Part One

Anybody delving into the world of psychedelic substances with any degree of enthusiasm and curiosity is likely to come into contact with three general layers of material.

Firstly, there are the plants which have been used for centuries, if not millennia, by peoples across the face of the Earth for assistance and gnosis. Mushrooms, cacti, ayahuasca ingredients, salvia divinorum, among others. These have a long history of use, and they are known well. How to interact with them helpfully, what the problems and dangers may be, and so on, is generally understood, and the possible pitfalls minimised (though not completely eradicated) accordingly. 

Secondly, there are those substances that have been manufactured, and whose use has been widespread, their effects well-known. Typically, they have been around for a number of decades, and include well-known entheogens like LSD, mescaline, and DMT. They are often derivatives of natural plant substances (eg mescaline) or possess a chemical structure similar to that which occurs naturally (LSD). Like the plants, they have become well-known territory.

And then there are the research chemicals. Erowid, the largest and most comprehensive source on the internet for mind-altering substances, has this to say about the research chemicals: 

"Chemicals marked on Erowid by our Research Chemical Symbol should be considered experimental chemicals. Although some people are willing to ingest these chemicals for their effects, it is not reasonable to assume that these chemicals are in any way 'safe' to use recreationally. Although all psychoactive use involves risk, many substances in this class of chemicals have undergone virtually no human or animal toxicity studies. Research chemicals are those for which there is little to no data on possible long term problems, addiction potential, allergic reactions, or acute overdoses....... Consider carefully before choosing to use these substances."

Part Two

Many of these research chemicals seem to have been used without any more obvious damage than might be expected from any other 'psychedelic' or ecstasy-type material. There have been a few sad and notable exceptions, however, especially with some of high-sensitivity dosage (ie where the difference between a psychedelic and potentially lethal dose is quite small). Most notable of the research chemicals which gave rise to fatalities are the NBOMe's. The reports do not make for pleasant reading.

Around a decade ago in the UK, a real game of cat-and-mouse was being played out between the 'authorities' on the one hand, and the producers on the other. What you would do is take a base molecule, for example that of LSD, then tweak it a little bit. Just enough that it was no longer LSD, and therefore outside the legislation making acid a 'class A' substance; but not enough that it wasn't in essence LSD-like for the consumer. This would go on for a while, with a goodly number of psychonauts enjoying their new legal LSD lookalike; until the authorities got wind of it, and included the new substance within their legal framework. By which time the producers had another product ready for launching onto the market as a replacement.

The situation was terminated by then Home Secretary, fun-and-games Teresa May, with the 'psychoactives bill'. This is one of the most ludicrous pieces of legislation ever in an increasingly ludicrous world. It stood up to no rational scrutiny whatsoever, and in retrospect was a warning sign of the increasingly dark over-reach of governmental authorities. It aimed to make illegal any substance which has a 'psychoactive effect'. Almost anything is, or can be, 'psychoactive'. It was total nonsense, but intended to bring within the remit of government an area of human activity which had somehow managed to escape. Government's greatest nightmare: something outside their control.

While some of the research chemicals come with a pretty clear label of 'noli me tangere', others look less likely to bring trouble, or at least any more trouble than any mind-altering substance might be expected to. The typical chemical researcher might embark upon a comprehensive investigation, taking in any and all information that he or she could get their hands on. This would include reports from previous consumers regarding the outcomes of their voyages. On the basis of such, a number of research chemicals would become regularly used by the research cognescenti for a short time, before the would-be controllers of the universe cottoned on. 

Part Three  

Should we change our attention instead towards another group of chemical substances, the convid waxenes (so-called), we may come to make a curious observation. These substances have much in common with the research chemicals. In fact, we could go so far as to say that the current drive on waxenes is nothing other than an attempt to force a global mandate on the human population to take research chemicals!

Let's revisit what Erowid has to say about the research chemicals: "Although some people are willing to ingest these chemicals for their effects, it is not reasonable to assume that these chemicals are in any way 'safe'....... (they) have undergone virtually no human or animal toxicity studies....... (there) is little to no data on possible long term problems..... Consider carefully before choosing to use these substances."

These words mirror precisely the status of the convid waxenes. They've all come out in next-to no time; the ones normally being pushed in western nations are in the experimental trialling phase until 2023; long-term problems - who knows? There are plenty of adverse reactions, and a goodly number of waxene deaths. But the prime difference between a psychedelic research chemical and a convid waxene lies in perception. And that is a perception which has sadly been manufactured by authorities of various kinds, not by the independant thinking of the individual concerned. People have been told that research chemicals are risky, foolish, dangerous; while with the waxenes, you are in safe hands, and everything will be just fine. 

In truth, the research chemical consumer is likely in a better position than the typical just-been-jabbed waxener. The psychedelic enthusiast will have done some proper personal research, reading up on everything they can get hold of on the subject, before making their decision. The typical waxene devotee knows nothing, other than a few pronouncements from government stooges and behavioural psychologists on the 6 o'clock 'news'. It's purely a matter of perception, which is fatally flawed and based upon misplaced faith in people with fancy names.

Part Four

"I've had the jab, I've had the double jab, and I'm OK - look at me. So have my neighbours. What's the fuss? Stop being paranoid." The voices ring loud and clear. Well, maybe. I rather hope so. However, by definition, we don't know. Nobody knows. Not really. There are a few human beings who have a better idea than most exactly what's up, and what's intended. But even they don't really know what's going to happen in the future. To say it's all OK because you feel fine now is like somebody taking up smoking, going for a check-up after six months, when their lungs are shown to be cancer-free, and therefore declaring that smoking is safe.

There are plenty of predictions. There are some doomsday scenarios rolled out about the effects of the waxenes. I tend to follow the example of somebody I read recently, who said that there have been so many different predictions made over the past year, he is inclined to take them all with a pinch of salt. I know many people who have opted for the waxenes, and there's not much point in me jumping up and down in front of them about the recklessness of it all. I simply wish them the best of luck, and let's get on with life.

The one thing that becomes clearer by the day is this: the 'waxenes' have little or nothing to do with preventing uniquely dangerous illnesses brought on by contagious pathogens. Even the producers make it clear that their injections will not prevent convid. A number of people I know have said "Ah yes, but the injections will prevent me from dying from the uniquely dangerous pathogen." Wrong again. Data, when it can be found, demonstrates that, even according to official statistics, the waxinated are, if anything, more likely to be hospitalised and to die than those who have declined the generous offer of participation in a medical experiment. The Daily Expose is very good on this kind of topic.

As for me, I'd go for the Erowid-style research chemical any day. Most of them at least have a section on 'mystical' and 'glowing' experiences, which you won't find with Pfizer or Astrazeneca. I did actually sample two of these research chemicals listed on Erowid a number of years ago, and the results were beneficial, modestly so. However, since the kundalini energy was activated in my body four years ago, psychoactives are the last thing I'd want to put into it. Apart, that is, from the research chemicals that come in the deceptive guise of waxenes. They are the last thing.  

Thanks but no thanks......

Links:  https://erowid.org/psychoactives/research_chems/research_chems.shtml

https://dailyexpose.co.uk