| Pages:
1
2 |
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Transdermal lysergamides?
Though this question involves controlled substances, its an issue of pharmacology, not synthesis, so I figured it would be ok. If it is not
appropriate please have a moderator remove it.
Lysergic acid diethylamide has been rumoured to be able to enter the system via transdermal means.
I will hear stories where people tell me they have had this drug take effect by transdermal means.
Yet, I don't buy it.
Nick sand claims that even when mixed with DMSO transdermal absorption failed.
| Quote: |
Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever
happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in
my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And
yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly
enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and
nothing happened!
https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
|
When looking at online I had recieved mixed opinions.
I am of the opinion that LSD is not transdermally active.
Can anybody clear this up?
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Protonation?
N6 is pretty alkaline, and the skin is pretty acidic.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
The Albert Hoffman story about a small drop of solution on his hand possibly leading to his first experience of the effects? I also recall Hoffman's
account specifically mentioning the hoods used in his lab used natural draft instead of a fan and were not very effective. Why would Hoffman call this
detail out if he didn't think it was pertinent.
The Owsley story about running his chemists in shifts due to intoxication from their merely being in the vicinity of the process? (Didn't Owsley care
to invest in a decent fume hood?!)
Perhaps handling solutions without an efficiently working hood exposed them to aerosols, chemists who breathed these could easily receive a sufficient
dose.
Also, the skin application test might be repeated with the LSD dissolved in the solvents these chemists actually USED for the process instead of DMSO.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
LearnedAmateur
National Hazard
Posts: 513
Registered: 30-3-2017
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Free Radical
|
|
Apparently Hofmann accidentally absorbed it through his fingertips on one of the occasions he first synthesised it as a research pharmaceutical, but
it’s also equally as likely that he unconsciously touched near his eyes or mouth and it was absorbed that way, an unnoticeably small amount in any
case. Seems like that would be the actual route of ingestion, people may say that it can be absorbed through the skin but in actuality it’s probably
because they didn’t wash their hands properly enough after handling it then going on about their daily routine.
[Edited on 2-5-2018 by LearnedAmateur]
In chemistry, sometimes the solution is the problem.
It’s been a while, but I’m not dead! Updated 7/1/2020. Shout out to Aga, we got along well.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur  | Apparently Hofmann accidentally absorbed it through his fingertips on one of the occasions he first synthesised it as a research pharmaceutical, but
it’s also equally as likely that he unconsciously touched near his eyes or mouth and it was absorbed that way, an unnoticeably small amount in any
case. Seems like that would be the actual route of ingestion, people may say that it can be absorbed through the skin but in actuality it’s probably
because they didn’t wash their hands properly enough after handling it then going on about their daily routine.
[Edited on 2-5-2018 by LearnedAmateur] |
The story about how Hoffman got the LSD into his system is somewhat disputed, ill explain my view on it:
Hoffmann was told by sandoz that LSD was uninteresting, and was asked to move on. Then several years down the road, for some reason Hofmann decides to
re-synthesize the compound, and claims that some had "accidentally" got into his system.
Hofmann was a respected Swiss chemist, and I feel he must have thought that sandoz was wrong about his compound, I believe Hofmann got the idea for
condensation of diethylamine with lysergic acid from a similar process involving nicotinic acid being condensed with diethylamine to form "nicotinic
acid diethylamide", I also feel that Hofmann would have figured this to be a useful compound, so my theory is that he might have intentionally
consumed his new product, but being a meticulous and respected chemist admitting to synthesizing and testing an unknown compound on yourself would
destroy your reputation, so he claimed it got into his system by unknown means.
Or, David E. Nichols had the right idea:
| Quote: |
About this Document

  
GENERAL
conferences
Modern humans must learn how to relate to psychoactives
responsibly, treating them with respect and awareness,
working to minimize harms and maximize benefits, and
integrating use into a healthy, enjoyable, and productive life.
MindStates IV LSD Panel:
Hypothesis on Albert Hofmann's Famous 1943 "Bicycle Day"
with brief overview of current research
BY DAVID NICHOLS
May 24, 2003
Transcription & Editing by Erowid.
Adapted from transcript of presentation given at Mindstates IV, Berkeley, CA
Citation: Nichols, David. "Hypothesis on Albert Hofmann's Famous 1943 'Bicycle Day'" Adapted from a presentation given at Mindstates
IV.Erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates4_nichols.shtml. May 24 2002.
Editor's Introduction
At Mindstates IV, Dr David Nichols, chemist and pharmacologist, professor of medicinal chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Purdue University,
proposed a novel alternate reading of Albert Hofmann's famous 1943 "Bicycle Day" and a brief overview of his research.
Presentation
I'm here to give you a report from the institutional research division of your community. If you pay taxes to the IRS, you support my research to
understand how psychedelics affect brain chemistry; thank you.
Since we're just a slight bit past the 60th anniversary of the discovery of LSD, I thought I would have a little audience participation fun, and give
you a little insight into how the scientific process works. Because, often times in this community, "scientist" has somewhat of a pejorative
connotation. I want to show you how we're not so different, and do a little experiment.
You know the way science works. We make observations, we develop or formulate a hypothesis that is consistent with those observations, and then we
attempt to carry out experiments to test the hypothesis. I don't think we'll be able to carry out the experiments to test the hypothesis, but what I
want to do is develop a hypothesis today that I think you'll find very interesting. But the first thing we need to know is what kind of a database
we're working with. What I'd like you to do is raise your hand if you have read Albert Hofmann's account of the discovery of LSD.
[nearly everyone in the conference hall raises their hand]
"The only hypothesis I can come up with that's consistent with all of these facts is that on April 16, 1943, Albert Hofmann did not get LSD in his
body at all. He had a spontaneous mystical experience!"
Ah, just as I suspected. So we have a good database, and probably an educated database.
