Phenethylamines Self experiments with new series of NXXX-phenylethylamines

[Hans Meyer]

Self-testing of new Phenyethylamin substances of the NXXX-phenyehthylamin class
In the future I will use this thread to publish my work on new Research Chemicals that I have created and tested in self-tests. For now I will focus on the PEA-NDEPA (substituted Phenyethylamino-N,N-diethylpropanamides) line and the PEA-NBX (N-benzyl-substituted Phenylethylamines) line of chemicals.I might add different lines of chemicals later though.

The Idea of focusing on PEA-NDEPA Chemicals came from reading the German publication:
Schulze-Alexandru, Meike; Kovar, Karl-Artur; Vedani, Angelo (Institute of Pharmacy, University of Tubingen, 72076 Tubingen, Germany): „Quasi-atomistic Receptor Surrogates for the 5-HT2A Receptor: A 3D-QSAR Study on Hallucinogenic Substances“, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat.1999, 18(6), 548-560, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH.
While not fully understanding its contents, the last sentence struck me:
„The most promising candidate compound is a molecule which represents a hybrid structure between LSD and phenylalkylamines such as DOI*. The binding affinity of this compound towards the 5-HT2A-receptor is predicted to be K=3.2 nM, close to the experimental binding affinity of LSD (K=2.5 nM). Some of these compounds have been synthesized in the meantime, allowing for a critical evaluation of our model.”
*The Authors are referring to DOI-NDEPA. There has been no more Literature on this topic since then.

The first publication on the Topic of PEA-NBX was AFAIK:
Molecular Pharmacology Fast Forward. Published on September 25, 2006 as doi:10.1124 / mol.106.0287; MOL #28720:“Molecular interaction of serotonin 5-HT2A receptor residues Phe339(6.51) and Phe340(6.52) with super-potent N-benzyl phenethylamine agonists”, Michael R. Braden, Jason C. Parrish, John C. Naylor, David E. Nichols, Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
(If you are interested in either of the articles plz pm me with an Email and I will gladly provide a copy.)

I published my own findings on the matter on the 10.5.2014 in a PDF. It is accessible here: Table of SV_v2.0.1.pdf (Listings of self-tests on new Rcs) (in German Language). Table of SV_v2.0.1.pdf (Listings of self-tests on new Rcs, experimental part in English)
Because of difficulties in finding this publication I decided to republish the Results. Special Thanks to „perpetuaklawn“ for the hint to publish every substancereport in a seperate posting. Format of date „yymmdd“.
*mod edit: Here is a link to the document (in German) detailing the compounds somewhat more: New RCs Possible

Appeal to Producers and Sellers of Research Chemicals, Spice, Bathsalts...
Have in mind that your success is based on war on drugs and on that alone! You as producer and seller bear the responsibility for customer service and satisfaction! Don´t sell substances not tested by yourself! Give hints and warnings, such as: „Unfit for human consumption! Likely to cause severe harm if accidentally swallowed in doses larger than ….mg. In that case it is highly recommended to seek medical advice!“

Summary of the products characteristics
PEA-NDEPA-salts are hygroskopic, crystallise only very slowly and, hence, are to be cleaned laboriously (see pictures). Nevertheless, they show, dependent on substance, effect-increases and qualitative effect changes compared with her accompanying PEA. Here changes in PEA- (e.g. -CH3 to the amine), as well as in the NDEPA-part (nearer to the LSD-structur) could prove interesting new substances (it seems that above all the amphetamine analogous show the stronger effects). PEA-NBX mostly have greater effectiveness and qualitatively other effects, than her accompanying PEA. For strong effect a group with a free Electron pair in the N-Benzyl seems necessary at ortho position (e.g. -OH, -OCH₃): the stronger the Electron donating power, the more efficiently, but possibly also more toxically works the substance: e.g. -OC₂H₅ > -OCH_3. Increasing order of +I-inductiv effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect and increasing lipophilicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipophilic_efficiency may increase potency. This working hypothesis offers a large amount of new RC to be tested: e.g. replacement of ortho-O-CH₃ by -O-C₂H_5, -O-allyl, -O-iso-Propyl..., -SH, -S-alkyl, -NH_2, -NH-alkyl, -N(alkyl)₂, etc.... but also Heterocycles, e.g. 2-pyridyl-methyl-, 2-thienyl-methyl-... etc. could be effective, as the example 2C-D-N3TM points out. The PEA-part of the PEA-NBX also may be changed. The most effective seems to be 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chlor-PEA-NBX, but also the 3,4,5-Trialkyl-PEA-NBX (e.g. with Mescaline, Escaline...etc.) show increased potential compared to her mother-PEA.

