It worries me that all the big name researchers left after Sasha are all in their 70s, clock is ticking.
I know what you mean, there seems to be fewer chemists developing new compounds but that doesn’t mean that academics aren’t working with psychedelics, just that they are working with traditional psychedelics right now. Tbh I don’t see that they have a choice as even getting a license to work with natural compounds takes years and big money.
When I read this, David Nichols came to mind, Nichols age worries me because he’s literally the only dude I know that is producing novel compounds regularly and he only works part time. I hope that LSD, MDMA, Ketamine, Psilocybin etc have enough power to change the world when used in a therapeutic setting but it’d be nice to have more options, its hard to say what will be a silver bullet and what is more of a dud.
Yeah I know what you mean, Shulgin and Nichols have their name attached to probably 80% of compounds made in the last 40 years or so and even though there is more research going on with psychedelics, these researchers are sticking to well known compounds for study in humans. There are very obvious reasons for this and it’s only going to be when these trials show the benefits and medicinal properties of traditional psychedelics have been proven that tolerance of other psychedelics will be possible.
As for new compounds, I d get newsletters from some producers and every 3 months, there are new compounds so obviously some chemists are still very productive, even if they are working in the shadows.
I’m sure people on the fringes are doing great work but I’d love to see some of the support in academic and industrial chemistry thrown behind this type of work. We need to find a new way to live and psychedelics can be a big part of that.
I think what you say is relevant and given how many more people have done MDMA, magic mushrooms or LSD or are familiar with them its easier to do research rather than having to describe 2-C compounds and such.
Aside from one study in Germany in the 90’s with 2C-D I don’t know of any studies recently with what might be called non-traditional psychedelics. Narrowing the focus of studies to what people are at least familiar with no doubt makes getting licenses to do the work easier and understanding what happens with compounds that were already studied in the 50’s and 60’s easier. Adding in the unique aspects of all the other psychedelics now knows would introduce too many unknowns into the research but in future when psychedelics are much better understood then that research will naturally flow from what’s being done now.
Nothing earth shattering is being released by vendors, it’s, as always, just minute changes to the compound but if anything, it seems like new compounds are coming to market at an ever increasing rate.
I doubt there are any truly game changing compounds that haven’t been synthesized yet but the potential for targeting specific problems through chemical design could be really good as we go forward.
With the huge amount of known psychedelics synthesised by man, maybe only 2 would be considered revolutionary, LSD and MDMA. There’s no compound known with the properties and potential of MDMA, LSD isn’t so far removed from natural sources like pscilocibin though. Mescaline, DMT have been known for thousands of years and nothing gets better, chemists just used their structure to get more, not better, compounds.
Nichols set up a company to make drugs for parkinson and schizophrenia, that’s more of what I’m talking about. LSD and MDMA are the holy grail and only the close compounds like ALD-52 and MDA are near as powerful.
Yeah but hundreds upon hundreds of new compounds have been created now and nothing is better than those 2. ALD-52 seems to be exactly the same as LSD but no better, ETH-LAD is apparently more potent but still no better (and by more potent that was in drug discrimination trials in rats by Nichols).
Yeah, just hoping for some new treatments for dopamine conditions. As far as psychedelics LSD is Queen and MDMA is amazing as well.
Yeah but as a treatment, does LSD test better than pscilocibin? I don’t know that it does.
Also Nichols tried synthesising a copound that would be MDMA like but less neurotoxic and he produced MDAI, one of a series of compounds known as the aminodines, haven’t checked the spelling…..This didn’t go as planned and lead Nichols to say that it would be impossible to get the same effects as MDMA with another compound, all the beneficial effects of MDMA were already optimised and trying to tweak them reduced efficacy in other areas.
I’m sure mushrooms test better than LSD. Don’t think MDMA can be beat having done a handful of the sister chemicals although MDA is pretty good.
LSD has a far richer pharmacology than pscilocibin so maybe it can display a greater efficacy, idk, but I know LSD activates far more receptors than most any other psychedelic, whether that translates into greater efficacy idk.
bk-MDMA has a very similar effect to MDMA but no matter how much you take it always feels like you didn’t quite take enough.
This topic has no tags