• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Phenethylamines The Big & Dandy 2C-B-FLY-NBOMe Thread

Xorkoth

Xorkoth

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
65,043
Well, just saw that 2C-B-fly-NBOMe will be released soon by a trusted and well-established vendor. Not sure what I think about that. Seems like -flying compounds may contribute to their danger level (well, I must say 2C-B-fly seems very benign, but DOB-dragonfly was vasoconstriction city and caused multiple deaths), and we all know that NBOMe-ing something increases the danger substantially. Not sure whether this compound is really interesting, or a really bad idea. Anyone have any insight or educated speculation? :)
 
Yeah, considering the safety profile of DOB-Dragonfly I am very weary of this new NBOMe. . .
Still interesting that they decided to make this one, although it would be even more interesting if they had made something like 2C-E-Fly.
 
Well it's worth noting that DOB-dragonfly and 2C-B-FLY do not only differ in the alpha-methyl that sets 2C-B and DOB apart but also the saturation in the 'wings' that set FLY and dragonFLY compounds apart. It would be very interesting if someone would divert from the trodden path and make some 2C-B-dragonFLY and DOB-FLY so that we might get a better picture of what makes DOB-dragonFLY messed up, if it is just any sort of methoxy-cyclization on DOX or if it is mostly the dragonFLY wings that make a compound messed up.
(Yes for pure promise of value definitely go for something like 2C-E-FLY instead - don't get me started on my requests)

NBOMe-ifying something is not difficult, as exemplified by the avalanche of different ones I saw when it first became a thing. NBOMe's are peculiar in that a big part of your response may lie in its lipophilicity (the property of dissolving in fatty chems rather than watery ones), because that has been shown to make a huge difference for your liver enzymes wanting to metabolize them. So at the very least they determine whether you have effect from oral administration and their general potency or duration.

Making a FLY NBOMe should actually make it resistant to those liver enzymes metabolizing them, that is unless your enzymes have an alternative way of metabolizing them since the affinity for binding should still be high - the wings should protect what is normally the methoxies though - especially the 5 one. So it would be educative to see if FLY NBOMe's like this one are 'reliably' orally active like we are used to with 2C-X or DOX.. :)
Please realize that one should not take a higher oral dose than you would take via other routes, since there should be little first pass metabolism in that case so high oral potency. It's a little bit like the protection DOX have from MAO metabolism by their alpha-methyls. This makes them quite potent. Assume that 2C-B-FLY-NBOMe may therefore be generally incredibly potent even for NBOMe standards.

I would proceed with great care though, that is if I would proceed at all which I would not with NBOMe's since I boycot them ;P.
 
Interesting Solipsis, thanks. :)

I also wish we could see, say, 2C-C-fly, or 2C-E-fly. To me that's more interesting than a new NBOMe.

What if this thing is potent in the range of 10ug for a dose or something? People are gonna die unless it's only ever made available in pre-laid blotter form or something. If bulk powder ever became available of something that potent, tragedies would follow.

I still find it interesting. And who knows how it will be yet? No one. But these days this stuff doesn't exist in a vaccuum, far from it. Gone are the days when a select few psychedelic enthusiasts who had the requisite curiosity and foresight to responsibly use pontentially dangerous compounds were the only ones who were getting their hands on this stuff. For better or worse, it's out now, and reckless people are going to get their hands on things and proceed to eyeball and snort their way to the ER or worse. Extremely potent compounds, while conceptually interesting and maybe even very safe when used with the proper knowledge and caution, become accidents waiting to happen. So while I appreciate the plunging into new frontiers, I question how responsible it is in some cases. Maybe this one, I guess it remains to be seen.
 
I agree, it's not worth the pharmacology lessons from it... leave that to Nichols and his minions!

But hopefully all of that was considered by the people who made it and - let's hope - tested it via titration.

This compound actually has a ki of 0.14 nM at the 5-HT2AR while 25I-NBOMe has a ki of 0.044 nM. For comparison 25C has 2.89 nM.
So I don't think we should expect any metabolism resistance potentiation to be offset by just a poor psychedelic activity. It should be stupidly strong.

Also I see people talking about 2C-B-FLY being uninteresting but NBOMe's are not necessarily all that much like their parent 2C-X.
 
Last edited:
Solipsis said:
Well it's worth noting that DOB-dragonfly and 2C-B-FLY do not only differ in the alpha-methyl that sets 2C-B and DOB apart but also the saturation in the 'wings' that set FLY and dragonFLY compounds apart.
Click to expand...

Totally forgot about that !

Solipsis said:
Making a FLY NBOMe should actually make it resistant to those liver enzymes metabolizing them, that is unless your enzymes have an alternative way of metabolizing them since the affinity for binding should still be high - the wings should protect what is normally the methoxies though - especially the 5 one. So it would be educative to see if FLY NBOMe's like this one are 'reliably' orally active like we are used to with 2C-X or DOX.. :)
Click to expand...


I like your scientific mind, Soli :).
This would be a great "control" indeed for the whole argument about oral activity in NBOMes.





I have a feeling that since 2C-B-Fly never got so popular they just decided to NBOMe a bunch of it knowing it would most likely stupidly increase the potency and therefore profit. A dickish move if it does turn out to be pretty toxic, but we shall see.
 
Img_9999 said:
Totally forgot about that !




I like your scientific mind, Soli :).
This would be a great "control" indeed for the whole argument about oral activity in NBOMes.
Click to expand...
:)

Only suggests something as a control if it actually has full oral activity, if it doesn't, it would be unclear what it says about metabolism.

