. Correlation does not prove causation, so you have to produce actual empirical evidence that meh-MDMA exists, even if in our hearts we all already know it's super likely that it does. That's what science is for. Prove this without relying on subjective reports. To do this, you'll have to show how this happens. You need to define the cause of the meh-MDMA experience as this will prove its existence. I'm not conflating these two issues, they are causally related.
I meant it in the context of @indigoaura 's experience, in which the order of administration of these two substances produces different effects when Meh-MDMA is involved. Please scroll several messages back before my answer, where she describes that difference.
Firstly, I've read every single post in this thread. I've even scrolled through and read many of your posts to make sure I'm not talking to a moron (I'm not; you seem intelligent despite not understanding what I've been saying and that you and I agree on far more than we disagree). The
order of administration is exactly what I was talking about as well… and using this as a test is even less objective while unnecessarily introducing even more factors that could skew the results. Changing the order of administration will produce different effects in general, no matter what the substances, but in no way does this prove anything about the two different “batches” of “MDMA” that wasn't already known – they produce different effects despite both being called “MDMA” by some vendor, IRL or on a DNM…
No, no - I was referring to the observation which @indigoaura has made that Meh-MDMA affects the 2CB experience different;y than the clean MDMA.
Yes, I figured that was the case even though it wasn't entirely clear at which exact point in the first drug's effects the user takes the second drug. This can affect the outcome of the two drugs quite a bit. On top of that, it's possible to consume both the first and second drug simultaneously at the exact same time… this is yet another way of experiencing the combined effects. Without accounting for these variables, this extra dataset means
nothing. Too many factors, and everything is a variable, no control. Give me a break – if you say you've been involved with actual studies, you of all people should know better than to quote this nonsense to me like it's any real proof of
anything other than people are getting swept up in the pseudoscience fringe opinions being slopped all over the thread like it's scientific canon.
My hunch – and I'm qualifying this by saying this is just an educated guess – is that
@indigoaura, et al. just might be on the right track in suggesting MDDMA and MDTMA contamination is common enough to be blamed for many—anything from 15% to 60% is my pure speculation—suboptimal serotonergic MDMA effects due to a potent countering effect brought on by MDDMA and MDTMA. I further speculate that poorly manufactured methylamine would be to blame for this. Btw, to whomever suggested wacker oxidations result in meh-MDMA, was that you
@vash445 ?, I don't think you understand – wacker oxidations produce MDP-2-P, nothing bearing an amine (NH₄). Improperly made MDP-2-P that is not purified
can result in other impurities, but whether said impurities are even active or if they have a blockading effect is something you'd have to know to conclude this causes the aforementioned meh experience ecstasy.
The different interaction between these two drugs is a significant data point.
Not really insofar as identifying a contaminating substance. This data has the same relevance as people saying, “yeah this MDMA isn't as good”. It's not adding new, meritorious evidence. There is no
established standard for exactly how MDMA and 2C-B should feel taken in any order. You have to bring forward empirical evidence; ya know what I mean? I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, argumentative or difficult. I'm just trying to slow down everyone jumping to conclusions prematurely based on what I see. Also, 2C-B's effects can be thrown off by a variety of different substance. Try snorting some coke mid 2C-B trip, or taking virtually any dopaminergic stimulant. You won't be tripping suddenly. At least, that's the experience I have and have witnessed. So it's no surprise the combo effects are fickle, but it's not really clear evidence of anything worthy of note. We've basically already concluded that impurities and substitutions definitely exist in what is sold on the black markets as “MDMA”. Proving which impurities impede the effects the most
and which impurities are the most widely spread across the globe seems like something that is not an easy undertaking and probably not worth the effort, but I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong here. Do you get what I'm saying now?