Identification of the substance
There are no physical tools available to me, to ensure the given structures of the substances, e.g. IR, UV, NMR, GC-MS etc. What I can say, however, is that the given chemical structures fullfill as well all expected properties observed during the well established synthesis procedures itself as all expected properties during the process of isolation of the final products. And only classical, well ensured organic synthetic strategies were used. Last, but not least, observed mind-altering effects demonstrate the integrity of the "chain of evidence".


My reasons for finding out and publishing new research chemicals
Humans need an intoxication or drunkenness or ecstasy from time to time. And they should be allowed to decide by their owne, wich one and with wich means. Not the drug produces dependence or addiction, one´s character structure leads to excessive use, suggesting problem-solving of distressing feelings. Dependence should be seen as it is: not produced by a drug, but rather as a psycho-social problem.
War on drugs will continue. Eugene Jarecki carfully researches show the political reasons for this war and failure for a policy that is urgently in need of rethinking; a political war, followed by discrimination of and war on the BLACK
(Eugene Jarecki and the campaign to end America's war on drugs: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/30/eugene-jarecki-war-on-drugs).
A big industry of suppression and repression has taken on a life of its own and can hardly be stopped. Discrimination and Illegalisation of most of the outlawed hallucinogens (e.g.Mescaline, MDMA, LSD, Psylocybin...) leads scandalously to discrimination and illegalisation of a very helpfull psychotherapy: the psycholytic therapy. However, I hope the wave of research chemicals will help to build up more pressure in discussing and legislating for more liberalisation and more intelligent use of drugs.

My set and setting
Slightly depressed; trips with small amounts, mostly during nordic walking in nature or listening music at home, often helps; also small amounts (3...6µg!) of e.g. 2C-C-NB25diOMe in the evening. Expect (at higher doses) Mescaline-/LSD-like response. All results and statements are self-evident valid to me only, as the only test person. Each clientis an individual and will respond uniquely in accordance with „Set“ and „Setting“. I didn´t give any substanc to other people and will not do so in future. I usually used small amounts only; higher doses I hardly can tolerate any more.

Uncertainties of doses:
Number of digits are not significant but only contributed to computation. ±(3...30%) uncertainties are – dose dependent – realistic. 3% can be assigned roughly to the higher doses and 30% to the very low ones. Mostly it ranges between 10 and 20%.

Abbreviations
s.l.: sublingual for xx minutes;
o.e.s.: oral empty stomach;
h: hour; ´: minute
na: not avaliable;


GERMAN ORIGINAL (can only be seen, if SCRIPTS are allowed):

NSFW:

Selbsttests mit neuen Serien von NXXX-phenyethylaminen
In loser Folge werde ich hier erste Selbstests mit erstmals synthetisierten, neuen Research Chemicals veroeffentlichen; zunaechst nur aus den Reihen PEA-NDEPA (substituierte Phenyethylamino-N,N-diethylpropanamide) und PEA-NBX (N-benzyl-substituierte substituierte Phenylethylamine), spaeter eventuell noch andere.


Auf die Idee, Vertreter der PEA-NDEPA herzustellen, brachte mich eine deutsche Veroeffentlichung von 1999:
Schulze-Alexandru, Meike; Kovar, Karl-Artur; Vedani, Angelo (Institute of Pharmacy, University of Tubingen, 72076 Tubingen, Germany): „Quasi-atomistic Receptor Surrogates for the 5-HT_2A Receptor: A 3D-QSAR Study on Hallucinogenic Substances“, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1999, 18(6), 548-560, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH. Den Artikel habe ich kaum halb verstanden, jedoch den letzten Satz schon: „The most promising candidate compound is a molecule which represents a hybrid structure between LSD and phenylalkylamines such as DOI*. The binding affinity of this compound towards the 5-HT_2A-receptor is predicted to be K=3.2 nM, close to the experimental binding affinity of LSD (K=2.5 nM). Some of these compounds have been synthesized in the meantime, allowing for a critical evaluation of our model.” (*Gemeint ist hier DOI-NDEPA. In der Literatur ist seitdem (bis 2010) nichts mehr zu diesem Thema erschienen.)