CYP p450 enzymes have a huge preference for demethylating the 5-methoxy of 25X-NBOMe, especially liphophilic ones (and then glycosylating that very same spot right after), I don't think they quite found other pathways worth mentioning which seems to suggest there aren't really alternative 'strategies'. I was quite surprised that it wasn't the NBOMe group's methoxy that gets metabolized. If you make a 2C-X very lipophilic in different ways apparently it could suffer the same metabolic fate as NBOMes, though you never know what spatially prevents them binding either.
I also don't know if they can crack open those "wings", I don't think so (can't very well say why).

I have a feeling that since 2C-B-Fly never got so popular they just decided to NBOMe a bunch of it knowing it would most likely stupidly increase the potency and therefore profit. A dickish move if it does turn out to be pretty toxic, but we shall see.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Will making some random number of other NBOMe's really increase their total sales by all that much? It would really need to add something, I would think. It's possible someone read about this metabolism story plus the supposed potency and got excited, or it's your explanation I guess.

Too bad it doesn't seem so cheaply produced (2C-B-FLY), because I am definitely interested. I guess I still haven't received the message that it doesn't get good criticisms since I mostly read about a pretty positive multi-case study on erowid a while ago.
 
Yeah I love 2C-B-fly from when I had it twice in 2006, really great stuff. Nothing world-shaking but a beautiful light empathogenic thing. But no way am I paying that much for it. It is indeed unfortunate as I would love to have it on hand. :\
 
Xorkoth said:
Well, Anyone have any insight or educated speculation? :)
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don't make a right; could be wrong the fly could add more than a wet banket and the nbome might add no danger; each compound is new. nbome have a bad name but if that is deserved of all is unknown. MDMA is one of a kind amongst similar chems. Is DOB-dragonfly super dangerous at the right dose - there was clearly a mix up in ID and rank ODs
 
Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be bromo-dragonfly NBOME.... I don't see this going well there are already too many psychs in the world and not enough understanding on how to use them appropriately. Hell most don't even know where these things came from. I think it is important to not focus as much on substance and more on experience.
 
Solipsis said:
I agree, it's not worth the pharmacology lessons from it... leave that to Nichols and his minions!

But hopefully all of that was considered by the people who made it and - let's hope - tested it via titration.

This compound actually has a ki of 0.14 nM at the 5-HT2AR while 25I-NBOMe has a ki of 0.044 nM. For comparison 25C has 2.89 nM.
So I don't think we should expect any metabolism resistance potentiation to be offset by just a poor psychedelic activity. It should be stupidly strong.

Also I see people talking about 2C-B-FLY being uninteresting but NBOMe's are not necessarily all that much like their parent 2C-X.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that binding affinity is inversely proportional to the dissociation constant, not proportional. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
tacodude said:
Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be bromo-dragonfly NBOME.... I don't see this going well there are already too many psychs in the world and not enough understanding on how to use them appropriately. Hell most don't even know where these things came from. I think it is important to not focus as much on substance and more on experience.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about this.
 
Im stoked to see if the visuals ramp up with this one and a decrease in nausea possibly? Never had 2cb but 25b was fucking beautiful and my favorite of the nbomes. Im not gonna be the first one to this one though.
 
According to the Wikipedia article on 2C-B-FLY, the SAR for 2C-X-FLY's (i.e. not their alpha-methylated/N-methoxybenzylated derivates) is as follows:
* Saturated Furan wings (regular FLY): Highest efficacy at 5HT2A
* Aromatic Furan wings (DragonFLY): Highest binding affinity for 5HT2A
* Saturated Pyran wings (ButterFLY): Highest affinity for 5HT2C

Of course there's always the question whether efficacy really is the end-all, be-all measure of psychedelic potency... after all, some plain old 2C's seem to be capable of eliciting typical 5HT2A-associated effects without necessarily having a significant level of efficacy at that receptor.

Come to think of it, it might be interesting to see what effects 2C-B-ButterFLY produces in humans - would it be an effective psychedelic, or mostly just an unpleasant experience full of anxiety, overstimulation and loss of appetite?
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any other FLYs lurking around the Internet except for B, do you think these compouds have ever been tested in humans?
 
Starless said:
I was under the impression that binding affinity is inversely proportional to the dissociation constant, not proportional. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You are right, it was perhaps unclear or misleading to formulate it like that - I started out the sentence thinking a little differently about how high its affinity is. I was comparing to both, but the main point was that it's quite close affinity to 25I-NBOMe which rules most of these NBx compounds though I'm pretty sure even stronger ones have been found. 25C certainly doesn't have bad potency and it has a considerably lower affinity. That was what was meant. It's inversely proportional as it is the concentration necessary to displace some ligand from the receptor. So if a low concentration is needed to do that, it must bind very well to compete.

Good question about Bromo-DragonFLY and its therapeutic index sir ron pib, my understanding was that this index is rather small even when the material is not misidentified. The vasoconstriction sounds rather bad, as in potentially dangerous and not just prompting people to say 'this feels like vasoconstriction', which may be wrong in plenty of cases.

I know tacodude probably did not literally mean Bromo-DragonFLY-NBOMe, but that actual compound does not seem to be so exciting either way... amphetamine-type NBOMe's like that including the DOX-NBOMe's are apparently not really so active.

Anyway I don't think it is so easy to predict much more because SAR is so irregular a lot of the time especially in cases like these when the modifications are pretty big. I also doubt that other 2C-X-FLies have been sampled significantly, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some have been sampled a little like by some Russian mad scientist you might find on hyperlabs / hive.. The few things I picked up about/from such guys, most told in confidence and not that directly relevant, astonished me about what goes on and BL seems mostly oblivious to. We definitely shouldn't have gotten rid of that .ru to offend them ;p jk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top