These two particular stimulants caused me massive grief last year when trying to discern what 2-aminoisoheptane even was. I looked at a large amount of data, spectrum assays and other avenues for arguments of compliance. When we wrote the initial article, we were lead to believe 2-aminoisoheptane was 2-amino-6-methylheptane and latched on to that (the former nomenclature can be used for Octodrine, but also 2-amino-5-methylheptane which complicated it in the early days).
I stopped having any involvement with the article once I initially submitted it, but I followed along with its editing. In March this year they updated with a case for compliance, but in a new plant Kigelia Africana instead of Aconitum, in which it was originally claimed to be in. So even if this compound does exist in nature in quantities feasible for extraction, before March, you can be sure it was synthetic.
At the time of writing the article, I knew someone knew where in nature it could be found, but that source was not disclosed to me until the article was updated. It was kept VERY tight to the chest. And one of the primary papers they cited, couldn't be found (I found one in dogs early on but discarded it because of limited relevance to humans).
Invalid Link Removed
Here's the article, in case you haven't read it yet. When I originally wrote the compliance section, it was based on one of the forms as opposed to both. It since been amended a few times as more data has come to light. It's a good read, and far more conclusive than where I left it. After months of digging and trawling database after database, discerning what 2-aminoisoheptane was, it was practically impossible. The 'iso' doesn't specify where the methyl group is, or whether it is 2-amino-3, 2amino-4, and so on. It was a heck of a job.
On top of that, what happens with the DMAA lawsuit will have an impact on these 2 stimulants. The outcome of that case is very important for the future of these two stimulants.
Meh, read the article.
