GHB and acidosis

synchrojet

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Messages
1,435
Location
LA,CA
GHB, when taken alone in powdered form, does not cause acidosis.

I am now pursuing the issue of acidosis with regard to GBL (which chronic ingestion has resulted in acidosis I believe, but I am studying the issue more closely now).

I think that the results of my GHB ingestion would be skewed, because liquid GHB always contains some GBL.

I'll update as I learn.
 

synchrojet

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Messages
1,435
Location
LA,CA
Uh...thank you for that. If you peruse the contents of those threads you will quickly discover that there is no conmprehensive explanation of the acidosos that arises from chronic GBL consumption. Moreover, the assertion that GBL consumption does not cause acidosis is in direct conflict with my own personal, monitored experience.

Liguid GHB always has a quantity of GBL present, so we can see tha the consumption of Xyrem would not cause acidosis for any reason. I realize that the general consensus is that GBL consumption does not cause acidosis, but several colleagues and I have documented strong evidence to the contrary.

Now, as far as using that search function...what is it you were hoping I would discover that I missed?
 

Dave

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 19, 1999
Messages
6,894
Location
Edmonton
A lactone is a cyclic ester, so you're both right.

Although limpet is more right.
 

redeemer

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
2,135
synchrojet said:
If you peruse the contents of those threads you will quickly discover that there is no conmprehensive explanation of the acidosos that arises from chronic GBL consumption.
Yes, I apologize. I just remember reading that thread recently and that it concluded that GBL ingestion didn't cause acidosis. My mistake :)
 

Morb

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
135
as a xyrem user id really love to hear about this supposed acidosis link

one former blulighter said it leaches bone minerals and he broke his finger typing, idk about that, but i broke my wrist, true it was a high impact fall but it was my first real broken bone and i spent years powerlifting and have been xrayed showing great mineral density

also i wonder if they reduce your potency over time, i never take it regularly and even after months off, its just not nearly the same, the first couple bottles i had i was positively tripping off of, its much different now, even after extended layoffs, its hard to believe at that price theyd resort to straining, but hey i wouldnt put anything past a pharmaco
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
one former blulighter said it leaches bone minerals and he broke his finger typing, idk about that, but i broke my wrist, true it was a high impact fall but it was my first real broken bone and i spent years powerlifting and have been xrayed showing great mineral density
If that were the case because it's an organic acid, then as I've said elsewhere, Coca-Cola and other drinks high in citric or tartaric acid would have been pulled years ago - the leaching bone minerals story sounds like another of the unfounded myths surrounding GHB/GBL. I hate to put this to you, but it's more likely to be due to the inevitable process of getting older. As we get older, there's less mechanical protection from tissue, the bone starts losing some of the connective tissue that helps strengthen it and we're not as agile, so falls tend to be more destructive.

On the issue of metabolic acidosis from GBL, I've found some bits and peices that indicate that it might be partially due to the effect HGH has on the human body, which is increased by GBL consumption Now the bad bit - it's actually GHB that causes an increase in HGH, not GBL, so there should be a similar degree of acidosis found in people using an equivalent amount of GHB. The degree of acidosis would only have been slight anyway and not something with potentially dangerous clinical implications. In that case, there is still a huge gap in accounting for synchrojet's metabolic acidosis. All I'm left withh now is some sort of genetic difference that leads to a different metabolism for something associated with his intake.

That said, I've not given up yet
 

Jamshyd

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
15,498
Location
Not on a train, sadly.
F&B: I've recently been reading on 1,4-BD, and apparently it, as well, produces acidosis. It seems to support your statement that it is the GHB that is the ultimate cause (since 1,4-BD turns into GHB in the body, or increases its natural production rate, or both - I can't verify which is true and would appreciate any clarification)

Out of interest, though, it seems like 1,4-BD is the one most associated with GI disturbances of the three mentioned thus far in this thread...
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
^ Considering the metabolism of 1,4-butanediol does not pass through a stage involving GBL, that's as good as proof (to me) that GHB is the eventual culprit of any acidosis that occurs. Because of that, it makes me even more convinced that it must be endocrine mediated (possibly via HGH). The greater problems seen with GBL w.r.t. this and things like dopamine rebound would also make sense due to the higher peak plasma level of GHB after consumption of GBL (when compared to an equal weight dose of GBL).

I think the higher incidence if GI disturbance seen with 1,4-BDO is nothing to do weith its evental metabolite GHB, but more to do with the mild irritant effects produced in the gut by polyhydric alcohols (it's why suppositories for constipation contain glycerol - propane-1,2,3-triol - it acts as a mild irritant to the colon and stimulates defaecation.