Die erste Veroeffentlichung zu PEA-NBX war IMHO:
Molecular Pharmacology Fast Forward. Published on September 25, 2006 as doi:10.1124 / mol.106.0287; MOL #28720:“Molecular interaction of serotonin 5-HT_2A receptor residues Phe339(6.51) and Phe340(6.52) with super-potent N-benzyl phenethylamine agonists”,
Michael R. Braden, Jason C. Parrish, John C. Naylor, David E. Nichols, Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.


(Bei Interesse kann ich nach Anfrage Kopien beider Papers an die E-mail-Adresse verschicken.)


In einem komprimierten pdf-file vom 10.05.2014 sind meine bisherigen Ergebnisse bereits unter Table of SV_v2.0.1.pdf (Listings of self-tests on new Rcs) im Netz, waren aber offensichtlich schwer zu finden und zu lesen. Datum der hiesigen Veroeffentlichung im Format „yymmdd“. Dank an „perpetuaklawn“ fuer den guten Rat, fuer jede Substanz einen eigenen Post zu verwenden, das ist dann sehr uebersichtlich.


Appell an die Produzenten und Verkaeufer von RCs, Spices...
Seid euch bewusst, dass ihr nur deswegen Verkaufserfolg habt, weil die „normalen“ Substanzen kriminalisiert wurden! Auch ihr als Produzenten und Verkaeufer habt eine Verantwortung gegenueber euren Kunden und Produkten! Also verkauft keine Substanzen, die ihr nicht selbst getestet habt! Gebt (da es sein muss: versteckte) Hinweise zur Toxizitaet, etwa in der Form:
„Nicht zum Verzehr! Bei versehentlichem Verschlucken von mehr als ….mg, unbedingt Arzt aufsuchen!“

Zusammenfassung der Substanzeigenschaften
PEA-NDEPA-Salze sind hygroskopisch, kristallisieren nur sehr langsam und sind daher muehsam zu reinigen (siehe Fotos). Sie scheinen mir jedoch, Substanz-abhaengig, Wirkungssteigerungen und qualitative Wirkungsveraenderungen gegenueber ihren zugehoerigen PEA zu zeigen. Hier koennten Aenderungen sowohl im PEA-, als auch im NDEPA-Teil (noch mehr in Richtung LSD-Angleichung) interessante neue Substanzen ergeben (es scheint so, dass vor allem die Amphetamin-Analogen die staerkere Wirkung zeigen). PEA-NBX haben meist hoehere und qualitativ andere Wirksamkeit, als ihre zugehoerigen PEA. Fuer starke Wirkung scheint eine freie Elektronenpaar-tragende Gruppe in der N-staendigen Benzylgruppe (z.B. -OH oder -OCH₃) in ortho-Stellung noetig: je staerker dort die Elektronendonoreigenschaft ist, desto wirksamer, aber moeglicherweise auch toxischer, z.B. -OC₂H₅ > -OCH_3. Ansteigender inductiver +I-Effekt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect und Steigerung der Lipophilie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipophilic_efficiency scheinen bis zu einem gewissen Grade die Wirksamkeit zu erhoehen. Mit dieser Arbeithypothese bieten sich eine Fuelle von neuen zu testenden RC an (z.B. ortho-O-CH₃ ersetzen durch -O-C₂H₅, -O-allyl, -O-iso-Propyl..., -SH, -S-alkyl, -NH₂, -NH-alkyl, -N(alkyl)₂, usw... aber auch Heterocyclen, wie z.B. 2-pyridyl-methyl-, 2-thienyl-methyl-... etc. koennten als N-Substituent wirksam sein, wie das Beispiel 2C-D-N3TM zeigt). Der PEA-Teil der PEA-NBX kann ebenfalls variiert werden: Am wirksamsten scheinen hier 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chlor-PEA-NBX, aber auch die 3,4,5-Trialkoxy-PEA-NBX (z.B. mit Mescalin, Escalin etc.) haben gesteigertes Potential, welches sich vielleicht lohnen wuerde zu untersuchen: ich meine auch immer, neben einer Wirksteigerung, eine qualitative Wirkaenderung gegenueber den zugehoerenden Ausgangs-PEA feststellen zu koennen.


