• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Buddha Blues Test Results - WEDINOS
#1
[Image: ualYVPE.jpg]

And thanks to @MrApollo for sending this in to be tested. *cool*
Reply
#2
Didnt he say it was 5fpb22?
ned - i just wanted a code to go and hav a look but yee hav ruined it now acting like scientolagists with the code...seriously yee say im a prick just take a step back there
Reply
#3
Facepalm
https://drug.cafe Encrypted Messaging & Chat Rooms
https://forum.drug.cafe Forum
[Image: 3ANSKL2.png]

Need to e-mail me?
Reply
#4
Yeaaaaah gonna give this one a miss I think.
Reply
#5
Wow, how trustworthy...
Reply
#6
face palm to the Buddha.
Reply
#7
Guys, I think you will all appreciate this was a very easy typo error. 5fpb 5fakb are both very similar and we work with both regular. So to be called untrustworthy is a little unfair, as you can see we are trustworthy and the product was received and did the job.
Reply
#8
get out of here nobody wants your dodgy eliquid.
Reply
#9
"Did the job!!!""

For fuck sake mate we are talking about research chemicals and we trust you to dose us right, if you cant even write the right chemical name then I dont want to deal with you...
Reply
#10
*face palm*. Buddha, you totally ruined your name.
Dude an error like that, is just asking for trouble. Read this thread: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthr...p?t=111940

Note to staff: I know the forums mentions illegals, but it's a HR forum. And this thread, is one of the first things to read. Before you go the RC road. This disaster could happen again. When vendors make these "small" mistakes.

Although, if the link get's removed. I have quoted it.

Quote:A couple of months have now passed since the unfortunate 2C-B-FLY incident, which is known to have taken the life of Dannie Haupt Hansen, the vendor who distributed the 'b1' batch, and at least one of his customers in the US. Several other unconfirmed reports of hospitalizations also surfaced around the same time. Now that the dust has settled and the facts are for the most part known, it seems like a good opportunity for the RC community to reflect on why and how things went wrong, and to discuss how such things could be avoided in future. Many of the issues here apply not only these specific chemicals, but to the research chemical chain in general.

What went wrong:

It became clear a few weeks after Haupt's death that this was a case of misrepresentation. The 'b1' batch of 2C-B-FLY was actually the psychedelic amphetamine bromo-dragonFLY. Unfortunately the standard range dose for 2C-B-FLY (10-20mg) is well above the safety window of this extremely potent compound. Haupt obviously assumed that he had acquired 2C-B-FLY from his supply lab, but by all accounts was not a chemist and did no analytical assessment of the batch aside from consuming the chemicals himself. As a result he suffered from respiratory failure several hours after consuming approximately 18mg of the batch. Before this incident occurred Haupt had already distributed some of the 2C-B-FLY to his customers. It's unclear where the communication broke down here, but there are three possible scenarios:

1) The language barrier (danish to chinese, presumably via english) led to a misunderstanding and that the lab believed that he wanted bromo-dragonFLY. It's possible that Haupt may have recieved little or no analytical information when the batch arrived. You'd hope a lab would provide some analytical data, or at least a diagram of the synthed compound to accompany the shipment, but these clandestine labs don't necessarily operate to such high standards. Even if there had been information enclosed with the batch, it is possible that Haupt misinterpreted it. In any case Haupt weighed out the batch consignment into smaller bags which he had mislabelled as 2C-B-FLY. I believe that a lack of communication must have played at least some part in this.

2) The supply lab accidentally misrepresented bromo-dragonFLY as 2C-B-FLY, either as a result of a sloppy synthesis which had not been appropriately tested, or even something as innocuous as a mislabelling. This is also a distinct possibility. From what I have gathered from various sources, Haupt only dealt with one supply lab, and the collection of research chemicals he was distributing grew unusually rapidly over the few months he was in business. This suggests that appropriate time and care was not going into new syntheses. A mistake was inevitable at some point, especially with the trickier syntheses involved for the more exotic RCs. I also have it on good authority that the specific supply lab implicated is known by some other vendors to be sub-standard and to have a track record of cutting corners.

3) The supply lab knowingly misrepresented bromo-dragonFLY as 2C-B-FLY. This seems the least likely scenario. Any lab with the expertise required to synthesize bromo-dragonFLY would likely be aware that as an amphetamine the active dose is far lower. If the idea was to intentionally misrepresent, then it'd be logical for them to cut the batch with something inert (though cutting is also an inherently unsafe practice). This would've also boosted their profits gram for gram. Safety aside, it'd be a poor financial move to distribute near-pure bromo-dragonFLY as something less potent.

It's likely we'll never know for sure which of these is the case, but there is a common theme shared by all three: a lack of quality control, both by the suppliers and vendors. Haupt failed to do any QC of his own before allowing the batch to reach the public. The reality is that few vendors are in a position to perform thorough QC on every shipment they receive. Had Haupt done a Marquis reagent test, it would've given him immediate grounds for concern. In many cases vendors are taking the word of the supply lab, and so the sole assessment of safety is entirely in those far-removed hands.

What can RC consumers learn from this?

The first important consideration is that the issue of quality control is not specific to bromo-dragonFLY or 2C-B-FLY. Any batch of any RC could be misrepresented (be it through negligence or an honest mistake), and these batches can find their way to consumers. The consequences of consuming a misrepresented batch can be lethal.

