Table of Contents
Stolaroff's & Well's Study
by Murple, Feb 6, 2001
Some of the most detailed research into 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 has been carried out by Myron J. Stolaroff. In 1993, Stolaroff published a paper along with Charles W. Wells titled "Preliminary Results with New Psychoactive Agents 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7" in the Yearbook for Ethnomedicine 1993. This paper describes the results of research designed to determine if these drugs showed sufficiently interesting properties to warrant further investigation into their therapeutic potential as well as to discover what side effects they may have. MDMA, a drug with known therapeutic potential, was used as a benchmark for comparing the results.
Subjects for the experience were chosen based on two principal criteria. First, they had to have stable personalities, and second, they had to have no prior experience with any of the three drugs being used in the experiment (all but five, however, had prior experience with other psychedelic drugs). The sixty-three subjects were divided up into three uneven groups: seven were given MDMA, eight were given 2C-T-7, and the remaining fourty were given 2C-T-2.
In all cases, the drugs were administered in a friendly and supportive setting at a comfortable home with natural surroundings. All experiments were overseen by experienced guides, usually two per experiment. Most of the subjects took the drugs in groups of two, though experiments were conducted with groups as large as five and as small as a single individual.
Subjects arrived the night before the experiment, where they spent the evening discussing the drug they were going to be given and choosing a dose, as well as going over their current mental and physical states. Dosages were determined by the subject and the guides after discussing the effect ranges as well and taking into consideration other factors such as previous experience with other drugs. Those who expressed doubts were urged to start lower and take a supplemental dose later, if needed. In the morning, they were given the drug on an empty stomach, and given the entire day to devote to the experience. Supplemental doses were offered at the two hour point for those who wanted them. No formal procedure was in place for the experiments, and subjects were free to talk, walk outside, retreat to private rooms, or whatever else they wished. In the evening, after the experience was over, food was served. In conclusion, the subjects were required to fill out a simple questionnaire within a few days of the experiment.
Participants ranged between 18 and 67 years old. The range for those who took MDMA was 32 to 63, 48 being the average age. For the 2C-T-7 group the range was 30 to 57 with an average age of 42. The 2C-T-2 group ranged from 18 to 67 years old, with an average of 40.
The MDMA group all received 120 mg, and all took a 40 mg supplement at the two hour mark. The 2C-T-7 group took doses ranging from 20 to 25 mg, with an average of 23.1 mg, and six of the eight took supplemental doses. The 2C-T-2 group took from 10 to 30 mg, with 15.7 mg being average, and only eleven of the fourty took supplements. Supplements were found to be effective even as late as five hours after the initial dose, providing an almost immediate increase in activity.
2C-T-2 was found to reach full intensity in about two hours, with a five hour plateau followed by a gradual, usually pleasant descent back to baseline. These researchers found that 2C-T-2 was more emotionally opening than MDMA, and allows wider exploration of feelings. It was also found to permit more freedom of thought, more like LSD than MDMA in this regard. It was also found to enable more surfacing of repressed material than MDMA. Due to the fact that 2C-T-2 has much less of the centering qualities found with MDMA, being more like traditional psychedelics in that regard, this release of subconscious material can at times lead to some uncomfortable experiences.
2C-T-7 was found to be similar to 2C-T-2 but longer acting, more intense, and perhaps more euphoric. Stolaroff and Wells concluded that their sample size for this drug was too small and that further research was needed to define this drug's effects. The small sample size must certainly be taken into account when considering the results of the experiment.
Visually, 2C-T-7 was found slightly more active than 2C-T-2. For both drugs, 12.5% of the subjects reported open eye visual activity. However, 85% of the 2C-T-2 group reported no such activity, versus 75% of the 2C-T-7 group reporting no open eye visuals. None of the MDMA group reported such effects. 62.5% of the 2C-T-7 group reported improved visual perception, with 12.5% reporting worsened perception. With 2C-T-2, 47.5% reported improved visual perception, and 5% reported it worsened. None of the MDMA group reported worsened visual perception, and 42.9% reported it improved. Fully half of the 2C-T-7 group reported closed-eye imagery, as did 47.5% of the 2C-T-2 group. Only 14.3% of the MDMA group reported closed-eye imagery.
On the measure of clarity of thought, 2C-T-7 was found to produce the best results, with 87.5% of the subjects reporting it improved. Unfortunately, it also produced the largest percentage of subjects reporting a loss of clarity, 12.5%. 2C-T-2 produced less dramatic results, with only 75% reporting improvement and 5% reporting a decrease. MDMA also had very good results, with 84.6% reporting improvement and no reports of decreased clarity.
2C-T-7 gave the worst results for effects on flow of insights. Only 50% of subjects reported improvement, and 12.5% reported it worsened. 2C-T-2 produced much better results, with only 2.5% reporting the flow of insights worsened, and 77.5% reporting improvement. MDMA came in second, with 71.5% reporting improvement, and no reports of worsening.
2C-T-7 came in last on the ability to increase perception of high order meaning, with only 62.5% reporting an improvement. 2C-T-2 fared much better, with 82.5% reporting improvement. MDMA performed best in this regard, with 85.8% reporting improvement. None of the three drugs produced any worsening on this measure.