Substanz-Identifizierung
Mir stehen keine physikalischen Geraete zur Substanz-Identifizierung, wie z.B. IR, UV, NMR, GC-MS etc. zur Verfuegung. Dennoch denke ich sagen zu koennen, dass es sich um die angegebenen Substanzen handelt. Beweisend sind hier die angewendeten abgesicherten klassischen Synthesewege und die eingesetzten Ausgangssubstanzen. Weiter weisen Verhalten, Aussehen, Geruch etc. bei der Aufarbeitung der Reaktionsloesungen bis hin zu Eigenschaften der Endprodukte die erwarteten Identitaeten nach. Am Ende der Beweiskette steht der Test auf bewusstseinsveraendernde Wirksamkeit.

Warum ich neue RCs finden und veroeffentlichen moechte
Der Mensch braucht hin und wieder einen Rausch. Er hat ein Recht darauf! Welche Art Rausch und welches Mittel er dabei benutzt, sollte er selbst entscheiden koennen. Abhaengigkeit oder Sucht sollten als rein gesellschaftlich-psychisches Problem angesehen werden – was es in der Tat auch ist. Nicht die Substanz macht abhaengig: die Charakterstruktur des Disponierten sucht sich, durch bedrueckend empfundene Lebensqualitaet scheinbar nahegelegt und verstaerkt, ihre spezielle kompensatorische Abhaengigkeit! Das kann dann alles sein: Arbeit, Kunst, Essen, Alkohol, Sex, Heroin, Suessigkeiten, Rennautos, Macht...etc. Das taeuscht dann eine Problemloesung vor, oder hilft zumindest der Problemverdraengung, aber selbstverstaendlich nicht der Problemloesung: weil sie einen darunter liegenden Mangel mit einem falschen Objekt auszugleichen versucht. (Beispiel: Shopping-Gehen nach teuren / „angesagten“ Klamotten als Statussymbol soll ein mangelndes Selbstwertgefuehl ausgleichen, das geht aber nicht, weil Selbstwertzweifel durch teure / modische / auffaellige Kleidung in Richtung Selbstwert nicht bearbeitet werden koennen...)
„War on Drugs“ wird mit Sicherheit weitergehen. Eugene Jarecki zeigte durch sorgfaeltige Recherchen die politischen Gruende, die seit beginnendem 20. Jahrhundert erst zur Diskriminierung, dann Illegalisierung von Drogenkonsum in den USA fuehrte. Konkret waren und sind besonders die Afroamerikaner betroffen: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/30/eugene-jarecki-war-on-drugs. Mittlerweile kann dieser Drogenkrieg schon deswegen kaum vermindert oder gestoppt werden, da sich eine komplette verselbstaendigte Bekaempfungsindustrie etabliert hat. Deutschland, zusammen mit weltweit vielen anderen Staaten, trat unterwuerfig-pflichtschuldigst der UN-“Konvention ueber Psychotrope Substanzen“ bei, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konvention%C3%BCber_psychotrope_Substanzen
und beraubte sich so der Moeglichkeit, eigene intelligentere und sachgerechtere Ansichten zum Drogenkonsum zu diskutieren, zu entwickeln und zu realisieren. Es folgte ebenfalls Diskriminierung und Kriminalisierung. Sehr erfolgreich seit mehr als 50 Jahren(!) eingefuehrte psychotherapeutische Verfahren, die sich der lockernden Wirkung von Psycholytika bedienen, wurden in der Oeffentlichkeit diskriminiert und die einzusetzenden Substanzen im Betaeubungsmittelgesetz (BtMG) illegalisiert (z.B. Mescalin, MDMA, LSD, Psylocybin...). Die Weiterentwicklung dieser hochwirksamen Verfahren ist in Deutschland skandaloeserweise nahezu eingeschlafen: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholytische_Psychotherapie (waehrend andere Laender da einsichtiger geworden sind, z.B. Schweiz, USA...).
Mit der Kriminalisierung des Rauschmittelgebrauchs wird in die freie Persoenlichkeitsentwicklung unzulaessiger- und unnoetigerweise eingegriffen. Es wird immer Menschen geben, die mit gefaehrlichen Werkzeugen nicht umgehen koennen, deswegen aber den Gebrauch komplett zu verbieten, ist diktatorische Willkuer, geboren aus Un-/ Falschinformiertheit, Angst, Hilflosigkeit und/oder Ueberforderung – auch finanzieller Art. Eine diesbezuegliche Klage vor dem Europaeischen Gerichtshof fuer Menschenrechte koennte hier erhellend wirken; leider sehe ich mich nicht in der Lage, eine solche Klage anzustossen und durchzustehen. Die Welle der „research chemicals“ haelt zumindest den Druck auf Diskussion und Gesetzgebung aufrecht, sich in Richtung „Intelligentere Drogenadaption“ zu bewegen. Ich persoenlich freue mich, in 2C-C-NB25diOMe ein Mittel gegen meine morgendlichen depressiven Zustaende gefunden zu haben (Dosis nur ~3...6µg! abends, Schlaf danach und Verlauf des naechsten Tages: o.k.).


