As the search-engine didn't yield anything, I'd like to ask here whether anyone has lately come across this substance and what their experiences were. All I know about it is what Shulgin wrote ....
Last edited by a moderator:
Shulgin said:EXTENSIONS AND COMMENTARY: Most people who were involved with the evaluation of FLEA quite logically compared it with MDMA, as it was presented as being a very close analogue which might share some of the latter's properties. And to a large measure, the comparison was favorable. The dosages are almost identical, the chronological course of action is almost identical, and there are distinct similarities in the effects that are produced. If there is a consensus of similarities and differences it would be that it is not quite as enabling in allowing a closeness to be established with others. And perhaps there is more of a move towards introspection. And perhaps a slightly increased degree of discoordination in the thought processes. But also, part of this same consensus was that, were MDMA unknown, this material would have played its role completely.
And from the scientific point of view, it lends more weight to a hypothesis that just might be a tremendous research tool in pharmacology. I first observed the intimate connection between an amine and a hydroxylamine with the discovery that N-hydroxy-MDA (MDOH) was equipotent and of virtually identical activity to the non-hydroxylated counterpart (MDA). And I have speculated in the recipe for MDOH about the possible biological interconversions of these kinds of compounds. And here, the simple addition of a hydroxyl group to the amine nitrogen atom of MDMA produces a new drug that is in most of its properties identical to MDMA. The concept has been extended to 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7, and 2C-T-17, where each of these three active compounds was structurally modified in exactly this way, by the addition of a hydroxyl group to the amine nitrogen atom. The results, HOT-2, HOT-7 and HOT-17 were themselves all active, and compared very closely with their non-hydroxylated prototypes.
samadhi_smiles said:It will just dehydroxylate into 2CT7 in the stomach I think. It will be identical to 2CT7 subjectively. The reason why this is not more evident in Shulgin's reports are that he did not do a wide enough swath of tests (plus with the power of suggestion that he undoubtedly hyped up to his testers).
samadhi_smiles said:For instance, my +3 trip on 2CT7 (I usually only try each phenethylamine once out of curiousity) was 6 hours (though I plugged it). Not 12.
I've worked with threshold and sub-threshold of T7, and it was never just a 6-8hr experience. But I acknowledge that T7 is quite variable from person to person. And in your case, it was plugged...not eaten.
And with HOT-17 being listed as a 12-18hr experience, I'm confident something is different from the 2C-Ts.