That is exactly the problem I am referring to for which I was indirectly ridiculed by 2 moderators (no hard feelings there).
Mods correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this sort of discussion would actually be very appropriate in a thread like this. Maybe the title should even be modified.
I am also a little confused why a person who posts that he is intentionally withholding harm reduction information and is publicly stating that he is participating in the manufacture of novel compounds meant for human consumption, isn't just removed from this site or at least receives a warning. I don't even want to know what he uses the private message function for.
I might be overreacting, just tell me so if that's the case.
I think you misunderstood. No one is ridiculing you at all. Your points and concerns are perfectly valid based on the information you have received from this guy. Everyone is saying the person that you are referring to is chock full of bovine faecal matter.
I'm pretty sure I know the compounds to which he is referring, and IF they are the same ones, they were most assuredly not created by him. They have been available from wholesale vendors (the kind that don't have websites and don't sell mg quantities) overseas since before he claims to have synthesized them. His description is a perfect match for the ones I'm thinking of, although the trivial name they are being marketed under is eluding me at present, I will have to check when I get home. It sounds to me like he has slapped a BS name onto an uncommon and relatively undiscussed compound and decided to take credit for it.
Also, don't mistake the point I was trying to make in my previous post. I know how easy it is for someone with a shitload of money, a bunch of skeletal formulae of existing compounds, and a copy of ChemDraw to make random changes to various compounds, have them synthed, and possibly hit on something good. I'm not saying that part of his story is necessarily suspect, although I would question where the money for tonnes of random-ass custom syntheses came from, but the idea that obfuscation of the IUPAC names or skeletal formulae of compounds will make one iota of difference to LEOs or government agencies is flawed on its face.
The first thing that is done when such an organization decides to take notice of a novel substance is to have a high purity reference sample of that compound synthesized (you know, the kind you see on the sites of Sigma or Caymen being sold for 300 bucks a milligram) and it's spectra elucidated, so that samples discovered in the field can be run through analytical equipment and compared to those reference spectra in order to make a positive ID. If they find that the spectra of a compound being sold as X doesn't match the spectra of the known reference sample of X, they will attempt to elucidate what is really being sold. First they will run a library search against all the spectra they have, looking for a match, and if that fails they will take the steps to figure out exactly what this mystery powder is. These organizations aren't stupid, they're not going to take one's word for it that one is selling what one says one is selling. They're going to make sure for themselves. THAT is what makes this whole statement patently moronic.
Again, no one is criticizing you, we're just shaking our heads at the foolishness of this whole statement. The things people think they can get away with claiming...