Mein set und setting
Bin leicht depressiv. Trips mit geringen Mengen, oft waehrend nordic walking in der Natur, oder mit Musik zuhause, helfen oft; ebenfalls kleine Mengen (3...6µg!) z.B. 2C-C-NB25diOMe am Abend. Erwartungshaltung (bei hoeheren Dosen): Wirkung wie Mescalin oder LSD. Alles, was ich hier aussage ueber Wirkung der Substanzen gilt selbstverstaendlich nur fuer mich als bisher einzige Testperson; jeder wird individuell, nach Maßgabe von „Set“ und „Setting“, anders reagieren. Anderen Personen habe ich die Substanzen nicht gegeben und werde dies auch in Zukunft nicht tun. Ich testete normalerweise nur geringe Mengen; hoehere Dosen vertrage ich nicht mehr.


Unsicherheit der Dosisangabe
Die Zahl der angegebenen Stellen ist nicht signifikant, sondern rechnerisch bedingt. ±(3...30%) Unsicherheit sind – dosisabhaengig – realistisch. 3% mehr bei den hoeheren Dosen, 30% mehr bei den ganz niedrigen. Die mittleren Dosen irgendwo zwischen 10 und 20%.


Abkuerzungen
s.l.: unter der Zunge (sub lingua) fuer xx minuten;
o.e.s.: geschluckt auf nuechternen Magen (oral empty stomach);
h: Stunde; ´: Minute
na: not avaliable;

Thank You borega for revision of this English text

 

[Solipsis]

Thanks for any info you have posted and/or will post on new substances, however I must ask you not to things written in German, and am gonna have to moderate the post to put it in spoiler tags. English is just the only language for the forum I'm afraid. I appreciate that you do your best to translate and that it might not seem fair, but please understand in your turn.
Alternating between the languages is very confusing, it's gonna have to be split into an English part and a German part. It's now more convenient for everyone I'd say.


Are you sure that the NDEPA's are amides instead of amines? Because that implies a peptide link i.e. ketone next to amine. Are they dialkylated derivatives of psychedelic bk-PEAs?

Never mind! I see that there is an amide in addition to the amine function. (It is a hybrid between DOX and LSD)

I don't think you having those pdfs with results on your German forum is ideal for us, are you okay with me hosting copies of the pdfs on my own site?

So, summarizing for those thinking TL;DR :

- TMA-2-DEPA is active in the single digit mg range
- M-DEPA was taken up to dosages of nearly 50-100 mg and considered interesting but rather weak (not generally suggesting that it is worth the effort , just like we saw with M-NBOMe)

right?

Shame DOX-DEPA's were not actually tested, that seems like an interesting avenue.
Although it must be remembered that DOX-NBOMe's are not really very effective so maybe it is more interesting to check the non-alpha-alkylated ones (2C-X-DEPA). Yes I guess the mescaline one is a 2C but mescaline is of course one of the least potent ones, N-benzylated 25X substituted compounds are a relative success and shows increase in potency starting from the parent 2C-X while the same success is not seen in mescaline-NBOme.

P.S.

lol @ "fight with dragons just before sleep" note

 

[perpetualdawn]

I look forward to your posts Hans

 

[Solipsis]

Not sure if TRs are forthcoming, the 'experiments' he already performed taking a number of compounds have been documented in pdfs he indirectly links to (you have to go via another - German - forum). He put it in excel tables with very brief reports of effect.

That's why I asked to mirror host his pdfs, and make it single click accessible.

Although... they were put publicly, I don't see how it could not be okay to host a copy.

 

[perpetualdawn]

He has already posted a pdf with english translations of the experiments, I think he's going to reformat them and post as plain text here, one chem per post probably.