What I want to do now is another experiment. I want you to raise your hand and hold it in the air as long as I am stating things that you hold to be
true, and when I say something you believe not to be true, then put your hand down.
So, the first thing I'm going to say, if you believe it to be true, raise your hand, and keep it up there until I say something you disagree with.
On April 16, 1943, when Albert Hofmann accidentally ingested LSD, he ingested at least 25 micrograms. Now keep your hand up until I say something you
disagree with.
[most people in the audience raise their hands]
On that same date in 1943, Albert Hofmann ingested at least 50 micrograms of LSD.
[a few people put their hands down]
On that same date in 1943, Albert Hofmann ingested at least 75 micrograms.
[several more people put their hands down]
And then again, on that date in 1943, Albert Hofmann ingested at least 100 micrograms.
[more people put their hands down]
On that same date, Albert Hofmann ingested 150 micrograms.
[only a few people still have their hands still up]
Well I think I've already proved the point. I think there's a consensus that Albert Hofmann must have ingested at least 50 to 75 micrograms, and there
are people in here who believe he must have ingested 100 or 150 micrograms. Now we've estimated, with this educated database, approximately how much
LSD he must have accidentally gotten inside himself.
Now, we'll do the same thing again. In April 1943, after his accidental ingestion, how many people believe that Albert Hofmann would have experienced
the effects of LSD for at least 10 hours, based on that dose?
[Several people put their hands up]
Now if we believe he took LSD, and if we believe he took 50 to 75 micrograms -- that's the context -- how many people believe the effects should have
lasted at least 8 hours. [many more hands go up] How many believe the effects would have lasted at least 6 hours? [more hands go up] How believe the
effects would have lasted at least four hours? [nearly all hands are up at this point]
Now, how many people believe that the effects of a 50-75 microgram dose of LSD would only have lasted two hours? [nearly all hands go down]
We read from his account:
"I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two
hours(emphasis added) this condition faded away." (Hofmann, 1983).
Well now, that was a conundrum for me. I read that and I thought, "gee I'm a scientist, and this doesn't make sense with what I know." And for most of
you, I think, that doesn't make sense either. So, the question: how can we formulate a hypothesis consistent with this observation? We need to
consider a few things.
We know that Albert originally synthesized LSD in 1938 as part of an ambitious program to make a number of lysergamides. LSD-25 was only the 25th in
the series. I actually don't know how many of those compounds he made, but let's assume he only made 30. So we had up to 30 in the series. He may have
made many more actually, but at least say 30. And they were all tested; he sent the pharmacology department LSD-25, 24, 23... and so forth. They then
say, "LSD-25: not interesting." The assays of that day really didn't provide much information; they were very unsophisticated. But five years later,
Albert has a hunch that the pharmacology department missed something on this 25th in the series.
Now that's kind of peculiar. I'm familiar with the drug industry, and I've actually started a small company myself. Imagine you're a musician, and
you've created this musical piece. It's really wonderful; it's one of the best pieces you've ever written; you play it for people, they think it's
great. And this one artist comes down. He's very creative but he has no musical talent at all, really tone deaf, he listens to your music and he says,
"Man that sucks. You missed something. There's something missing." Now you as a musician are probably going to have some sort of a gut reaction to
that. And even though the pharmacologist at Sandoz was probably a friend of Albert's, can you imagine this chemist coming down the hall and saying,
"You know, I made this compound five years ago, out of this whole series, and there's this one compound, LSD-25, that you said was uninteresting...
but you must have missed something. I just have this 'peculiar presentiment,' this strange hunch that you missed something." You're going to look at
Albert and say, "You know, really, I'm an expert in pharmacology Albert. We tested it very well."
The Germans and the Swiss are very precise chemists, and pharmacologists, and scientists. There wouldn't have been any question about this being
somehow mis-analyzed the first time.
This is another interesting point. Why the 25th? We know that only the 25th in the series was active. Any other compound that he made -- and I've made
many of them, we've tested many of them -- none of the others approach LSD, either in its sophistication or in its potency. Only the 25th. And this is
unusual. In pharmacology often you have a regular series. If we think of things like DOB, and DOI, there's a kind of regular progression. They all fit
into a kind of subgenus. And LSD doesn't. We don't call the other members of the series Albert made as LSD something or other, but if we had LSD-23,
24 and 26, they would all be one-tenth the activity of LSD-25. Peculiar presentiment indeed!
As I've said, Swiss and German chemists have a reputation -- today and back then -- for being absolutely meticulous. If we had gone into Albert's lab
at Sandoz in 1943, we would probably have found everything in its place, organized in an obsessively neat manner. No dirty glassware, no trash on the
floor, meticulous. How in the world did a meticulous Swiss chemist get 50 to 75 micrograms or more of LSD into his body? We don't know.
Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever
happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in
my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And
yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly
enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and
nothing happened! How did this very meticulous Swiss chemist get the LSD into his body? I don't know.
The other fact we need to think about is when Albert was a child, he had a spontaneous mystical experience. Now depending on whether you're a
psychologist or a psychiatrist or whatever, we could say that Albert had a predisposition to altered states of consciousness.
So what facts do we know? I'm going to formulate a hypothesis. He took a dose that by your consensus should have lasted certainly more than two hours,
but it only lasted two hours. He was a meticulous chemist -- a Swiss chemist. Anyone I know who's worked with LSD -- and Nick Sand painted a solution
of it on his arm -- didn't get high. This doesn't make sense. And what is this peculiar presentiment? Why the 25th in the series? Inexplicable! And,
he was predisposed to altered states of consciousness.
The only hypothesis I can come up with that's consistent with all of these facts is that on April 16, 1943, Albert Hofmann did not get LSD in his body
at all. He had a spontaneous mystical experience!
