Health - In light of "2C-B-FLY" incident: new site for posting analyses?

[holdout]

SWIM was thinking of quickly whipping up a private-style website like Undrugged where vendors can go and post scanned PDF's of lab tests through GC/MS NMR of whichever batches they're currently selling....

SWIM knows it's a looong stretch and that ethics could be bent this way and that, by malicious vendors, but the role of fear can always be used for good: any vendor caught submitting false documentation (i.e. doctoring the date of a test to say it's of a new batch, etc. etc.), would have their reputation ripped apart for being untruthful, and have a big red notice e-mailed to every subscribed member about the vendor's actions

Stuff like that would keep this system functional and the more people are subscribed the more other vendors will have no choice but to run tests on their batches if they want to make ANY sales online.

Once again, it's a long stretch but in hindsight..... HUMAN LIVES were NEEDLESSLY lost recently.... SWIM's paranoia is very high right now...... SWIM does not know what to do when their current stash runs low... lol...

Is it not true that many countries offer publicly-available testing for a fee?

Reputation Comments on this post:

It's important that lessons are learned this time, so discussion like this is essential.

[Phenoxide]

It's a really nice idea but I don't think this could prevent incidents like the Haupt one occurring again. If it turns out that was a mislabelling then any amount of QC wouldn't have made a difference. If it was a bad synth then presumably Haupt had been told otherwise, which suggests deceptive or incompetent practices on the part of his supplier. Again, if this was the case then any QC data disclosed is likely unreliable and probably also unrepresentative of the true nature of the batch.

The only way I could see a public domain database like this working is if the batches are tested by an independent lab rather than taking the word of the supplier. Outside of the Netherlands and possibly Germany, I'm not aware of any country where there are public service labs with expertise in this field. It's certainly something I've considered as a possible future career route here in the UK, but I doubt funding would be forthcoming to establish such a project.

The reality is that the quality of the product is very much in the hands of the supply lab, and very few of the customers downstream (including the wholesalers) have the means and experience to perform any quality control themselves. To be honest I think many people would be shocked at just how little testing is done on some batches of RCs.

Though it may be a little early to be playing the blame game, I think it's important not to absolve the vendors of blame when things go awry. In my opinion a vendor adds value by acting as a buffer between the producer and customers, ensuring the quality of the product is consistently high. Not wishing to speak ill of the dead, but Haupt was young, naive, and extremely inexperienced and as a result he put countless people at risk by failing to ensure his products were safe. There's also responsibility on the part of the customer. Technicality or not, RCs are not sold for consumption. While you'd hope that most suppliers provide what customers paid for, a piece of paper with a chromatography peak or two doesn't guarantee your safety if you choose to consume. This incidents could generally be avoided if consumers proceeded with caution (e.g. testing 1mg of a chemical that's active in the 15mg+ range and working up) rather than assuming the best and jumping in at the deep end.

Apologies for the long post.. kinda turned into a stream of consciousness there.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well stated and clearly explained post

[holdout]

Originally Posted by Phenoxide

If it turns out that was a mislabelling then any amount of QC wouldn't have made a difference.

SWIM doesn't think any vendor handles sub-milligram potency substances so it's unlikely in this circumstance that they simply mislabeled some other product they carry. This stuff is pure poison! (well... just toxic with who-knows-what mixed in...). Getting EVERY incoming batch tested would have rung some bells that whatever "b1" is, it's highly impure.

Originally Posted by Phenoxide

If it was a bad synth then presumably Haupt had been told otherwise, which suggests deceptive or incompetent practices on the part of his supplier. Again, if this was the case then any QC data disclosed is likely unreliable and probably also unrepresentative of the true nature of the batch.

The concept is not to post analysis data from the supplier itself. That's highly unreliable. The vendor would go on their own to a lab and check for impurities.

Originally Posted by Phenoxide

Outside of the Netherlands and possibly Germany, I'm not aware of any country where there are public service labs with expertise in this field.

It's alright if the mass spectrometry is not equipped with a database of research chemicals to date. As long as it finds for example a 99% abundance of one molecule and a significantly low abundance of the impurities, then that pretty much goes a long way in taking precaution... Furthermore, one can hint at what the primary molecule is by comparing the result numbers to what the molecule is SUPPOSED to be. It's not like they'd be entirely in the unknown. They know what they want the results to show.

Originally Posted by Phenoxide

Though it may be a little early to be playing the blame game, I think it's important not to absolve the vendors of blame when things go awry.

Unfortunately as in any developed country, the manufacturer has a responsibility for worst-case safety when delivering a product for public availability. For example, pharma co's have to make child-proof containers to keep kids safe. Just writing on the packaging "KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN" does not get them off the hook. Measures have to be put in place as part of their due diligence...



*sigh*..... We have to start SOMEWHERE.... as outlandish as SWIM's idea sounds, at least it's a start in the right direction...

[Phenoxide]

I think you're underestimating the skill investment required for suitable analytical profiling. Here's a few of the problems with sending unknown RC samples to a non-specialist lab:

• Many labs will outright refuse to handle scheduled or monitored chemicals because of licensing issues and political pressures, especially if the compounds are coming from an ambiguous source.
• The cost of MS analysis to the private sector is generally very high, so vendors are unlikely to want to test every batch because of the additional costs.
• Mass spectrometry of small drug molecules is not straightforward as they have a tendency to either totally disintegrate or lose functional groups as they ionize, leaving you with unrepresentative spectra.
• Different molecules ionize with differing efficiencies which makes it inherently insensitive to certain molecules. This effect still remains near impossible to predict in silico. Say for example somebody acquired a batch that was 50% 2C-B and 50% DOB. It may be that the alpha-methyl group of DOB hinders its ionization and it therefore gives a much lower MS peak intensity than 2C-B. If the lab is inexperienced with these molecules then this is unpredictable.
• For this reason mass spectrometry is at best semi-quantitative, so it's impossible to categorically say something is X% pure from spectral data alone without the use of authentic standards; something a non-specialist lab will not have.

Forensic labs will typically use a multiplexed approach where they examine properties such as chromatography elution time, appropriate MS spectra, and usually also something like UV spectroscopy, and then compare these against standards. Such work really requires a dedicated facility that is licensed to hold these controlled substances and with the appropriate specialized workflows established. Many public service labs will not do this because there isn't sufficient demand for the service to make it worth them jumping through all the legal and technical hoops. The only reason the dutch model has been so successful is because their government is progressive enough to realize that it's worth subsidizing, thus giving labs the incentive to do this sort of work.

Reputation Comments on this post:

a very well laid out explanation of analysis difficulties.

[Samadhi]

This is not the first time someone has died from RC use or RC mislabling. Vendors will carry on, the market will keep running.

People need to remember the sometimes scary game they play with RCs. Synths can go bad, it has happened, mislabeled chems go out ensuing chaos...

always wait to hear reports before ordering, order from well established vendors (or at least more reputable) as I heard a few of the ethaqualone batches were inactive.

This was a sad day for research chemicals and for the man whom payed the ultimate price, but people; don't lose your heads over this, we all learn things for a reason and now people take away from this that they are not 100% safe in this market.