 

[Solipsis]

Ah okay I did not understand that, I guess let's wait

 

[Hans Meyer]

Thanks Solipsis for splitting the text into the English and the German part. It is now much more clearly structured.

You wrote: "I don't think you having those pdfs with results on your German forum is ideal for us, are you okay with me hosting copies of the pdfs on my own site?
So, summarizing for those thinking TL;DR :
- TMA-2-DEPA is active in the single digit mg range
- M-DEPA was taken up to dosages of nearly 50-100 mg and considered interesting but rather weak (not generally suggesting that it is worth the effort , just like we saw with M-NBOMe)
right?"
I agree with that format, the most important informations were told in that (may be You can put a link to the original pdf-file: "Table of SV_v2.0.1.pdf (Listings of self-tests on new Rcs)", in case that one would like to be informed in more details?) (now I prefer "-NDEPA" instead of "-DEPA", I finde it a little bit more clear.)

I didn´t test DOX-NDEPA´s (except DOM-NDEPA, wich was more active than DOM). Definitely I will synthesize and test DOC-NDEPA in future and expect much more activity than DOC has. I am not able to test DOB/I-NDEPA because of lack of the starting compounds for synthesis (DOB/I/CF3...-NDEPA are expected to have the highest power regarding the calculations of Schulze-Alexandru, Meike et al. )

You wrote: "Although it must be remembered that DOX-NBOMe's are not really very effective so maybe it is more interesting to check the non-alpha-alkylated ones (2C-X-DEPA)"
In opposite to the DOX-NBOMe´s, the DOX-NDEPA´s were expected to have high potential, whereas the 2C-X-NDEPA´s are not definitely expected to have (regarding the paper of Schulze-Alexandru, Meike et al.), but it is not excluded that they may have a certain (lower) potential too. In all our discussions it should never be forget, that potential (ED50) is not the only thing, but also much more the quality - and that depends remarkably on set and setting besides the substance and the dose. So, though M-NBX´s (or Escaline-NBX etc.) has low potential, nevertheless it might be of interest.

 

[Solipsis]

No problem. I also fixed the links for you, now they don't indirectly lead to the forum where the document attachments still have to be searched, but to the direct files to be downloaded (though not my hosting, still the original).

X-NDEPA does sound better since it is consistent with -NBX naming and complete in showing where the substitution is linked. Although if there is original literature on this, it could be presumptuous to change the names the original creators gave them.

Interesting thanks for explaining the SAR, I have not gotten around yet to reading the articles. There are similar 'counterintuitive' rules for NBX potency that seem to be in a way opposite to 2C-X and DOX rules of SAR.

And I agree about the quality, we don't really need more shallow and hollow psychedelics. Also absence of (dangerous) side-effects is really important, it would be great if there were novel compounds presented that could fill the place of NBX compounds with strange therapeutic index profiles... new ones that may be shown to have good selectivity or attenuated effect.

Looking forward to hear about qualitative notes on DOM-NDEPA. And yeah wouldn't we all like some TFM's.

This is borderline NSP forum but I think keeping this here is justified because we are not primarily theoretizing about structures and pharmacology, you are bio-assaying. Which must have taken you some time, to do proper titration and waiting periods in consideration of tolerance effects.

 

[sekio]

Schulze-Alexandru, Meike; Kovar, Karl-Artur; Vedani, Angelo (Institute of Pharmacy, University of Tubingen, 72076 Tubingen, Germany): „Quasi-atomistic Receptor Surrogates for the 5-HT2A Receptor: A 3D-QSAR Study on Hallucinogenic Substances“, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat.1999, 18(6), 548-560, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH.

This paper is a joke. It's total fiction. They develop a supposed predictive model for psychedelic activity which among other things says N-methyl DOI is more potent than normal DOI... which is patently false. Don't expect the compounds described to be LSD replacements, it's from 1999 after all. People must have tried it.

The N-benzylated analogues look neat though.

There are no physical tools available to me, to ensure the given structures of the substances, e.g. IR, UV, NMR, GC-MS etc.

Gee, that gives me great confidence.

 

[drewbocop]

This paper is a joke. It's total fiction. They develop a supposed predictive model for psychedelic activity which among other things says N-methyl DOI is more potent than normal DOI... which is patently false. Don't expect the compounds described to be LSD replacements, it's from 1999 after all. People must have tried it.

The N-benzylated analogues look neat though.



Gee, that gives me great confidence.

