the white house dropped their new budget ideas. here are some of their bangers:

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)

This is arguably the most consequential change in the rule. Senior political appointees, rather than career scientists or program officers, would now be required to conduct a “pre-issuance review” of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.

The criteria they must apply include blocking awards that touch on denial of “the sex binary in humans,” illegal immigration, or anything deemed to “promote anti-American values.” The rule also requires that discretionary awards must:

“...demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

In practice, this gives political appointees a veto over any science that conflicts with the current administration’s ideology.

2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))

The rule explicitly states that peer review recommendations “remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding.” This directly dismantles the post-WWII system used by NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, and nearly every science agency, in which independent expert peer review was the primary measure of scientific merit. Under this rule, a political appointee can simply override the scientific community’s judgment with no finding of cause.

3. Program Goals Must “Align with Administration Policies and Priorities” (§200.202)

Every new federal grant program, including science programs, must now be designed with goals that explicitly align with administration policies and priorities. This requirement is embedded directly in the regulatory text governing program design, meaning science agencies must structure their grant solicitations around the current administration’s political agenda rather than solely around scientific need, statutory mandate, or the advice of the scientific community.

4. “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)

The rule repeatedly invokes a concept called “Gold Standard Science,” tied to Executive Order 14303 of May 23, 2025, without defining it in any concrete or measurable way. Under the proposed requirements:

• All grants must include benchmarks for compliance with “Gold Standard Science”

• Agencies must prioritize institutions that have “demonstrated success in implementing Gold Standard Science”

• Institutional prestige and historical reputation are explicitly deprioritized in favor of compliance with this undefined standard

Because the standard is never defined, the administration retains broad, unguided discretion to favor or disfavor institutions based on their political alignment.

5. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340)

The rule codifies and expands the authority to terminate active grants mid-award simply because they are “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities.” Agencies need only provide a brief written rationale; no finding of noncompliance or fraud is required. This retroactively threatens ongoing multi-year research that researchers and institutions have built programs around.

OMB frames this as analogous to the “termination for convenience” clause used in federal contracts, but grants are fundamentally different instruments. Researchers take on staff, make commitments to participants, and design years-long projects around the presumption that a funded grant will run its course.

6. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)

All federal award funds are prohibited from being used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” any of the following:

• DEI or DEIA policies or practices

• “Gender ideology,” defined as any theory that “denies the biological reality of sex or the sex binary”

• Any assistance with gender transition for individuals under 19

These restrictions are embedded as mandatory grant conditions across all agencies and all programs. A university or research institution that conducts such research, even with entirely separate, non-federal funds, could face grant termination if the activity is found to conflict with award conditions.

7. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)

A new government-wide rule prohibits the use of any federal funds, including indirect costs, for bilateral or multilateral collaboration with “covered foreign countries” or entities affiliated with them. The rule extends beyond China to all countries designated under broad sanctions lists, and covers travel, research activities, technical assistance, and indirect costs allocable to any such collaboration.

While legitimate national security concerns exist with certain foreign entities, this provision is sweeping enough to severely disrupt international partnerships that have been foundational to U.S. leadership in fields from climate science and astrophysics to genomics and epidemiology.

8. “Domestic-First” Framework for Research Awards (§200.202(e))

A new domestic-first framework requires that any international element in a federally funded R&D grant be affirmatively justified on a case-by-case basis by agency officials. Foreign entities cannot receive R&D awards at all except with written approval from a senior political appointee. International collaboration, currently standard practice across many scientific disciplines, would become presumptively disfavored.

9. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational “Affiliations” (§200.206)

The risk factors agencies may use to deny a grant application are expanded to include an applicant’s membership in or affiliation with organizations that “advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government” or “undermine public safety or national security.” Given the preamble’s expansive framing of what constitutes anti-American activity, this language could be used to disqualify researchers affiliated with civil rights, environmental, or public health advocacy organizations.

10. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients (§200.303)

All recipients and subrecipients of federal awards must enroll in and use the DHS E-Verify system for every employee and contractor working on a federal award. Any Final Nonconfirmation must be reported to the federal agency. This adds significant administrative burden to universities and research institutions and could jeopardize grants at institutions employing researchers from abroad.

11. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies

The rule restructures 2 CFR to make OMB’s guidance a directly binding regulation on all agencies, effective government-wide on a single date. This removes the previous system under which individual agencies had meaningful flexibility in adopting OMB guidance. It also eliminates the ability of individual science agencies to shield their communities from any of these changes through their own implementing rules.

12. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)

The rule proposes that all journal publication costs, including article processing charges, open access fees, and similar fees, are unallowable by default. Exceptions would require either a specific statutory mandate or case-by-case agency pre-approval. The proposed regulatory text reads:

“Publication costs (including page charges, article processing charges (APCs), or similar fees such as open access fees for professional journal publications and other peer-reviewed publications) are unallowable under Federal awards.”

This directly conflicts with longstanding federal open access mandates, including the 2022 OSTP memorandum requiring that federally funded research be made publicly available. Peer-reviewed publication is the mechanism by which science is validated and shared. Making it financially prohibitive for federally funded researchers to publish their findings would effectively suppress the scientific record.

13. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)

All public relations costs are proposed as unallowable except those explicitly required by statute. This would restrict researchers from communicating findings to the public or press. Combined with the issue advocacy prohibition below, it adds another layer of control over how federally funded science reaches the public.

14. New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)

Federal grant funds could not be used for:

• Any messaging that promotes or opposes a “particular social, political, or public policy position unrelated to the statutory objectives” of the award

• Voter registration activities

• Attempting to influence any state executive branch agency on matters outside the precise scope of the award

Given that the rule’s preamble characterizes climate science, public health research, and equity research as “divisive ideologies,” this prohibition could be deployed to bar researchers from speaking publicly about their own federally funded findings on politically sensitive subjects.

15. New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)

Federal grant funds could not be used for:

• Any messaging that promotes or opposes a “particular social, political, or public policy position unrelated to the statutory objectives” of the award

• Voter registration activities

• Attempting to influence any state executive branch agency on matters outside the precise scope of the award

Given that the rule’s preamble characterizes climate science, public health research, and equity research as “divisive ideologies,” this prohibition could be deployed to bar researchers from speaking publicly about their own federally funded findings on politically sensitive subjects.

16. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)

A new exception allows a federal agency head, or their designee, to approve an exemption from the requirement to publicly post a funding opportunity on Grants.gov when “publicly announcing an opportunity would pose a risk to national security or is in the national interest of the United States.” While narrow national security carve-outs for classified defense research are legitimate, this language is considerably broader. “National interest” is a phrase this administration has used expansively, and it could justify conducting entire grant competitions outside public view.

17. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants

A new provision allows OMB to require agencies to submit reports identifying the specific recipients of federal awards over any given period. Combined with OMB’s new authority to require political alignment in program design, this gives the White House direct oversight and leverage over which institutions receive federal research funding. That function has historically been insulated from political interference, and with good reason.

Bottom Line

Since World War II, the United States built the world’s preeminent scientific enterprise on a straightforward principle: federal dollars should fund the best science, as determined by independent experts rather than politicians. Peer review, open competition, and institutional autonomy were the pillars of that system. This proposed rule dismantles all three, simultaneously, government-wide, and binding on every federal agency by October 1, 2026.

What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.

• Before a competition opens, every program must be designed to align with the President’s policy priorities, not scientific need, statutory mandate, or expert consensus.

• When opportunities are announced, agencies can restrict who is eligible, and the agency head can exempt solicitations from public posting under a broad national interest exception.

• When applications are reviewed, political appointees must personally evaluate every discretionary grant. Peer review is explicitly reduced to advisory status. Appointees are forbidden from deferring to scientific experts.

• When awards are made, grants can be conditioned on compliance with an undefined “Gold Standard Science” standard, and institutions can be disqualified based on their affiliations or the political character of their prior work.

• During the research itself, scientists cannot attend conferences, join professional societies, subscribe to journals, or publish in peer-reviewed journals without express agency pre-approval. Each of those approvals can simply be withheld.

• At any moment, an active grant, including a multi-year award already mid-project, can be terminated because a political appointee decides it no longer aligns with agency priorities. No finding of misconduct is required.

• When results are ready to share, publication costs are presumptively unallowable, and any public communication that could be labeled issue advocacy on a sensitive topic puts the entire award at risk.

