4 ms·
It looks like "glycerinergic" was a typo for "glycinergic," which has ~100k results on Google (they also mention "glycincergics" - the poor copy editing would s
by resu_nimda 13y ago
It looks like "glycerinergic" was a typo for "glycinergic," which has ~100k results on Google (they also mention "glycincergics" - the poor copy editing would support your distrust).
But yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess it's just an announcement that they have added some info about these drugs to their database. To be fair, the article itself isn't really promoting their usage, and the subheading does describe them as "A large amount of somewhat poorly researched compounds." Perhaps there is better information on the actual pages for each substance.
- samwilliams 13y agoThe spelling mistake would make sense, but I agree that it doesn't inspire confidence. The impression I got from the article was the same as yours - they are not explicitly advocating the use of these drugs, but I don't think they were doing very much to inform the reader of the potential dangers that using any very new psychoactive compounds would entail. Perhaps the real fault here is in the manner that this has been submitted to HN, rather than the article itself? Personally, I think it would be more appropriate and safer to call the submission 'Racetams and Glycinergics of the future' or something similar. As the title currently stands the impression given is that these chemicals are appropriate for use now, by everyone.