Further to the previous post on MDMB-CHMICA (aka MMB-CHMINACA)
methyl 2-(S)1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1 H-indole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate is the correct IUPAC name for this compound. (2S)-methyl-2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1 H-indol-3-ylcarbonylamino)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate is NOT correct. An IUPAC/systematic name contains a formaline component in one abstract, suggesting the presence of formic acid: highly toxic and represents a known carcinogen. Intelligence misinformation is probably responsible for this, and it would be deliberate, as such manipulation is not easily comprenhensible to many, much less practicable. A support for this hypothesis comes from the presence of HDMP-28 & HDEP-28 in mid-2015 on the UK RC wholesale market after a release which saw virtually no-one take up the compounds as stock – in which case, who is paying for development & research of these compounds?
There is no real traction in the claim that vendors were simply cashing in and trying to make money before the demand dried up, because most of them simply refused to stock ethylnaphidate after testing it themselves. The presence of the product on the market is an anomaly: many of these RCs are sold in branded packets under names like ‘Ching‘, and formulae change with the law. The obvious replacement at the time would have been 3-flourophenmatrazine, as it has ‘more’ of what made ethylphenidate appealing to these customers in the first place. Likewise, anyone with a reasonable understanding of what was being sold via those vendors was presented with the new product, 3-FPM, which they then read up on themselves, or Methiopropamine (MPA) which is a very useful, functional stimulant with virtually no side-effects at all used when used sparingly & carefully, utilised by some professionals, such a draughtsmen, architects, etc., who require concentration and mental acuity under a heavy workload – therefore, no-one would have been looking for HDEP-28, despite a flurry of bogus posts on RC ‘forum’ sites (this is a separate phenomenon, but linked: here misinformation is propagated, and the vulnerable & those who think they know more than they do are steered towards certain compounds and away from others – recently, there has been a flurry of ‘Like, OMG’ posts from purported teenage girls and young women warning about the dangers of ‘weird weed’ to chemistry graduates and hobbyists, and conversely, pseudo-gangsters and ‘bad boys’ posting ‘JUST GO FOR THE GUSTO AND GET SOME DIRTY METH BOYS’ to the same audience, who have remained bemused at both, for the most part – however, this would not be in vendors interests, so the initial and obvious conclusion about what is actually happening there is itself a mistaken a priori assumption leading to nonsense thereafter). There is reason to suspect that the wrong systematic name being used for what we now loosely term MDMB-CHMICA was not necessarily the fault of vendors: it would not be practical in terms of lost revenue & reputation to sell this compound as a 98% pure powder with no warning to their customer base, let alone make ‘blends’ at a percentage at least two if not three times the maximum potency a user with tolerance can use without a panic attack due to, and exacerbated by, extreme intoxication on a highly psychoactive compound with accompanying hallucinations. The presence of the two related compounds, HDEP-28 & HDMP-28, are indications of malpractice, however, because in these those compounds, phenyl has been substituted with naphthalene. This is practical, again due to naphtha’s volatility, but this is substituting the phenyl grouping (found in organic living tissue, often of great importance in many effective compounds & even in amino acids such as phenylalanine) with napthalene’s fused double-benzene ring, and creating a far less effective, more neurotoxic, and carcinogenic compound in doing so.
To conlcude: analysis on further compounds seems unnecessary. There is a nexus between this trade & black market vice, incorporating elements of government, the pharmaceutical industry & the intelligence services: the level of collusion of those involved, and to which level, remains to be seen. We found practical opportunities to research agonists fully with this state of affairs. There is correlation between many conditions that seem unrelated (restless leg, ADHD, depression, sexual PTSD) & these compounds. Also, there is a correlation of obesity/anorexia with above conditions & each other, and sexual PTSD. Aminoindanes are useful especially in the treatment of eating disorders: they are seritonergenic, which seems to be a helpful factor in treating bulimia, anorexia, and compulsive eating leading to obesity – but they should be combined with 4-flouromethylphenidate (for the DRI activity) to be efficacious, as the problem inevitably comes back to problems with self-image, self-esteem: this effect profile was attempted with the anti-obesity medication fenfluramine (Ponderax), but the complication with heart valve abnormalities meant not only did it have a similar effect profile to MDMA to the average user, it was as neurotoxic and produced identical heart problems over a roughly identical period of long-term prescription. A replacement for fenfluramine could be immediately sought by combining 15-20mg of 4-flouromethyphenidate with 50-60mg of N-methyl-2-aminodinane in single capsule or tablet, and it would be more efficacious, less side effects, non-neurotoxic and probably no long term associated health risks either. Practical opportunities exist to improve existing medications that are not exploited due to patents. i.e. the already mentioned 4-flouromethylphenidate. The latter is a major improvement on methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD. There are less side effects, plus the DRI activity means this is a functional anti-anxiety/anti-depressant compound when adminsitered carefully and responsibly. But the UK national media, like the BBC, continue to report that these compounds are of no legitimate medical value as of October 2015. This is not only wrong but often RCs are pharma product! We have informed the BBC of this, for many months. They have not investigated or altered the misinformation.
The previous post regarding MDMB-CHMICA is originally on a different site but hereby reproduced in full.
MDMB-CHMICA (aka MMB-CHMINACA)
The basic structure of this compound is based on the Pfizer model, using more synthesized components than previous models. With the exception of the fraction of indole, this compound is entirely synthesized, and this in turn leads to greater manipulation of effect profiles becoming possible.
From Cayman Chemical: ‘AB-CHMINACA (Item No. 15434) is an indazole-based synthetic cannabinoid (CB) that is structurally related to AB-FUBINACA (Item No. 14039), a high affinity ligand of the CB1 receptor (Ki = 0.9 nM).1,2 MDMB-CHMICA is an indole-based CB that is structurally similar to AB-CHMINACA by bearing an identical cyclohexyl group, but has a dimethylbutanoate group instead of a methylbutanamide. The physiological and toxicological properties of this compound are not known. This product is intended for forensic and research applications.’
The particular components of MDMB-CHMICA which bear mentioning because of the compound’s unique properties are the indole, making this the first widely available Pfizer model to contain it instead of indazole, and the dimethylbutanoate grouping. These two components give this compound its incredible potency, four hour duration effect profile, and diphenylethylaminomimetic effects.
It is of utmost importance to note that this compound is active in the range of 40-50 micrograms when conducting melting point analysis tests. In cases of extreme potency like this, it is a prerequisite of any testing that the compound is dissolved in a solvent (ethanol, acetone, etc. – it is only very mildly soluble in water, though this is a noteworthy development as no other CB compounds have any solvency in water at all). This process, known as volumetric liquid measurement, is the only way to ensure accuracy and safety. After the compound has been dissolved, it should be deployed on to a cellular leaf substrate at a potency of no more than 4%, and preferably, 2.5% should be the maximum deployed to ensure the safety of testers is protected as far as possible.