On the measure of feeling tone, 75% of the 2C-T-7 group reported an improvement. In the 2C-T-2 group, 80% reported an improvement, but 10% noticed a worsening in feeling tone. The entire MDMA group reported improved feeling tone.
2C-T-2 produced the worst results in the facilitation of communication. Of this group, 17.5% reported the ability to communicate with others worsened, but 62.5% reported it improved. 2C-T-7 produced better results, with 75% reporting improved communications, and no reports of worsening. MDMA produced the highest percentage reporting improvement, 85.7%, but 14.3% of this group did report a worsened ability to communicate.
An increase in energy level was reported by 37.5% of the 2C-T-7 group, and a decrease reported by 9%. 2C-T-2 did good on this measure, with 70% reporting an increased energy level, and 12.5% reporting a decrease. MDMA did very bad, with 42.9% reporting a decrease, and no increases reported.
2C-T-7 had the best results on overall functioning, with 69.2% reporting improvement and 9.2% reporting deterioration. 2C-T-2 came in second with 57.2% reporting improvement and 14.4% reporting deterioration. MDMA produced the worst results, with 56.5% reporting improved functioning and 15.9% reporting deterioration.
2C-T-7 produced the greatest percentage of experiences without physical side effects, 82.5%. 2C-T-2 had the worst results, with only 72% reporting the absence of physical side effects, however the intensity of side effects for 2C-T-2 was the lowest. Of the MDMA group, 79.3% reported no physical symptoms, although MDMA did result in the largest percentage of side effects described as distracting, 18.9% (versus 9.6% for 2C-T-7 and 8.3% for 2C-T-2).
Both 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 produced more complaints about nausea and vomiting than MDMA. 2C-T-2 was worst in this regard, with 10% of subjects reporting noticeable nausea, 17.5% reporting short lived distracting nausea and 5% reporting long lived distracting nausea. Vomiting was reported by 17.5% of this group. Of the 2C-T-7 group, 12.5% reported noticeable nausea and 25% reported long lived distracting nausea. Vomiting occurred in 25% of the group. MDMA produced the least nausea, with 28.6% of subjects reporting distracting but short lived nausea, and no instances of vomiting. Stolaroff and Wells speculate that the nausea produced by 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 may be due to the surfacing of psychological material, as they noticed that many of the subjects reporting nausea said they were aware of what was making them feel ill, and that the nausea disappeared when the issue was confronted.
2C-T-7 produced the highest incidence of muscle tension, with 37.5% of the group experiencing it to some degree. Muscle spasms and tremors were reported by 12.5% of the subjects. 2C-T-2 did a little better, with 32.5% reporting muscle tension. MDMA produced the most muscle tension, being reported by 42.9% of the subjects. It also produced the worst muscle tension, with 28.6% reporting it as long lasting and distracting.
2C-T-7 had the least effect on heart rate, though the exact results are unclear, as the paper states that 100% of the 2C-T-7 group experienced no change in heart rate, but then states that 12.5% reported noticeable change. Of the 2C-T-2 group, 67.5% reported no change in heart rate. Only 57.1% of the MDMA group reported no change on heart rate, and MDMA also produced the worst effects, with 28.6% reporting the effect on heart rate as distracting (versus 5% for 2C-T-2). Effects on blood pressure, strangely enough, run in the opposite order. Only 62.5% of the 2C-T-7 group reported no effect on blood pressure, compared to 67.5% for 2C-T-2 and 71.4% for MDMA.
Other unspecified physical side effects were reported by 20% of the 2C-T-2 group, 7.5% of the group reporting these effects as being distracting.
Asked if they would repeat the experience, 2C-T-7 got the largest number of "no" responses, 12.5%. Of those who would repeat it, 14.4% were happy with the dose they took, while 57.1% would take more. From the 2C-T-2 group, only 85% said they would repeat it, and 7.5% would not. Most, 52.9%, would take more, 8.8% would take less, and 26.5% would take the same dose. All the MDMA subjects said they would take MDMA again, 42.9% at a larger dose, 14.3% at a smaller dose, and 28.6% at the same dose.
In conclusion, the researchers determined that there were no noticeable contraindications for 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 in well motivated subjects. Writing in his book Thanatos to Eros, published a year later, Stolaroff describes 2C-T-2 as being an "excellent general purpose work horse," and a "comfortable, enjoyable vehicle" that can be used to explore a wide range of inner feelings and levels of thought. Because it has some MDMA-like euphoric centering qualities, 2C-T-2 is less likely than the classic psychedelics (such as LSD) to mire the user in disturbing aspects of the subconscious, and leaves the user with more volition. He states the effective dose range as 12 to 30 mg, extending it 5 mg beyond Shulgin's recommendation in PIHKAL. Stolaroff mentions that 2C-T-2 has occasionally been used in doses of 8 to 10 mg by therapists monitoring patients who have taken MDMA. He goes on to describe 2C-T-7 as being an "excellent substance, very clear, very permissive," although it is clear he has less experience with it than with 2C-T-2.
Based on these findings, it seems that 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7 are quite different in effects from MDMA, which would indicate different therapeutic applications. It would be interesting to do similar experiments comparing them to other drugs such as 2C-B and LSD, with which they seem to have more in common than MDMA. It would also be very productive to do a more equal comparative study between 2C-T-2 and 2C-T-7.