Now if I were working in the lab with a new chemical, and I started having kaleidoscopic visions of wonderful colors and patterns, my first thought
wouldn't be that I was having a spontaneous experience. My first thought would be, "What was that new chemical I was working with? I need to tell
Sasha about it." [laughter]
I think that's what happened, that's the hypothesis. We can't test that hypothesis, but when I saw Albert in Basel a couple years ago, I presented
that particular hypothesis to him and said, "What do you think?" He said, "It's entirely possible." So, that's our little experiment, and I think most
of you really didn't think seriously about the discovery of LSD, but it puts a different light on it.
Now one aside to that we could then bring up is this. If the force that caused him to have this peculiar presentiment -- and very peculiar it is -- is
the same force that induced him to have this mystical experience, which caused him to focus on this chemical, we can hope it might happen again.
https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
|
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur | Apparently Hofmann accidentally absorbed it through his fingertips on one of the occasions he first synthesised it as a research pharmaceutical, but
it’s also equally as likely that he unconsciously touched near his eyes or mouth and it was absorbed that way, an unnoticeably small amount in any
case. Seems like that would be the actual route of ingestion, people may say that it can be absorbed through the skin but in actuality it’s probably
because they didn’t wash their hands properly enough after handling it then going on about their daily routine.
[Edited on 2-5-2018 by LearnedAmateur] |
Agreed. I feel individuals must have rubbed their mouth or eyes or whatever with the LSD on their skin.
David E. Nichols, alexander shulgin, and nick sand have all claimed that LSD will not properly absorb through the skin, and when it comes to LSD these
are three of the names that I particularly trust.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Bert |
The Albert Hoffman story about a small drop of solution on his hand possibly leading to his first experience of the effects? I also recall Hoffman's
account specifically mentioning the hoods used in his lab used natural draft instead of a fan and were not very effective. Why would Hoffman call this
detail out if he didn't think it was pertinent.
The Owsley story about running his chemists in shifts due to intoxication from their merely being in the vicinity of the process? (Didn't Owsley care
to invest in a decent fume hood?!)
Perhaps handling solutions without an efficiently working hood exposed them to aerosols, chemists who breathed these could easily receive a sufficient
dose.
Also, the skin application test might be repeated with the LSD dissolved in the solvents these chemists actually USED for the process instead
of DMSO. |
As far as aerosol application of LSD is concerned, the CIA experimented with this through their MKULTRA program and it was reported to have failed
miserably, but who knows, I imagine inhaling actual LSD dust might actually do the trick. (The CIA through MKULTRA even made LSD "swizzle sticks" to
spike enemy martinis, though it is also reported that this failed.
Ok, as far as why DMSO was used, this has to do with abbie Hoffman:
| Quote: |
[1967] When Washington authorities threatened to use Mace to control the demonstrators at the Capitol, Abbie claimed that hippies had come up with a
new chemical aphrodisiac called Lace, consisting of LSD and a secret skin- penetrating agent.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ECYjlcF6QIcC&pg=PA116&a...
|
...The agent used was reported to have been DMSO.
...there are also other cultural references such as this popular dead kennedys song:
| Quote: |
D. M. S. O.
Crypto Wonder Drug
In vogue
Some people say
It cures arthritis
Maybe that's why
It keeps getting banned
It's absorbed
Directly through the skin
Mix it with lemon juice
Touch your fingertips
You'll taste the lemon
The police
Started a riot
Down at the courthouse
Again
Running amok
Spilling blood
Bashing heads
I do my part
Behind the lines
Swabbing door handles of cop cars
With D.M.S.O.
Mixed with L.S.D
Dead kennedys
|
DMSO is also used to absorb medications transdermally fairly regularly.
So when choosing a solvent for transdermal LSD DMSO always seems to come up.
It doesn't work according to nick sand, but possibly another solvent could, who knows, personally I am somewhat happy is does not work.
As far as the owsley story, I have also heard this, I respect owsley and his opinion, but don't know what to make of the claim. Nick sand would talk
about becoming intoxicated while working as well, though Nick sand would talk about spilling things on a hot plate, then burning his finger cleaning
it up, and accidentally placing his finger in his mouth after, things like that.
...its difficult to get a clear answer here as the opinions seem fairly variable and mixed.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
So what facts do we know? I'm going to formulate a hypothesis. He took a dose that by your consensus should have lasted certainly more than two hours,
but it only lasted two hours. He was a meticulous chemist -- a Swiss chemist. Anyone I know who's worked with LSD -- and Nick Sand painted a solution
of it on his arm -- didn't get high.
The only hypothesis I can come up with that's consistent with all of these facts is that on April 16, 1943, Albert Hofmann did not get LSD in his body
at all. He had a spontaneous mystical experience!
-david E. Nichols
|
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2787
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
TBH if this were actually a purely pharmacological inquiry, it would be better posted on a different website. However, in this particular case, the
chemical question of what can carry a certain molecule through the skin is pretty interesting.
Not that I, personally, have any problem talking about drugs. I used to do that all the time. | Quote: | | the CIA experimented with this through their MKULTRA program and it was reported to have failed miserably, but who knows, I imagine inhaling actual
LSD dust might actually do the trick. (The CIA through MKULTRA even made LSD "swizzle sticks" to spike enemy martinis, though it is also reported that
this failed. |
In what sense "failed"? The CIA wanted LSD to make people vulnerable to manipulation, but LSD
tends to defocus your attention and encourage you to follow meandering trains of thought, which is not generally amenable to interrogation. How do we
know that "failed" to the CIA means people didn't get high?
|
|
|
Reboot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 141
Registered: 8-8-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Per the first question, not highly credible IMO. Transdermal absorption/transport of drugs is a tricky business; the outer layer of dead skin is
relatively impermeable and of course lacks active transport mechanisms (hence the need for solvents like DMSO to at least get the target molecule
through the outer layers and to living tissues.)
