• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Research done by (or for) the DMT-Nexus community

The qualitative differences from clandestine LSD productions - some questions on chemistry

Hey there,

I recently came upon a batch of LSD, that surprised me.

I know that there is a lot of talk going on, probably urban legends for the most part, from the effects of different batches of clandestin produced LSD.

To make an example: I usually have a muscle tension in my face and a somehow metallic taste in my mouth while tripping. This get me to a point where I started to accepting this as a normal and usual side effect of LSD intake. Even if not really nice, it isn't a big problem so I accepted this phenomena in body feeling.

But some batches didn't tend to do this, at least in my experience. For sure, set, setting and dosage can make a whole difference, but I am intrigued if anybody has reliable information on side effects of improper synthesis? How and why?

I came across several informations but it always seems to be something like a heard of.

What makes an LSD batch good? And what are the outcomes and effects of several residues, or minor products, resulting from incomplete or improper synthesis?

This is a question I ask myself a lot these days and I would be glad if someone can point me on reliable paperwork or other informations...

Nice trip!
So, we have two sides of approach, that science never get to really bring in harmony together (make me think of Jung and Pauli trying to find the ultimate explication for synchronicity and quantum physics) :

* Psychological - autosuggestion, set and setting , the colour of the pill, advertisement, energy transfer of the practicing chemist

* Physical - dosage, impurities, improper synthesis, natural or synthetic precursors, other compounds

I think that it is important to keep that in mind, to don't get lost in the discussion.

The first one ist a lot about empirical experience, and even if certain aspects can be quantified with trip reports, consecutive bioassaying and so on, it can never reach the sphere of objectivity. We all know this. It is still the most important factor to take into consideration since we are all just direct experienced beings.

The second aspect can be analysed by the means of chemistry and the account of practicing chemists who share their experiences. Here we can work on something: making TLC, HPLC and other approaches of analysis, looking in the existing literature of ongoing analysis done by harm reduction labs and historical research.

Couldn't we get some of the still living chemists, to only name the famous ones like Pickard, Nichols, Casey Hardison or Tim Scully (I still wait for his ultimate book on underground chemistry) to share their thoughts with us? Somebody for a contact?

Both aspects are important since they are the sides of the same coin, the microcosm and the macrocosm. But the approach to understand them cannot made be with the same methods of investigation.
a lot of discussion of that page : Types of LSD ~ Difference between LSD-25, needlepoint, white fluff - The Psychedelic Experience - Shroomery Message Board
TLDR : if we take a scientific stance, in our current knowledge, there's no reason to beleive there's any difference beetween LSD batches, even "bad LSD" with impurity should be the same, as the impurities are not doing anything in the mg range.
If we take an empirical stance... well... we need more double blind experiences i guess? but most people will agree, there's better LSD than others ; it could be just all made up , biased ... but to discard the experience of a whole community of users is a bit extreme.
CBD seems to modify THC by partially occupying the receptor. Minimal effects on it's own, but modifies THC considerably.
There is an entourage effect with many plants which is why I personally prefer teas over 'pure' extracts of compounds. However with chemistry I'd expect this to be a lesser issue unless there are unreacted compounds and iso- forms that remain from each step. I'd assume there is a purification step at the end and the amount of times done will increase purity at the cost of lost product? Even terpenes in weed modify thc. Pure compounds are interesting however sometimes leads to undesirable effects like PURE thc vs in mixture with cbd.

Even with other plants like psychotria vs pure d with cappi. There is something missing with pure extract vs with plant teas. The oils and other minor compounds do have an effect IME. IDK if true with Smoked or other forms of ingestion/application

I remember reading there are some lsd iso forms that are inactive but perhap modify receptors?
@dreamer042 does the book mention how frequently he came back to use the same color??? So intrigued to read this; clearly seems to indicate that something other than chemical make up (something non-physical) was influencing the experience.
Do we know what kind of coloring? I wonder if the side effects that we now know are produced by food coloring, were simply being enhanced by the LSD? I suppose that is a possibility as well.
It doesn't give details on the what kind of coloring was used, I assume just the standard grocery store food coloring available in the mid 1960's. All the colors utilized the same batch of material so it seems it was just self suggestion influencing people's experiences.

It just goes to show that the material is only part of the story and our expectations and beliefs have more influence than we give them credit for.

A lot of the old chemists believed that your intentions were crystallized into the structure of the sacrament and would come through in the experience. Lore has it that family chemists still pray over each and every batch. 🙏
Last edited:
Well, there is the very small possibility that a trace of azo dye could do something like affecting the proportion of LSD that gets metabolised to the strongly dopaminergic 13-OH-LSD (or whatever number it was). But yes, psychedelics are suggestibility-enhancers par excellence so that hypothesis most likely wins the fight with Occam's razor.
Some of you may know already these ones, but I came about them and there is some interesting information in it:

This is Casey William Hardisons response to my question 🤣

Dude! Subjective AF!

Nichol’s says enzymatic cascade at picomolar amounts!

And, there’s like 19 different spots that fluoresce under UV after coupling the carboxyllic to the amine! Don’t count them out of possible activity.

Picomolar, Dave said!

How crisp is your chroma fraction?

And, subjective!

I mean the vibes, man!

I hear Owsley sacrificed virgin hymen on the lab bench! Did that make that particular batch special?

I do not fucking know! But I bet she was tasty!

And, bless you for asking!

Last edited:
Some of you may know already these ones, but I came about them and there is some interesting information in it:

This is Casey William Hardisons response to my question 🤣

Cheers to Casey. What a response :LOL:

I would add my hat to the "there is a definite subjective difference in experience between batches/crystal varieties" camp. Whether this is due to difference in purity and how a higher purity hits/is absorbed by receptors, "inactive" isomers interacting with active isomers and becoming active in some way through an entourage effect, or simply the care and love with which the product has been created and handled (vibes/degradation/whatever) I make no claim to know. I can assure you though- needlepoint, white white family fluff, and eggshell all elicit a different experience and can be picked out of a lineup. To be fair, the needlepoint and white white fluff could be mistaken for one another, but when you have a lesser product such as eggshell- you know.

My theory is that although other isomers may appear "inactive" they can still bind to receptors, blocking the good good from getting where it needs to get to do the wheeeee thing and make your brain go brrrrrrrrrr. Thus a more purified and refined product makes brain go brrrrrrr more better.

Feel free to quote me for your academic journal.
Last edited:
Top Bottom