Comment by Rygian
7 days ago
The "surprising way" is by using a derivate of LSD.
I'd argue that the surprise is rather on this: "In clinical trials, a single dose significantly outperformed standard treatments, offering hope to those who have found little relief elsewhere."
It is no derivate. It's just the tartrate salt of LSD. There is no pharmacological difference. It's like saying I got this new Magnesium Tartrate which is now different to the Magnesium Oxide / Citrate / Glycinate / whatever you are taking. It might affect stability or absorption rate or similar, but Tartrate itself doesn't have an effect.
> It is no derivate. It's just the tartrate salt of LSD.
I think you're unclear on the meaning of "derivate".
Calling it the "pharmaceutical form" is borderline misinformation, considering it's just a common salt of LSD. You can get that outside the pharmacy. It's not like actual LSD is ever made in some dirty improv meth lab. Likewise, nobody expects researchers to buy their drugs on the streets. It's just LSD. This "say no to drugs" drug did the trick.
Call me a luddite, but I'd personally honestly preferring knowing my chemist so that I can be relatively certain there's no 2-ci or whatever bs the kids are cutting with or straight up substituting these days.
My understanding is that, today in the US (and other markets so far as I know), it is far easier to know a pharmacist than a genuine LSD chemist, though I am several years out of that particular market.
Would be nice to know there's been a resurgence of access to ergot via improvement in Claviceps growth or some nifty novel synthesis we didn't have a few years ago.
Yeah, of course that's all legit concerns and demands. However, I dislike the notion this "dangerous street drug" was graciously made to somethings "useful" and safe by the pharma industry. It's the same its always been. Especially around the time of its prohibition.
I am calling out a pattern. It's a bit similar to pharma going into the jungle, taking some natural compound (possibly known to an indigenous tribe), modifying the chemistry just enough to patent it and call it a miracle. The dealer gets life in prison, the Sackler family literally killed thousands, but merely had to pay a fine and do some rebranding.
If LSD wasn't arbitrarily outlawed, your concerns wouldn't exist. ID and purity considerations are purely consequences of being made illegal. It was always synthesized by highly educated and responsible chemists, because the chemistry demands it. It was never an honest public health concern, it's not addictive, practically lacking any toxicity.
MDMA also got this treatment. Immersion with the collectivist teachings of Christ was decided a sinful desire, but now treating the PR problem of broken cogs in the war machine may be ruled acceptable in the eyes of God.
2 replies →
While I agree that I'd love to have a guarantee on purity, the way to do that is just to make LSD legal, rather than have some private equity backed pharma company tie up the supply. LSD should be a case like insulin or the polio vaccine, as it offers an immense amount of potential for the planet.
Sure, if they want to make money by offering retreats in clinical settings for people too afraid to spend an afternoon with a loved one on 100ug of LSD, by all means. But jumping through hoops to lock up the supply of a truly revolutionary molecule that could improve the lives of millions just feels bad to me.
Edit: Also, no one is putting 2c-i on a tab of LSD. The doses are way different (~100ug vs 15mg) and chemists that make LSD tend to be pretty sold on it's potential to help humanity and try to keep the supply as pure as possible.
You may be thinking of "tusi" or pink cocaine, which is a drug mixture that tends to have ketamine and mdma mixed, and often has had fentanyl creep into the supply. Someone just decided to name it similar to Shulgin's 2C class of drugs for some reason, which is annoying and dangerous.
2 replies →
Why can't they just put it in the title of the article instead of classic clickbait tactics? Ugh.
I agree. I have anxiety sometimes, but I’m not about to start taking LSD. I’m not going to risk a permanent psychological crisis to reduce my anxiety. It’s not really a cure if it has a even a small percentage chance of causing something much worse.
Fair point. You know your body the best and should be the final arbiter of what's ingested. Side point and question: Can't SSRIs cause Serotonin Syndrome? Doesn't the reduction of anxiety come with a small percentage chance of causing something much worse?
That statement is not surprising to anyone who has taken LSD. However I would be surprised if the pharma version works as good as the original.
> The "surprising way" is by using a derivate of LSD.
What's the difference between a derivate and a derivative?
(I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know)
MM120 is just a patented LSD. So its just a brandname LSD.
Exactly. The medical cannabis industry has been doing this right from the start. Thankfully they do tell you what strains they got their cultivar from, though.
They can control the supply and make more money off of it. And you can pay lobbiests to make sure the original LSD stays illegal.