And yet...even if absorption efficiency was extremely low, given the very high per-mg potency of substances like LSD *and* the sorts of exceptional
concentrations of those drugs that might be present in a lab actively manufacturing them, perhaps a modest spill (say, a ml of concentrated solution
splashed onto skin) might conceivably get enough into the bloodstream to be psychoactive.
I find the 'mystical experience' explanation ridiculous. I tend to agree with PEAM's theory of deliberate ingestion from the start. No cautious,
reasonable, and sober researcher would have decided to follow up a mild accidental exposure to a clearly wildly powerful drug by deliberately
ingesting more, which we know for certain he did. I think it most likely was indeed a deliberate experiment from the start, more in the vein of
Shulgin's work, just more modestly garbed in the telling (while Shulgin was always an unrepentant fan of looking for the next novel high.)
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Reboot]
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara | TBH if this were actually a purely pharmacological inquiry, it would be better posted on a different website. However, in this particular case, the
chemical question of what can carry a certain molecule through the skin is pretty interesting.
Not that I, personally, have any problem talking about drugs. I used to do that all the time. | Quote: | | the CIA experimented with this through their MKULTRA program and it was reported to have failed miserably, but who knows, I imagine inhaling actual
LSD dust might actually do the trick. (The CIA through MKULTRA even made LSD "swizzle sticks" to spike enemy martinis, though it is also reported that
this failed. |
In what sense "failed"? The CIA wanted LSD to make people vulnerable to manipulation, but LSD
tends to defocus your attention and encourage you to follow meandering trains of thought, which is not generally amenable to interrogation. How do we
know that "failed" to the CIA means people didn't get high?
|
I don't use drugs any more, but had some very particular experiences with psychedelics which transformed my life, so I still love to research their
chemistry, pharmacology, social impact, and so on.
I apologize that the topic is only semi-appropriate on this forum, the initial pharmacological interest has many side subjects which perhaps would be
better discussed other places. I Will try to stay on topic and try to keep my comments in line with this venue.
Ok, as for how the MKULTRA attempts "failed", it was because a large part of the program was surreptitious administration of psychoactive substances
to political targets, as well as creating a "manchurian candidate", the reports state these goals were never achieved, I believe even Fidel castro had
some LSD or poison laced cigars prepared by the CIA, which he never got.
| Quote: |
Code-named MKULTRA (and pronounced m-k-ultra), the project Mr. Vance uncovered was the brainchild of CIA Director Allen Dulles, who was intrigued by
reports of mind-control techniques allegedly conducted by Soviet, Chinese and North Korean agents on U.S. prisoners of war during the Korean War. The
CIA wanted to use similar techniques on its own POWs and perhaps use LSD or other mind-bending substances on foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel
Castro a few years after the project got underway in 1953.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06...
|
Again, the reports all state that none of the substances lived up to their expectations, and that none of them were of value in espionage.
(Though just because the CIA claim they failed does not mean that this was actually the case)
The book "acid dreams" discusses a good deal of this material.
As for transdermal solvents used to carry pharmacological agents into the human system, this topic is particularly fascinating, and can be discussed
without the mention of LSD, though this compound has a good deal of rumour and mythology surrounding it that needs to be cleared up.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Reboot | Per the first question, not highly credible IMO. Transdermal absorption/transport of drugs is a tricky business; the outer layer of dead skin is
relatively impermeable and of course lacks active transport mechanisms (hence the need for solvents like DMSO to at least get the target molecule
through the outer layers and to living tissues.)
And yet...even if absorption efficiency was extremely low, given the very high per-mg potency of substances like LSD *and* the sorts of exceptional
concentrations of those drugs that might be present in a lab actively manufacturing them, perhaps a modest spill (say, a ml of concentrated solution
splashed onto skin) might conceivably get enough into the bloodstream to be psychoactive.
I find the 'mystical experience' explanation ridiculous. I tend to agree with PEAM's theory of deliberate ingestion from the start. No cautious,
reasonable, and sober researcher would have decided to follow up a mild accidental exposure to a clearly wildly powerful drug by deliberately
ingesting more, which we know for certain he did. I think it most likely was indeed a deliberate experiment from the start, more in the vein of
Shulgin's work, just more modestly garbed in the telling (while Shulgin was always an unrepentant fan of looking for the next novel high.)
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Reboot] |
Wow, great response! Not only did you help clear up part of my understanding of how molecules absorb through skin, but you offered thoughtful and
clear insight into the matter.
Personally, I want to believe that Nichols was correct, I mean, how cool would it be if a chemist had a mystical experience in the lab, attributed it
to a substance he was working with, and then having things later turn out that the substance was actually active in a mystical way? I think it has a
certain quality to it that makes you want it to be the case, even if it is quite unlikely.
...but, yes, ultimately I feel he intentionally consumed the compound that first time, and to spare his reputation, and perhaps as to not encourage
this type of experimentation, he decided to claim it "accidentally" entered his system.
...also, Hofmann knew that egrot and compounds derived from it carried certain potential exposure risks, such as ergotism, and being a very skilled
and meticulous chemist you assume he would have taken extreme caution to limit unintentional exposure.
...it is a mystery, I don't think we will ever know for sure what happened during those days of April 16th to the 19th of 1943.
|
|
|
Sigmatropic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 307
Registered: 29-1-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
Are you talking about those transdermal patches?
I think transporting chemicals through the skin is facilitated in those patches by something that makes the skin more permeable (not DMSO).
However I may be thinking of those estrogen/progesterone patches.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | | Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
Are you talking about those transdermal patches?
I think transporting chemicals through the skin is facilitated in those patches by something that makes the skin more permeable (not DMSO).
However I may be thinking of those estrogen/progesterone patches.
|
...not a fan of the whole "swim" thing.
Moving on.
There are many means of making a compound amenable to transdermal absorbtion.