Cheers for that little snippet Jamshyd, it's really helped piece a couple of things together about GHB/GBL/BDO in my mind
 

uacvax

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
994
Location
cali
Not to jack your thread, but I have a question about ghb and gbl myself. Most gbl contains a small concentration of metals and minerals and stuff, most noticeably lead. Does that pose a health risk?
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
uacvax said:
Not to jack your thread, but I have a question about ghb and gbl myself. Most gbl contains a small concentration of metals and minerals and stuff, most noticeably lead. Does that pose a health risk?
Yes, lead is toxic, it's a heavy metal poison that causes mental retardation. Thing is, assays I've seen of GBL - bog standard lab grade - never even mention lead as a contaminant as it's at levels that are too small to detect (& therefore not a toxicological problem). Any firm stupid enough to sell GBL that has a lead content would find themselves in court over all sorts of public health charges, even if they went for the 'we said it wasn't for internal use' approach. Paint with lead in it isn't meant for internal use, but it's still illegal
 

uacvax

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
994
Location
cali
GBL isn't meant for human consumption though.

Have you seen this one?


Assay %


99.8

Nitrate, wt. ppm max
1.00
Sulfate, wt. ppm max
1.00
Copper, wt. ppm max
0.05
Lead, wt. ppm max
0.05
 

DjTaZZ

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
153
gbl is shit, ghb powder is healthy. get na-ghb powder, and stay the fuck away from gbl period. gbl isn't meant for human consumption like the above poster said.
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
Sing another tune, for god's sake. There's plenty of research showing GBL is a pro-drug for GHB, and that it becomes GHB very quickly upon entering the bloodstream. There's plenty of things like MSDS safety data sheets indicating that GBL has no long term effect on organs etc.
gbl is shit, ghb powder is healthy
They're effectively the same drug (an analogous relationship is morphine and heroin; heroin gets the acetyl groups removed to become morphine in the brain & both are excreted as morphine-6-glucuronide. Heroin is more potent because it crosses the blood-brain barrier quicker, so produces higher peak levels of morphine. That's all that's happening with GBL in respect of GHB).

GHB powder isn't 'healthy', it's a drug, just like any other and people have died from taking it. GBL might be slightly more dangerous because it produces a higher peak plasma level of GHB, but other than that, there's no difference.

We all know your opinion on GBL, but just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean that your opinion will substitute for scientific fact (which is what you're attempting to do).


Have you seen this one?


Assay %

99.8

Lead, wt. ppm max
0.05
I thought you meant significant levels of lead, 0.05ppm of lead is 50ug per kilo of GBL - you get more lead by eating fruit bought from high street greengrocers with their fruit on display (from lead in petrol products). 50ug per kilo isn't a health threat - if you'd been talking about 50ppm, then it might be something to worry about, but 0.05ppm well below the safety threshold set out by national governments for things like food etc. (at 0.05ppm, that means that your average dose of GBL say 2ml/3g contains 150ng (one sixth of a microgram) of lead at most - you'd absorb more lead fixing a burst water pipe!)
 

DjTaZZ

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
153
fast, no its not essentially the same drug. Thats like saying Cocaine, and Crack are the same thing. No they are not. GBL is like "crack", and GHB is like "cocaine" would be the best way to describe it. Crack has a much higher addiction potential, and worse withdrawals, and also more harmful on the body. GBL and GHB are not the same thing. I don't care what you say buddy. When GHB was pulled from shelves in 1990, you didn't hear about the full blown dopamine psychosis withdrawals etc, but when GBL was pulled in 2000, you heard about all sorts of kinds of withdrawals.

This has been discussed serveral times already on BL and I don't know why some of you keep bringing it back up.
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
fast, no its not essentially the same drug. Thats like saying Cocaine, and Crack are the same thing.
They are the same thing - cocaine, it's just that crack produces much higher plasma levels due to the route of administration. It has a higher addiction potential because 1) there's less time between administration and the 'reward' and 2) it produces a much higher peak plasma level due to all the dose being delivered into the bloodstream in the space of 20-30 seconds. Snorting coke means that the drug is delivered into the bloodstream over 5-10 mins, so the same amount of cocaine will produce a much lower peak plasma level.

GBL and GHB are not the same thing. I don't care what you say buddy. When GHB was pulled from shelves in 1990, you didn't hear about the full blown dopamine psychosis withdrawals etc, but when GBL was pulled in 2000, you heard about all sorts of kinds of withdrawals.
They are the same thing to the body ie GHB. The difference in reporting is due mainly to an increase in popularity. If you get say 1 person in 1000 reporting w/d & psychosis, you're obviously going to get more reports of it if the using population had increased from say 100,000 to say 2,000,000; 10 years is a long time for a drug trend - by 2000 so many more people had heard about GBL/GHB and wanted in on the deal, so you're going to get more reports of adverse reactions. Admittedly the higher peak levels produced by GBL will have a small role in it, but only a small role.


