|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine.
|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants||(Rated Start-class)|
My team of brave researchers and I have done some inofficial experiments with this compound and in these experiments we hade to use significantly larger doses than described here and in PIHKAL (3 mg for a threashold dose and 8-10 mg for a strong effect, as opposed to 1.5-3 mg as stated here and in PIHKAL).
One theory behind this was that the ammount we got was smaller than the ordered 100 mg and/or we got another substance. This seems unlikely as you will understand when I present my second theory.
Shulgin has on some ocations been called 'a relentless low baller' by a few people, because of the doses in P/THIKAL being a bit low. This (if it is true) supports the claim that it accualy was DOC in that bag we recieved. There were also some strong reactions to smaller doses, one of the subjects to our 'research' was given 3 mg DOC and had a powerfull experience that lasted for close to 36 hrs. Another subject took 5 mg and experienced almost total loss of response to external stimuli.
If we assume that the amount of DOC we recieved was smaller and what we thought was 10 mg was infact 3 mg, then the 3 mg dose was a 900 µg dose. I find it very doubtfull that a dose of this magnitude would produce such a strong response, lasting that long. The duration is shorter with smaller doses of this compund. I know this both from external sources and empiricaly ( 3 mg lasting for about 8 hrs and 10 mg for 15 hrs in the author).
If we assume that the wrong compund was sent to us we have to find another compound for wich the dose and duration is the same as with the compuond we recieved. The only compund I have found in PIHKAL that fits in is DOM. I'm assuming it wasn't a tryptamine since it hade quite different effects and it was indeed psycedelic. Putting chemicals not included in PIHKAL or THIKAL aside the alternative seems to be DOM. Having no personal experience with this compound, and further more, not enough information from other sources to be able to distinguish between them (if that is even possible). The only argument I have here is the 3 and possibly 5 mg experiences (in others than myself) and that DOM is classified worldwide (almost) and I obtianed this from what seemed to be a company selling legal substances for use in resarch.
All in all I'm quite certain that it was DOC we recieved. Is this data enough to justify an edit of the dose section adding that some individuals have required higher doses than what is recognized here?
Very little is known about these chemicals and most of the knowleadge have been obtained from Alexandr Shulgin. Thus what he claims might not be true for everyone.
Ferrelas 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Ferrelas
ahem. mr researcher. point 1, pov. your inofficial experiments mean nothing here. no disrespect. point 2. there have been horrible overdoses happened on doc, which lasted up to several days in hospitalisation. it would be irresponsible to suggest a dose larger than at least any official biochemist has pointed out. point 3. GET A GODDAMN SCALE DAMNIT. "One theory behind this was that the ammount we got was smaller" are you fucking kidding?! eyeballing such a substance is totally nuts, dangerous and it kinda frightens me that you actually want to bring it up in wikipedia as scientific source.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ferrelas here again (if anyone's listening), the source for the 'overdose' of DOC is no longer availible. Furthermore I'd like to know a bit more about the 'overdose'.
SWIM received LSD for the first time about a year ago and it looked identical to the blotter shown on this page. Crudely lined plain white paper. You thinking what he's thinking? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!