DMSO is a very common and effective means of doing this:
| Quote: |
Abstract
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is a molecule with a long history in pharmaceutics and is now well established as a penetration enhancer in topical
pharmaceutical formulations. It is currently used for this purpose in diclofenac sodium topical solution (approved in the United States to treat signs
and symptoms of osteoarthritis) and idoxuridine topical solution (approved in Europe for the treatment of herpes zoster). This article reviews the
mechanism of action of DMSO as a pharmaceutical penetration enhancer, the characteristics of the molecule that facilitate transdermal drug delivery,
and studies of efficacy and safety. The clinical use of pharmaceutical-grade DMSO as a penetration enhancer is supported by the robust data that have
accumulated over the past 3 decades demonstrating the favorable safety and tolerability profile. Dimethyl sulfoxide is a safe and effective mechanism
for facilitating the transdermal delivery of both hydrophilic and lipophilic medications to provide localized drug delivery.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030943
|
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
I really can not comment on fentanyl, my general focus is on tryptamine, phenethylamine, and lysergamide compounds. I'm sure I could have the answer
for you after about 5 minutes of research, but I do not have enough interest fentanyl to do so.
As for ALD-52 and 1P-LSD, I'm not sure what you mean.
They should be pro-drugs of LSD.
| Quote: |
The compound [1P-LSD] would not be active as the N-propionyl however. The way that LSD docks into the 5-HT2A receptor, the indole NH hydrogen bonds
to serine 5.46. With the propionyl, it won't fit into the receptor.”— David E. Nichols
|
So, We know these compounds must dock with the 5HT2a receptor, and we know that the NH hydrogen of the pyrrole ring moiety in the LSD molecule needs
to be free for these compounds to properly dock with this receptor site, therefore the substitutions to the NH grouping at position 1 must be removed
in vivo.
Not sure how it applies here though.
|
|
|
Sigmatropic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 307
Registered: 29-1-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yeah I know about DMSO as a penetration enhancer, and ethanol too for that matter. Oh and if you look up the composition of those transdermal fentanyl
patches you find there is only soybean oil, hydrogenated colophony resin and a ethylhecyl acrylate-vinyl acetate copolymer none of which strike me as
penetration enhancers.
But if you read several posts up... It was mentioned someone painted his arm with a solution of LSD in DMSO and had no effects.
So in the absence (?) of penetration enhancers fentanyl does work but for LSD it fails in the presence of penetration enhancers? I don't buy it.
@phenethylamine machine
Those N1 acylated compounds would have a higher logP, and one less H bond donor and would thus be expected to be more membrane (and skin) permeable.
That is what I meant when I said how will they fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PhenethylamineMachine | | Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | | Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
Are you talking about those transdermal patches?
I think transporting chemicals through the skin is facilitated in those patches by something that makes the skin more permeable (not DMSO).
However I may be thinking of those estrogen/progesterone patches.
|
...not a fan of the whole "swim" thing.
Moving on.
There are many means of making a compound amenable to transdermal absorbtion.
DMSO is a very common and effective means of doing this.
|
Not a fan of your whole rudeness thing.
Or your ignorant assumptions about me or my posts.
'moving on'
That DMSO is commonly (in your opinion, but not quite so much in real world medicine) used to promote transdermal absorbtion is in no way germane to
the fact that it's not used in the patches being discussed.
Oils, and other non-polar compounds, such as those listed in that patch, do in fact promote transdermal absorbtion, and are the 'common' materials
used for this.
DMSO gets papers written about it, but ordinary oils of various kinds are far more ubiquitous in actual pharmaceutical preparations.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Yeah I know about DMSO as a penetration enhancer, and ethanol too for that matter. Oh and if you look up the composition of those transdermal fentanyl
patches you find there is only soybean oil, hydrogenated colophony resin and a ethylhecyl acrylate-vinyl acetate copolymer none of which strike me as
penetration enhancers.
But if you read several posts up... It was mentioned someone painted his arm with a solution of LSD in DMSO and had no effects.
So in the absence (?) of penetration enhancers fentanyl does work but for LSD it fails in the presence of penetration enhancers? I don't buy it.
@phenethylamine machine
Those N1 acylated compounds would have a higher logP, and one less H bond donor and would thus be expected to be more membrane (and skin) permeable.
That is what I meant when I said how will they fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
Hmm...
I can't believe you were able to get me to research fentanyl...
"Fentanyl is apparently small enough to slip through the skin and into the blood stream fairly effectively, therefore a transdermal absorption agent
is not needed.
| Quote: |
Abstract
The rate and regional differences for the penetration of fentanyl through equine skin was investigated in vitro using a commercial transdermal
therapeutic system (TTS) or ‘patch’.
With an area of about two square meters, the skin is the largest organ in the human body, and it is also where around one third of all our blood
circulates. The primary function of the skin is to protect the body from foreign objects and microorganisms. It also helps the body to retain
moisture, yet it is not completely impermeable. Relatively small drug molecules can penetrate the skin, and this is how transdermal patches
work.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003452880...
https://ltslohmann.de/en/patients/transdermal-therapeutic-sy...
|
Moving on.
Its puzzling, I agree, but if I had to take some wild guesses:
LSD is an incredibly fragile molecule, Perhaps it can not pass through the skin with out epimerization or inversion at the 8-position carbon to form
d-iso-LSD, or perhaps the double bond that lies between that 8-position and the aromatic ring is an issue, giving lumi-LSD before the compound can
enter the system...
LSD is also larger than fentanyl, so while still not very large, perhaps it is just over the size limit for effective transdermal absorbtion.
Moving on.
That someone who painted LSD/DMSO on his arm was Nick Sand. Nick was a clandestine chemist who was most famous for the production of several kilograms
of LSD which he named "orange sunshine". Nick also worked with a man named tim scully, a very smart and talented individual, and was also guided by
owsley Stanley.
