Update on the product I just used.
My friend did a little experiment. He took some of the product, added some water to dissolve it, and then he heated it to dry up the water and re-crystalize it. He did this to 54 mg. However, after the water had evaporated, there were only 34 mg remaining. In his opinion, the product is only about 63% MDMA (assuming all of the remaining dry product is MDMA, which I think it doubtful).
This would mean that my doses were actually 85 mg, 65 mg, and 55 mg. Would this explain the experience? I am not entirely convinced it would, as I used to eat half a pill and still feel the euphoric effects. But, maybe my tolerance plus a low dose would create a substandard vibe.
I will be sending it off to Energy Control to gain more info about it.
That is not recrystalization. that is just heating something up in water and then removing the water which is totally pointless, everything that was there at the start will be there at the end.
If you take something dissolve it in water then evaporate the water then you will have exactly the same mass that you started with because otherwise where does the mass go??? In this case you lose stuff to mechanical losses (stuck to things) due to handling and poor technique so the experiment is completely useless and a waste of time.
recrystalization in its most basic form is this, dissolve in the minimum hot solvent, cool or concentrate until it starts to crystallize, cool filter of the liquid (the mother liquor) and wash solids with cold solvent. The impurities are retained dissolved in the mother liquor along with some of the product. The solid is higher purity than the starting material but there is less of it, some is loss of impurities and loss of some product in the mother, even if the starting meterial was extremely pure there would still be losses in recrystalization.
The most plausible and scientific explanation for the recent bleating about MDMA quality is due to several factors.
The modern binders in pills are terrible for reliable release (see the paper below) and dissolution. Polyvinylpyrrolidinone binders also can hold MDMA even in solution further slowing release.
Most crystalline MDMA has an inactive bulking agent it, this cut quite possibly doesn't show up on GC-MS or LC-MS analysis the only clue is the MDMA freebase content is lower than it should be, but Energy Control do not have quantitative calibration curves for MDMA.
The active ingredient is pretty much only MDMA and not cut with other active stimulants as it used to be previously
Pure racemic MDMA is quite sedating. Pure S enantiomer is more sedating but there is next to zero chance of optically active MDMA being out there.
lastly people change and nostalgia along with set and setting play a big part in the effects.
This is interesting:
Variability in content and dissolution profiles of MDMA tablets collected in the UK between 2001 and 2018 - A potential risk to users?
10.1002/dta.2605
MDMA (‘ecstasy’) tablets are widely used recreationally, and not only vary in their appearance, but also in MDMA content. Recently, the prevalence of high‐content tablets is of concern to public health authorities. To compare UK data with other countries, we have evaluated MDMA content of 412 tablets collected from the UK, 2001‐2018, and have investigated within‐batch content variability for a sub‐set of these samples. In addition, we have investigated dissolution profiles of tablets using pharmaceutical industry‐standard dissolution experiments on 247 tablets. All analyses were carried out using LC‐MS/MS. Our data supported other studies, in that recent samples (2016 – 2018) tend to have higher MDMA content compared to earlier years. In 2018, the median MDMA content exceeded 100 mg free‐base for the first time. Dramatic within‐batch content variability (up to 136 mg difference) was also demonstrated. Statistical evaluation of dissolution profiles at 15‐minutes allowed tablets to be categorised as fast‐, intermediate‐, or slow‐releasing, but no tablet characteristics correlated with dissolution classification. Hence, there would be no way of users knowing a priori whether a tablet is more likely to be fast or slow‐releasing. Further, within‐batch variation in dissolution rate was observed. Rapid assessment of MDMA content alone provides important data for harm reduction, but does not account for variability in (i) the remainder of tablets in a batch, nor (ii) MDMA dissolution profiles. Clinical manifestations of MDMA toxicity, especially for high‐content, slow‐releasing tablets, may be delayed or prolonged, and there is a significant risk of users re‐dosing if absorption is delayed.
