someone mentioned 2C-B in responses and frankly Shulgin was nuts. I wouldn't put a known psychoactive substance into my body without at least reviewing a detailed receptor/transporter binding profile, and he did it dozens of times, on purpose
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @whitequark
i'd assume the detailed binding profiles didn't exist in the 70s and 80s when he was doing most of this work. even toward the end of that period, probably not easily/cheaply. the pharma industry relied on animal testing for ages to even know what was roughly going on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zebrankyy @whitequark
ligand assays of any type brand new in the 60s & not widely used, and the 70s were still the clinical research heyday for tricyclics: dirty, unselective drugs, nevertheless best-available therapies I'd say he was just doing what he was used to w/the tools he grew up learning
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
you have a very good point, thanks. I have missed some context here.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.