The person talking about nick in that quote was Dr. David E. Nichols, who was the distinguished Chair of Pharmacology at Purdue University and who
co-founded the Heffter Research Institute with Denis McKenna. David Nichols is considered the to be one of the worlds foremost LSD experts.
So while I personally can not verify their claims, I value and respect their thoughts and opinions on the matter.
If anybody knows about LSD in an academic and scientific manner it is David E. Nichols, and if anybody knows about clandestine production of LSD its
Nick sand...
Review:
| Quote: |
Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever
happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in
my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And
yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly
enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and
nothing happened!
...
Anyone I know who's worked with LSD -- and Nick Sand painted a solution of it on his arm -- didn't get high.
https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
|
Personally, I have had LSD gel-tabs dissolve in my hand, and no psychological effect occurred.
Moving on.
As for ALD-52 and 1P-LSD, you would have to explain to me exactly how one less h bond donor would make the compound more amenable to transdermal
absorption. I know the chemistry of these molecules, yet I know very little about transdermal application of pharmaceutical or psychoactive agents, so
pardon my ignorance on the matter.
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | | Quote: Originally posted by PhenethylamineMachine | | Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | | Quote: Originally posted by Sigmatropic | Anyone know why fentanyl is readily capable of transdermal uptake but LSD is not?
Their dose is comparable. Their MW is comparable. Both are tertiary amines so I don't believe the 'your skin is acidic' theory. Both are metabolized
in the liver so I don't believe in a large dermal first pass effect.
I did notice that their lipopholicity is different LogP = 4.05 VS 2.95 for fentanyl VS lsd. Is it just this 10 fold difference in lipopholicity that
causes the difference in transdermal rates of absprbtion? And finally fentanyl has many more rotatable bonds, but IIRC more rotatable bonds means that
a compound is less membrane permeable which diametrically opposes what we observe.
Edit: this makes me wonder how ALD-52 and 1P-LSD fare.
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Sigmatropic] |
Are you talking about those transdermal patches?
I think transporting chemicals through the skin is facilitated in those patches by something that makes the skin more permeable (not DMSO).
However I may be thinking of those estrogen/progesterone patches.
|
...not a fan of the whole "swim" thing.
Moving on.
There are many means of making a compound amenable to transdermal absorbtion.
DMSO is a very common and effective means of doing this.
|
Not a fan of your whole rudeness thing.
Or your ignorant assumptions about me or my posts.
'moving on'
That DMSO is commonly (in your opinion, but not quite so much in real world medicine) used to promote transdermal absorbtion is in no way germane to
the fact that it's not used in the patches being discussed.
Oils, and other non-polar compounds, such as those listed in that patch, do in fact promote transdermal absorbtion, and are the 'common' materials
used for this.
DMSO gets papers written about it, but ordinary oils of various kinds are far more ubiquitous in actual pharmaceutical preparations.
|
Sorry if you feel I was being rude, I am sure that many people have mentioned the negative connotations associated with those who use "swim", I
personally discourage the practice, but I also apologize for brining it up, I shouldn't have said anything.
DMSO is still very commonly used in modern medicine, and the fact that it is not used in fentanyl patches is irrelevant, this is a thread centered on
transdermal lysergamides. The fentanyl patches were a side topic. DMSO or other agents are not used in fentanyl patches because fentanyl is small
enough to slip through the skin without them.
Also, DMSO has a good safety record, which is another reason why it is used in medicine.
| Quote: |
The clinical use of pharmaceutical-grade DMSO as a penetration enhancer is supported by the robust data that have accumulated over the past 3 decades
demonstrating the favorable safety and tolerability profile
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030943
|
When you say: | Quote: | | "Oils, and other non-polar compounds, such as those listed in that patch, do in fact promote transdermal absorbtion, and are the 'common' materials
used for this" |
This is not correct, those oils are only used with compounds that are already amenable to transdermal absorption, Dimethyl sulfoxide is a mechanism
for facilitating the transdermal absorbtion of both hydrophilic and lipophilic medications for which transdermal absorption would otherwise not be a
viable route.
transdermal absorption ultimately comes down to the properties of the molecule itself.
| Quote: |
With an area of about two square meters, the skin is the largest organ in the human body, and it is also where around one third of all our blood
circulates. The primary function of the skin is to protect the body from foreign objects and microorganisms. It also helps the body to retain
moisture, yet it is not completely impermeable. Relatively small drug molecules can penetrate the skin, and this is how transdermal patches
work. [b/]
https://ltslohmann.de/en/patients/transdermal-therapeutic-sy...
|
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oils and other non-polar compounds, such as those listed in that patch, do in fact promote transdermal absorbtion, and are the 'common' materials used
for this.
You statement that this is not correct is followed directly by your admission that it is correct.
That DMSO is not used in the patches is entirely relevant to the question that I was replying to.
I must point out at this juncture that a more careful reading of posts would be much to your benefit.
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
@PhenetylamineMachine; I really don't understand how you can say you won't research fentanyl just because "your interests are somewhere else". How do
you expect to be able to explain things when you don't know the whole picture, but just your small window of interest?
You are at least missing some really important things here; LSD is a highly charged compound at pH<6, in that form it will never penetrate the
skin. Fentanyl; not so much. Compounds passing the skin entering the blood have to pass at least one cellulair membrane, if it can do that, there is
not too much more in the way except for mechanical barriers or active secretion.
In order to pass a membrane (ignoring actively transported compounds) it has to be not too hydrophilic, not too hydrophobic but something in between.
As we know, LSD passes mucous membranes, the blood-brain barrier and probably some more. So we know LSD is not too hydrophilic, nor is it too
hydrophobic. That leaves us with charge, one charge on a molecule and it will never ever pass a membrane passively.
