Guest boo Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 mm yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidphakist Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 trolololol So let me get this straight: if you take 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and mix some atoms around you are left with 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? Sounds VERY scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hahathhat Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 On a side not there's been a lot of research suggesting dope has very strong anti cancer properties amongst other benefits. let's cut that attitude right there. while marijuana is not as bad as tobacco, it's still fucking smoking. inhaling smoke. saying "dope has very strong anti cancer properties" makes it sound like it's a mug of tea or a vitamin pill, which it is not. i wager if you smoked two packs of joints a day, you'd wind up just as fucked as if you smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. but who smokes two packs of joints a day? you only wind up smoking one or two joints, instead of a whole pack. it's also a much more positive drug, both in terms of immediate effect and life benefits. but, unfortunately, i doubt that taking bong rips will prevent you from getting lung cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 trolololol So let me get this straight: if you take 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and mix some atoms around you are left with 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? Sounds VERY scientific. yes, that's absolutely correct, to a 't'. you nailed it in one. great summary, Dr. well done. you are quite the scientific geeeeeeenius! please do keep at that research you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidphakist Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Derp, folks should I take the flame bait? Derp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Yeah sloppy attention-grabbing online article but it's a reasonable bit of research.The in vitro results are worth something in this case because (a) MDMA analogues were investigated initially due to their targeting of certain pathways that are specific to a group of cell types that are the problem in certain immune cell cancers (lymphoma, leukaemia). So while not being restricted completely to the cancer cells it might at least restrict the damage to a smaller selection of cells. And (b) modifications at that part of the molecule are thought to reduce the psychoactive properties. And either way in terms of treating cancer I don't think anyone would care that much about the side effects of MDMA. As a recreational drug they might say it's dangerous but in terms of a cancer therapy it's got a whole lot stronger safety record than a lot of new potential drugs and probably most of the ones in common use too. trolololol So let me get this straight: if you take 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and mix some atoms around you are left with 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? Sounds VERY scientific. Maybe I'm just not getting your trolling efforts but it doesn't say that anywhere I can see? There's plenty of things in the article worth whining about that are actually in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidphakist Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Maybe I'm just not getting your trolling efforts but it doesn't say that anywhere I can see? There's plenty of things in the article worth whining about that are actually in the article. No trolling. They state that they change atoms around. If you've ever lifted a chemistry book you know that if you change the atoms around, you have a different chemical (excluding isomers). If you've ever read or lived PiHKaL, you'll know that even substituting one element for another at a location can give a drastically different subjective experience. I suppose my level of reading comprehension would prefer a title such as "MDMA analogues show promise in fighting cancer". Instead, they dumbed the article down to the sort of sensationalism that grabs the attention of people like sirch. The question of neurotoxicity shouldn't even be on the table. Talk to someone who has taken two full volleys of cisplatinol for cancer and has also been on an MDMA bender. Guess which experience had the more damaging impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Yeah sloppy attention-grabbing online article but it's a reasonable bit of research.The in vitro results are worth something in this case because (a) MDMA analogues were investigated initially due to their targeting of certain pathways that are specific to a group of cell types that are the problem in certain immune cell cancers (lymphoma, leukaemia). So while not being restricted completely to the cancer cells it might at least restrict the damage to a smaller selection of cells. And (b) modifications at that part of the molecule are thought to reduce the psychoactive properties. And either way in terms of treating cancer I don't think anyone would care that much about the side effects of MDMA. As a recreational drug they might say it's dangerous but in terms of a cancer therapy it's got a whole lot stronger safety record than a lot of new potential drugs and probably most of the ones in common use too. yeah i completely agree (no sarcasm) i posted this article because i thought it was interesting, that is all. i'm not saying 'hey guys! ecstasy, or whatever they're doing here, can 100% cure cancer, guys! yo! take ecstasy!, obviously. lol. still, it's interesting,g and i don't think anybody would/should really mind being prescribed some sort of 'ecstasy-based' drug if they did actually figure it all out in the future and it could actually cure/aid the cure of their cancer in some way. still, some people might be against it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I suppose my level of reading comprehension would prefer a title such as "MDMA analogues show promise in fighting cancer". Instead, they dumbed the article down to the sort of sensationalism that grabs the attention of people like sirch. seriously, you can fuck right off you complete and utter prick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Maybe I'm just not getting your trolling efforts but it doesn't say that anywhere I can see? There's plenty of things in the article worth whining about that are actually in the article. No trolling. They state that they change atoms around. If you've ever lifted a chemistry book you know that if you change the atoms around, you have a different chemical (excluding isomers). If you've ever read or lived PiHKaL, you'll know that even substituting one element for another at a location can give a drastically different subjective experience. I suppose my level of reading comprehension would prefer a title such as "MDMA analogues show promise in fighting cancer". Instead, they dumbed the article down to the sort of sensationalism that grabs the attention of people like sirch. The question of neurotoxicity shouldn't even be on the table. Talk to someone who has taken two full volleys of cisplatinol for cancer and has also been on an MDMA bender. Guess which experience had the more damaging impact. Yeah the headline they did imply it was ecstacy that was actually curing cancer. In the article it is explained that atoms were replaced with different ones. Although that still doesnt really quite explain it but the gist of it is there for people who look to AOL for 'lifestyle' news. I just had a look at the original paper actually and they are adding quite big groups onto the analogues. In case it cheers you up the title of the paper is a lot more realistic; "Enhancing the anti-lymphoma potential of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (‘ecstasy’)through iterative chemical redesign"I had to look up what pihkal is but while that is true, it can also give no effects or reduce one effect and increase another, which is what they were screening for. This research is building on that Shulgin chap's work by making substitutions at that location because he reported that it removes the psychoactive effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Yeah the headline they did imply it was ecstacy that was actually curing cancer. In the article it is explained that atoms were replaced with different ones. Although that still doesnt really quite explain it but the gist of it is there for people who look to AOL for 'lifestyle' news. i saw the headline on the 'news' bit of the site when i went to check my email over at my old aol account which i've had for about 13 years now, since my teens. fyi, i do not look to AOL for 'lifestyle' news. "people like sirch" do not do this. is there anything else anybody would like to take a piss on while we're at it? go ahead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coalbucket PI Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Yeah the headline they did imply it was ecstacy that was actually curing cancer. In the article it is explained that atoms were replaced with different ones. Although that still doesnt really quite explain it but the gist of it is there for people who look to AOL for 'lifestyle' news. i saw the headline on the 'news' bit of the site when i went to check my email over at my old aol account which i've had for about 13 years now, since my teens. fyi, i do not look to AOL for 'lifestyle' news. "people like sirch" do not do this. is there anything else anybody would like to take a piss on while we're at it? go ahead.... I'm not trying to have a go at you or anything. Personally I don't read biology news in newspapers cause it's like an infuriatingly inaccurate busman's holiday to me, but once I have read something I feel the need to try and figure out what they were actually talking about. I only whinged about AOL there because when I googled 'ecstacy cancer' the first one I saw was a BBC article which was about 1.21 jigatimes better at explaining it.edit: and also I was just generally WTFing about them putting cancer under 'lifestyle' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.