LOL. Glad I'm not the only one... still should be somewhat interesting though. Don't poison yourself on us now, Hans. You know, for the sake of harm reduction.

 

[Hans Meyer]

ensurance of structure and synthesis of 34-NDEPA

Schulze-Alexandru, Meike; Kovar, Karl-Artur; Vedani, Angelo (Institute of Pharmacy, University of Tubingen, 72076 Tubingen, Germany): „Quasi-atomistic Receptor Surrogates for the 5-HT2A Receptor: A 3D-QSAR Study on Hallucinogenic Substances“, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat.1999, 16), 548-560, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH.

This paper is a joke. It's total fiction. They develop a supposed predictive model for psychedelic activity which among other things says N-methyl DOI is more potent than normal DOI... which is patently false. Don't expect the compounds described to be LSD replacements, it's from 1999 after all. People must have tried it.
The N-benzylated analogues look neat though.

There are no physical tools available to me, to ensure the given structures of the substances, e.g. IR, UV, NMR, GC-MS etc.
Gee, that gives me great confidence.

It is, even today, common practice in QSAR-computation, to build a mathematical model and train it by a set of substances with known properties of interest. As compared with 1999, the descriptors of the interaction between agonist/antagonist and the receptor in question has nowadays surely further refined. However, how well the model works will reveal itself in prediction of some other known particular characteristics of a test-set and the comparison of measured and predicted properties.
The used parameters could have been adjusted to give a cross-validated correlation of q^2=0.954 using the training – and the test-set. This is not so bad. Only 4 substances were outside the factor 2 deviation bounderies. The most deviation shows R-(-)-N-MeDOM (predicted 78±10, experimental 260±20 nM). The N-Me-DOI you have addressed is not used or predicted. My selftest with DOM-NDEPA showed a certain effect ranging in the magnitude of DOM itself. So I think it could be worthwhile evaluating these DOX-NDEPA (X = Cl, Br, I, CF3...). With X=Cl I will test in future.
I am glad that my identification of the substances could give You great confidence (it was meant ironically ?). Indeed generations of chemists had elucidated the identity of substances only using their correct observations and their prior experiences - and accurate elemental analysis (which indeed I can not use too). Belive it, or not, I myself think that I am right.

I wrote this chapter:
Identification of the substance
There are no physical tools available to me, to ensure the given structures of the substances, e.g. IR, UV, NMR, GC-MS etc. What I can say, however, is that the given chemical structures fullfill as well all expected properties observed during the well established synthesis procedures itself as all expected properties during the process of isolation of the final products. And only classical, well ensured organic synthetic strategies were used. Last, but not least, observed mind-altering effects demonstrate the integrity of the "chain of evidence",
to show my working conditions.

Jan. 27.2016 supplement remark:
In one case (34DMPEA-NDEPA) I was able to use GC-MS, to ensure the proposed procedure and molecular structure. More about this (sythesis and GC-MS-identification) see: https://www.hyperlab.info/inv/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=52&t=30996 (it´s a russian / english url; to get access, click "continue" at the bottom of the first shown site. The sites are sure, despite the warnigs of the browsers).

Hans Meyer

 

[sekio]

I am glad that my identification of the substances could give You great confidence (it was meant ironically ?). Indeed generations of chemists had elucidated the identity of substances only using their correct observations and their prior experiences - and accurate elemental analysis (which indeed I can not use too). Believe it, or not, I myself think that I am right.

Perhaps you don't understand - Chemists that actually make and characterize compounds nowadays don't do so on the basis of their qualitative observations alone. If you don't have any means of checking your reaction products, even a melting point, then it's impossible to tell... just because you get something that is psychoactive and think it works, doesn't mean it worked. If you can't provide any evidence you have made the product in question, what's to say you didn't make some different isomer, or just recovered your starting material unreacted?

If you have access to reagents and apparatus for doing reactions why don't you have access to TLC plates and a UV light, or some ninhydrin or something?

 

[Hans Meyer]

Perhaps you don't understand - Chemists that actually make and characterize compounds nowadays don't do so on the basis of their qualitative observations alone. If you don't have any means of checking your reaction products, even a melting point, then it's impossible to tell... just because you get something that is psychoactive and think it works, doesn't mean it worked. If you can't provide any evidence you have made the product in question, what's to say you didn't make some different isomer, or just recovered your starting material unreacted?
If you have access to reagents and apparatus for doing reactions why don't you have access to TLC plates and a UV light, or some ninhydrin or something?