What is the % charged at the pH of the skin? The pKa of the strongest basic N is about 8 (1), the pH of the skin is more acidic than pH 6, probably 5
(2), with those number, most of the molecules will be charged.
Now couldn't it be all people reporting no psychological effects after exposure too the skin where using a neutral solution of LSD, which is charged,
and charged even further on contact with the skin. And couldn't it be Hoffman's solution was basic, and basic enough to buffer the acid from the skin?
You could use a liter of DMSO, but that will not help a charged molecule pass the skin.
1: https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB04829
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Edit: your reasoning about molecules being big or small being relevant to transdermal action is bogus. You can pass molecules a lot bigger as
long as they exhibit the right properties. Mechanically seen the skin is as porous as a kitchen sieve trying to catch water.
[Edited on 4-5-2018 by Tsjerk]
[Edited on 4-5-2018 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Reboot |
I find the 'mystical experience' explanation ridiculous. I tend to agree with PEAM's theory of deliberate ingestion from the start.
No cautious, reasonable, and sober researcher would have decided to follow up a mild accidental exposure to a clearly wildly powerful drug by
deliberately ingesting more, which we know for certain he did. I think it most likely was indeed a deliberate experiment from the start, more in
the vein of Shulgin's work, just more modestly garbed in the telling (while Shulgin was always an unrepentant fan of looking for the next novel high.)
[Edited on 3-5-2018 by Reboot] |
I have my own hypothesis regarding this situation, in which Hofmann intentionally consumed the compound on that first occasion, however, I have been
thinking about this lately, and Nichols does put forward some fairly confounding conjecture relating to the circumstances surrounding Hofmann's first
ingestion.
Such as the duration of the experience:
| Quote: |
"I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two
hours this condition faded away." -Hofmann, 1983
|
Pharmacologically speaking, if LSD had in fact entered Hofmann's system, even if it had done so at the most miniscule of doses, the duration would
have to be far more than two hours...
Another puzzling aspect of the story involves the re-synthesis of the compound several years down the road, and that he picked the compound out of a
series.
Hofmann was working with a large series of lysergamide compounds, Nichols estimates around 30 compounds of which LSD was the 25th. Now, NONE of these
compounds produce as powerful or as profound of an experience as LSD, most were more or less inactive, or active in a manner which for the most part
does not resemble LSD, yet somehow Hofmann picked the single "magic" molecule of his series. (Which again plays into Nichols "cosmic conspiracy
theory).
| Quote: |
We know that Albert originally synthesized LSD in 1938 as part of an ambitious program to make a number of lysergamides. LSD-25 was only the 25th in
the series. I actually don't know how many of those compounds he made, but let's assume he only made 30. So we had up to 30 in the series. He may have
made many more actually, but at least say 30. And they were all tested; he sent the pharmacology department LSD-25, 24, 23... and so forth. They then
say, "LSD-25: not interesting." The assays of that day really didn't provide much information; they were very unsophisticated. But five years later,
Albert has a hunch that the pharmacology department missed something on this 25th in the series
https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
|
So, is it really that unlikely that a chemist with a propensity for altered state experiences could have been working in his lab, at which point he
enters a natural mystical state, which he then logically attributes to the substance he was working with? The only truly hard to believe aspect of the
hypothesis was that the compound actually turned out to generate intense mystical experiences.
...Well, that, and the fact that Hofmann chose this compound out of a large series of mostly inactive compounds, and re-synthesized it, for no
apparent reason.
| Quote: |
The other fact we need to think about is when Albert was a child, he had a spontaneous mystical experience. Now depending on whether you're a
psychologist or a psychiatrist or whatever, we could say that Albert had a predisposition to altered states of consciousness.
So what facts do we know? I'm going to formulate a hypothesis. He took a dose that by your consensus should have lasted certainly more than two hours,
but it only lasted two hours. He was a meticulous chemist -- a Swiss chemist. Anyone I know who's worked with LSD -- and Nick Sand painted a solution
of it on his arm -- didn't get high. This doesn't make sense. And what is this peculiar presentiment? Why the 25th in the series? Inexplicable! And,
he was predisposed to altered states of consciousness.
The only hypothesis I can come up with that's consistent with all of these facts is that on April 16, 1943, Albert Hofmann did not get LSD in his body
at all. He had a spontaneous mystical experience!
Now if I were working in the lab with a new chemical, and I started having kaleidoscopic visions of wonderful colors and patterns, my first thought
wouldn't be that I was having a spontaneous experience. My first thought would be, "What was that new chemical I was working with? I need to tell
Sasha about it." [laughter]
I think that's what happened, that's the hypothesis. We can't test that hypothesis, but when I saw Albert in Basel a couple years ago, I presented
that particular hypothesis to him and said, "What do you think?" He said, "It's entirely possible." So, that's our little experiment, and I think most
of you really didn't think seriously about the discovery of LSD, but it puts a different light on it.
https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
|
I think it is also important to understand who david Nichols is, as Nichols is a highly accomplished and accredited figure in medicinal chemistry,
pharmacology, and psychedelic research.
| Quote: |
David Earl Nichols (born December 23, 1944, Covington, Kentucky) is an American pharmacologist and medicinal chemist.[1] Previously the Robert
C. and Charlotte P. Anderson Distinguished Chair in Pharmacology at Purdue University, Nichols has worked in the field of psychoactive drugs since
1969. While still a graduate student, he patented the method that is used to make the optical isomers of hallucinogenic amphetamines. His
contributions include the synthesis and reporting of escaline, LSZ, 6-APB, 2C-I-NBOMe and other NBOMe variants
(NBOMe-2C-B, NBOMe-2C-C, NBOMe-2C-D), and several others, as well as the coining of the term "entactogen".