The key message to take from this is that consumers must not place blind faith in their suppliers. What the order form or shipment note says is not necessarily what is received. The Haupt case illustrates that some vendors are well out of their depth, and therefore are not necessarily an effective shield for their customers against poor quality products originating from the clandestine supply labs. It is down to the consumers to take appropriate steps to protect themselves, and to treat a new batch of any RC with extreme caution.

While it's unrealistic that most consumers are in a position to do any extensive QC themselves, many of the risks can be mitigated by assuming the worst and 'dosing upwards'. If a consumer starts with a test dose of 500 micrograms (0.5mg) for any RC, then even in the worst case of misrepresentation it is highly unlikely to cause a toxic reaction. Dosing upwards in crude steps (e.g. 0.5mg > 4mg > 10mg > 20mg, allowing adequate time, at least several days, between each for tolerance to dissipate and any toxic effects to present themselves) should provide a sufficient buffer to ensure that the chemical is safe for consumption. This also minimizes the risk of dangerous idiosyncratic allergic or toxic reactions to certain chemicals. Of course many RCs are expected to have no discernable psychoactive effect at such low doses, but the aim here is to rule out the possibility of it being something potent than expected, or contaminated with something toxic. The extra time investment needed to do these self-administered assays may seem like an inconvenience for a keen psychonaut, but it can and does save lives, and should be a standard practice for any consumer of research chemicals.

Would open source discussion have made a difference?

One topic of conversation that emerged centered on the suggestion that the lack of open source discussion may have been a contributing factor. A few reports surfaced just weeks before this incident that another RC distributed by Haupt was of poor quality (inactive), and that he was in the process of replacing chemicals returned to him and investigating. While its possible that this may have caused people to think twice before buying his 2C-B-FLY, I believe it is unlikely that open source discussion would have a significant impact. Unless a vendor was consistently distributing dangerous chemicals, it seems unlikely that source discussion would dissuade customers from taking a chance, especially customers with a taste for the exotic such as 2C-B-FLY. For the most part it appears that Haupt's customers were satisfied up to that point in time. Open source discussion may help prevent customers being ripped off, but doesn't do much for guaranteeing safety, as bad batches of chemicals are generally sporadic occurrences.

What went right?

Information about Haupt's death quickly surfaced on a Danish forum, but took a few days to filter through to the english speaking boards. Drugs-Forum has to be credited for being one of the first major sites to pick up the news and try to publicize the warning as much as possible. Erowid and several other boards followed suit soon after, and as a result several people in possession of the 'b1' batch are known to have been made aware in time. The fact that anyone at all was protected by this really demonstrates how important sites like DF can be for harm minimization, even under such critical circumstances.

Some of the 'b1' batch also found its way to an analytical lab so that the precise composition could be clarified. While there is still room for improvement, both in terms of the time taken for analysis and the reliability of the labs, it's important that the precise cause of the problem was eventually made clear. It's positive that this information was acquired and made public in a timely fashion. Anyone with information on a lab that would be willing to test such batches for free should contact Alfa, as DF are keen to establish ties with such labs to speed resolution for these incidents.

Where to go from here?

Perhaps mercifully, 2C-B-FLY is a niche interest even among psychedelic enthuiasts. While we must not underplay the fact that at least two people tragically lost their lives here, the incident was ultimately isolated and quickly contained. If this had happened with a research chemical with a wider appeal, then the implications of a misrepresented/contaminated batch could've been grave. 

I am particularly concerned that the traditional chain of RC distribution (supplier > vendor > consumer) is becoming more convoluted as RCs find their way onto the street market. Historically RC consumers have invested time and effort in finding their sources, and therefore tend to be better educated as to the nature of what they're purchasing. The target consumers on the street are unlikely to know anywhere near as much about the drug they're buying, and in some cases are deliberately misled by the dealer (e.g. sold under an ambiguous street name, DOB sold as LSD etc.).

I'm particularly concerned by one 'devil in the crowd' that has exploded in popularity across northern Europe; mephedrone. For the first time we are encountering a research chemical that is achieving mainstream distribution. In some parts of the UK it is now as widely distributed as any of the usual illicit drugs. Unfortunately it also happens to be a drug with clear addictive potential, and a long list of potential negative effects on physical and mental health. Mephedrone seems to have eluded the usual legal grey areas, and as such is currently being marketed with total disregard by some unscrupulous dealers who are looking to make a quick buck. These upstarts are not the old school RC vendors - they show little discretion and little concern for the wellbeing of their customers. They often have no idea what exactly they are actually selling, much like Haupt. In turn many consumers seem unaware of the potential risks, at least in part because it's legal and so widely marketed, and therefore is presumed to be far safer than it probably is.

As such mephedrone is no longer being treated with the appropriate care that research chemicals demand. Harm minimization is near impossible when a research chemical is being used so widely, and in many cases, so irresponsibly. While those intimately associated with the research chemical market can hopefully learn from the Haupt incident, can such a message about safe use of research chemicals be taken on board by the general public who are encountering research chemicals by proxy? Imagine if the Haupt incident had not been a shipment of mislabelled 2C-B-FLY, but instead a batch of several kilos of mephedrone with a highly toxic impurity. The consequences of the dangerous consumer practices combined with its rampant use would be catastrophic.

Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthr...z2qdpw6CXR

Sad to see Dannie (the vendor) died from this incident. You will be in our hearts forever my friend..
Oink oink...
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.