This has been discussed serveral times already on BL and I don't know why some of you keep bringing it back up.
Because of the myths/misinformation that keeps floating around on BL & the net. An example is hpnotiq - he said that there were no deaths directly due to GHB alone. I sent him a PM (with refs so he could check them) listing about half a dozen cases of just that ie GHB the only drug involved (got them from my other half who is a toxicologist and deals with that sort of info every day). He never acknowledged the e-mail or posted anything saying, OK, but there aren't many and as such the myth of GHB's non toxicity continued in some people's eyes. That's only one of many examples (mostly due to hpnotiq's zealot-like praise of GHB & his refusal to hear anything bad about it). The research on GBL/GHB is finding out more all the time - everything I've said is from respected research journals or bodies like the BMA - not propaganda tools of various governments.
 
Last edited:

DjTaZZ

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
153
hpnotiq was right, and you were wrong. You spread misinformation all over this forum, no wonder people are so stupid when it comes to drugs, they believe nothing but media bullshit. Its people like you that got GHB banned in the first place, and now people get the unpure GBL shit that causes very hard to measure dosing and terrible side effects/withdrawals. Pure GHB Powder is where its at buddy, quit repping about your amphetamine sulphate bullshit as if thats any safer for your body. Who are you to believe anyway, you aren't the genius like you think you are when it comes to drugs.
 

fastandbulbous

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
19,662
Location
that rainy little island off europe
^ I was wondering when it was going to come down to personal insults - in my experience that's the last refuge of someone who's run out of proper arguements and knows that they're wrong, but has too large an ego to be able to admit it. For all your bleating, you've presented no info/data from respected independant research/medical journals to back your claim over several threads on the subject.

You spread misinformation all over this forum
Hey, if someone pulls me up on a point and produces data to show me I'm incorrect then I'm happy to admit I'm wrong (I can think of a rew times it's happened) and I learn from it rather than becoming petulant and insulting people in a totally groundless manner.

Its people like you that got GHB banned in the first place
How? c'mon, put your money where your mouth is and explain how my approach of referencing research data was responsible for getting GHB banned. More likely it was irresponsible idiots going around saying that it was a perfectly safe, non-toxic compound that were responsible - people have died from GHB alone, so misinformation given out that it was perfectly safe is most probably the main reason that it got banned.


Pure GHB Powder is where its at buddy
What the fuck is that supposed to mean in terms of the subject of this thread (GHB and acidosis in case you can only hold a limited amount of information at any one time) - where what is?


quit repping about your amphetamine sulphate bullshit as if thats any safer for your body.
And there we have a perfect example that you either don't read or don't understand what I've been saying. I've never said amphetamine is any safer for your body (in fact it's most probably a lot worse for your body) - I was using the example of how injecting amphetamine (ie getting the full dose into your bloodstream in 30 seconds) is going to produce a lot more side effects than the same dose of amphetamine taken orally (2-3 hours for all the dose taken to get into the bloodstream). This relates to how GBL produces much higher plasma levels of GHB because it is absorbed a hell of a lot faster from the GI tract than GHB - even the fact that it has to be converted into GHB in the bloodstream doesn't make that much difference as it only takes 8-12 mins to convert all the GBL to GHB, which is still far faster than the levels reached by direct absorbtion of GHB.

As I said, if you'd read & understood the analogy you wouldn't have had cause to make the above rediculous statement. I don't know if you're too arrogant to read what I said, or simply didn't understand it, but if you look back over my posts, you'll find I made no claim that amphetamine sulphate was safer. If you're going to try and insult someone, it helps if you can actually use something they've said as a basis for the insults rather than what you think they said/what you'd have liked them to say.

Who are you to believe anyway, you aren't the genius like you think you are when it comes to drugs.
I've always said & encouraged people never to just believe a person (esp me), but to check their facts against text books etc as people make mistakes so anything said should be confirmed independantly. I never realized I was dealing with a psychic (or is it something similar sounding?) who could tell me about thoughts that I was never even aware of... I don't think I'm a genius (anyone who thinks themselves a genius is generally only a rabid megalomaniac. Genius is a term that others use to describe a person), but I'll acknowledge that I do know a fair bit about drugs; after all that's what the focus of all my academic study was while at university so if I didn't I'd be a pretty sad case. I will say this though, I know a sight more about drugs than you do; infact I've most probably forgotten more information about drugs than you presently know - that's pretty evident from reading some of your previous posts.

PS I was willing to be fairly civil about this topic when I originally saw that you'd posted in this thread, but I had a feeling it would come down to this. The fact that you felt compelled to start being personal speaks volumes about you. I can only say to anybody else to thouroghly investigate the topic for themselves from reputable, independant sources and come to their own conclusion. If it turns out that after all that, people think that you're correct I'll get all sorts of derisive comments in posts, but until that time I'll continue to counter misinformation from zealots like you that don't want to see the truth. Other than that, we can only wait and see - and in the end, time will tell...
 
Last edited:
Top