He is the founding president of the Heffter Research Institute, named after German chemist and pharmacologist Arthur Heffter, who first discovered
that mescaline was the active component in the peyote cactus. In 2004 he was named the Irwin H. Page Lecturer by the International Serotonin Club, and
delivered an address in Portugal titled, "35 years studying psychedelics: what a long strange trip it's been." Among pharmacologists, he is considered
to be one of the world's top experts on psychedelics. Nichols's other professional activities include teaching medicinal chemistry and molecular
pharmacology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN, and teaching medical students at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
-Wikipedia
|
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk | @PhenetylamineMachine; I really don't understand how you can say you won't research fentanyl just because "your interests are somewhere else". How do
you expect to be able to explain things when you don't know the whole picture, but just your small window of interest?
You are at least missing some really important things here; LSD is a highly charged compound at pH<6, in that form it will never penetrate the
skin. Fentanyl; not so much. Compounds passing the skin entering the blood have to pass at least one cellulair membrane, if it can do that, there is
not too much more in the way except for mechanical barriers or active secretion.
In order to pass a membrane (ignoring actively transported compounds) it has to be not too hydrophilic, not too hydrophobic but something in between.
As we know, LSD passes mucous membranes, the blood-brain barrier and probably some more. So we know LSD is not too hydrophilic, nor is it too
hydrophobic. That leaves us with charge, one charge on a molecule and it will never ever pass a membrane passively.
What is the % charged at the pH of the skin? The pKa of the strongest basic N is about 8 (1), the pH of the skin is more acidic than pH 6, probably 5
(2), with those number, most of the molecules will be charged.
Now couldn't it be all people reporting no psychological effects after exposure too the skin where using a neutral solution of LSD, which is charged,
and charged even further on contact with the skin. And couldn't it be Hoffman's solution was basic, and basic enough to buffer the acid from the skin?
You could use a liter of DMSO, but that will not help a charged molecule pass the skin.
1: https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB04829
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Edit: your reasoning about molecules being big or small being relevant to transdermal action is bogus. You can pass molecules a lot bigger as
long as they exhibit the right properties. Mechanically seen the skin is as porous as a kitchen sieve trying to catch water.
[Edited on 4-5-2018 by Tsjerk]
[Edited on 4-5-2018 by Tsjerk] |
You understand why most scientists, hobbyists, and researchers focus on a specific field, right?
My focus is the organic chemistry of tryptamine, phenethylamine, and lysergamide compounds.
Trust me, my decision to focus on a specific field does not limit me from seeing "the whole picture" in any way, you have to know the whole picture
before you can decide to focus on a specific field any way.
I know the whole of my field well enough to where I can simply read the available material on fentanyl and understand it
When you know your field you do not have to have every detail regarding every compound memorized, and seeing as how fentanyl is not even structurally
related to the molecules which are my focus, it should be understandable that I am not very enthusiastic to look into it. ...and when it comes to
compounds which are highly abused, highly addictive, highly dangerous, and which are responsible for such a large number of deaths, it's hard to be
enthusiastic in regards to them.
Ok, you are saying
| Quote: |
You are at least missing some really important things here; LSD is a highly charged compound at pH<6, in that form it will never penetrate the
skin. Fentanyl; not so much. Compounds passing the skin entering the blood have to pass at least one cellulair membrane, if it can do that, there is
not too much more in the way except for mechanical barriers or active secretion.
|
What are your sources here?
And If you could please elaborate on how charge and PH are essential to a molecule being amenable to transdermal adsorption I would appreciate it.
LSD has a PH of 6? Please elaborate.
I understand the chemistry of LSD, however, as would have been obvious from my prior posts in this thread, I do not fully understand the mechanisms by
which a compound becomes amenable to transdermal absorption.
My understanding is that it is determined by the properties of the molecule itself, which is correct, and the size of the molecule does appear to be a
factor here.
When you say: | Quote: | | your reasoning about molecules being big or small being relevant to transdermal action is bogus. You can pass molecules a lot bigger as long
as they exhibit the right properties. Mechanically seen the skin is as porous as a kitchen sieve trying to catch water. |
you call it my reasoning, when in fact it was the information which I was provided*. If this information is incorrect
could you please cite credible source confirming it?
* | Quote: |
With an area of about two square meters, the skin is the largest organ in the human body, and it is also where around one third of all our blood
circulates. The primary function of the skin is to protect the body from foreign objects and microorganisms. It also helps the body to retain
moisture, yet it is not completely impermeable. Relatively small drug molecules can penetrate the skin, and this is how transdermal patches
work.
https://ltslohmann.de/en/patients/transdermal-therapeutic-sy...
|
Could you cite a source which states that the size of a molecule is not relevant to it's ability to pass the membrane of the skin?
|
|
|
PhenethylamineMachine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 22-3-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | Oils and other non-polar compounds, such as those listed in that patch, do in fact promote transdermal absorbtion, and are the 'common' materials used
for this.
You statement that this is not correct is followed directly by your admission that it is correct.
That DMSO is not used in the patches is entirely relevant to the question that I was replying to.
I must point out at this juncture that a more careful reading of posts would be much to your benefit.
|
That is not the part that I was saying was irrelevant, perhaps a closer read could benefit all parties here.
Those oils and so on listed do aide in transdermal absorption, but in these cases the molecule is already amenable to transdermal absorption to begin
with.
When the molecule is NOT already amenable to transdermal absorption a skin penetrating agent, such as DMSO is required.
... though as the research paper below elucidates, various solvents can be employed for this purpose.
| Quote: |
As a possible approach to determining whether DMSO would enhance drug absorption through a biological membrane, we employed a simple test of immersing
the tails of mice and rats into solutions of drugs dissolved in DMSO. We employed primarily psychoactive drugs since it would be possible to observe
grossly any change in behavior, if, in fact, such did occur. This paper deals with the results of such a study and of a comparison of the
ability of different solvents to permit passage of drugs across the skin barrier.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320564...
|
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