Nowaday I do not have access to reagents and chemicals any more (Utherwise I would try to prepare e.g. DOI-NDEPA or DOCF3-NDEPA, only the not so important DOC-NDEPA is possible to me).
I belive You would agree to my proposal of structural formula, in case where it would be allowed to describe the synthesis-procedures in detail (whereas that would be not acceptable for reasons of disproportionate effort). Indications are given also by the behaviour during reaction of the starting meterials, the behaviour during the workups, the yields, and recrystallisation behavior, also by the very different qualitative and quantitative mind altering power compared to the starting materials. All these facts together give me the security to claim these structural formulas (of course it is not possible to exclude faults and errors completely).
For all those who are interested in the paper: Meike Schulze-Alexandru et al.: "Quasi-atomistic Receptor Surrogates for the 5-HT2A Receptor: A 3D-QSAR Study on Hallucinogenic Substances", here the link: http://tinyurl.com/pzcwv2q

 

[Hans Meyer]

Not sure if TRs are forthcoming, the 'experiments' he already performed taking a number of compounds have been documented in pdfs he indirectly links to (you have to go via another - German - forum). He put it in excel tables with very brief reports of effect.
That's why I asked to mirror host his pdfs, and make it single click accessible.
Although... they were put publicly, I don't see how it could not be okay to host a copy.

It is true, it goes via a German forum, but the pdfs are written in English. I strongly agree to mirror host the pdfs, and thanks for that. In the meantime I thought to publish each tested compound in a separate post; but really! now it seems to me beeing to uneconomical since it is very laborious and time consuming. So the best would be this host mirroring.

 

[Hans Meyer]

Hans, I'd like to ask for an overview on the ones you found most beneficial or most enjoyable!

Hallo "I am the suck" (really nice name!",
It is very difficult to find out the most beneficial, because it - even for a singl test person (me) - largely depends on set and setting (e.g. the experiences, the social environment and yes, even the spiritual and physical format of my day determine the perception and expression of specific emotional stimuli). A nice sentence!? (I found it here)
Roughly to say: Often I use 2C-C-NB25diOme in the range of 3...6 µg! (sub lingual) in the evening, it helps me to overwhelm my common depression in the morning (16 µg was definitely a little bit to much! for this purpose.).
Substances with the highest power seems to be very toxic to me. So it seems so, that the not so powerful ones should be preferred.
So long, Hans Meyer

 

[Solipsis]

What makes you say they seem toxic?

(Also the mirror hosting does not seem necessary since I fixed the links to be direct... that is, unless you think the files will become inaccessible from there in time)

 

[Hans Meyer]

What makes you say they seem toxic?
(Also the mirror hosting does not seem necessary since I fixed the links to be direct... that is, unless you think the files will become inaccessible from there in time)

Asking for this expression „toxic“, shows me that greater clarity is needed on this point.
I researched on the internet, and came to the result, that my term „toxic“ should be exchanged by „body load“ in the sense of EROWID´s definition: http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=2752
In some of my test results I described body reactions and – feelings e.g. blood pressure, distruction, weak-kneed, tinnitus, alcoholic hangover,... etc.
Ok from time to time I want to update the results-file by new test-results. For until then I hope to be a Bluelighter and are allowed to post it as an attachment.

 

[Solipsis]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there is an option of attachments like in that German forum or perhaps the previous Bluelight version. Anyway like I offered before I can host files personally as long as they are not violating anything. If you like that, you should be able to PM me even as a greenlighter since I am a mod.

And thanks for the clarification, I guess purely perceived body load or body high vs. verifiable changes in vital signs and potential acute toxicity vs. lasting / chronic toxicity are 3 different things.

 

[Hans Meyer]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there is an option of attachments like in that German forum or perhaps the previous Bluelight version.

Oh, I thought so.

Anyway like I offered before I can host files personally as long as they are not violating anything. If you like that, you should be able to PM me even as a greenlighter since I am a mod.

Fine, thanks for Your offer!

 

[Hans Meyer]

LOL. Glad I'm not the only one... still should be somewhat interesting though. Don't poison yourself on us now, Hans. You know, for the sake of harm reduction.

I am very careful not to poison myself. In tests I always start with few µg, then double it, until I feel any response. Then increase very carfully.