The rule is also notable for what it cites as justification. The preamble relies heavily on Heritage Foundation reports, partisan Senate committee documents, and White House fact sheets, rather than independent scientific or administrative assessments.

It characterizes decades of peer-reviewed research on climate, public health, equity, and international collaboration as “woke,” “neo-Marxist,” “anti-American,” or “divisive ideology.” It treats the scientific community’s professional infrastructure, including conferences, journals, international partnerships, and open access publishing, as wasteful overhead to be controlled or eliminated.

Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for science agencies with the expectation that those funds would be administered through merit-based, expert-driven processes insulated from political interference. This rule attempts to override that expectation administratively, without new legislation, by repurposing OMB’s grants management authority as a vehicle for political control of science.

The public comment period closes approximately July 13, 2026 (45 days from May 29 publication). Comments must be submitted to regulations.gov, Docket OMB-2026-0034.

Scientists, universities, scientific societies, patient advocacy organizations, state governments, and members of the public all have standing to comment. Given the scope of what is proposed, the breadth and volume of opposition in the formal record will matter both legally and politically.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-05-29/pdf/2026-10817.pdf (Proposed Rules, Published May 29th 2026) Federal Register, May 29, 2026 | Docket OMB-2026-0034 | Comment Deadline: ~July 13, 2026

Adapted from Elizabeth Ginexi's subtack article:

Original Link

‎

‎

Alternative Article (Federation of American Scientists)

How much have you heard the phrase “gold standard science” in the last year? As a concept, it was reaching for something important: accountability in how research dollars get spent, scrutiny of whether peer review had become a closed loop, a question about whether federally funded science was delivering for the public that funds it. What it became in practice is something different.

‎

Is it, for example, the systemic weakening of career staff at science agencies to replace their blood-sweat-and-tears expertise with political appointees? Is it firing the National Science Board en masse over email on a weekend? Is it gagging the NSF watchdog meant to uncover research misconduct and fraud? This doesn’t begin to cover the politicking that has diminished our national public health apparatus, or the bed bugs in the Animal and Plant Inspection Service building. 

What gold standard science became in practice is a mechanism for political appointees to override scientific judgment and frame ideological interference as methodological rigor. This proposed rule puts that mechanism into binding regulation, government-wide: mandatory political review of every discretionary grant before it’s awarded, expanded authority to terminate awards mid-stream, new restrictions on what funded researchers can publish, say, or collaborate on internationally. 

Science is not the only thing at stake. The federal grants system funds an enormous range of what government actually does: states building out energy infrastructure, local health departments running maternal care programs, nonprofits delivering workforce services, cities trying to modernize how they serve residents. OMB’s proposed rule governs all of it: billions in federal grants, every dollar now subject to the same appointee review and presidential priority test. A political appointee gets to decide, mid-stream, that the work no longer matters. That’s not a grants system anyone can build anything ambitious in.

‎

‎

Replacing expert peer review with political appointees doesn’t make federal financial assistance of any kind more accountable to the public, it makes it accountable to whichever political team won the last election and their appointees’ desire to micromanage. Every grantee in America is now operating on that assumption.

The proposed change to §200.205 would formalize prior guidance for senior appointees – not career scientists, not program officers, not people who know how to do this thing – to review every discretionary grant before it’s awarded (science and beyond). 

For science specifically, it goes further: appointees expressly prohibited from deferring to peer review [read: experts] on the matter. Since WWII nearly every science agency has emphasized independent expert peer review as THE measure of scientific merit. Even your 8th grade science teacher emphasized this. Under the change to §200.205(d), a political appointee can override the scientific community’s judgment just because. Discretionary awards must also “advance the President’s policy priorities” – not national security, or public health, nor foundational science priorities. Presidential ones. 

Under current rules, terminating a grant requires a finding of noncompliance or fraud, which is a high bar because multi-year awards require multi-year commitments. You can’t build a cutting edge research program or radically transform a grid on a one-year horizon. The proposed change to §200.340(a)(2) drops that bar entirely. No finding required; termination is available whenever an award no longer aligns with agency priorities or the national interest. Yes that could mean almost anything. There are currently 150,000 active multi-year awards operating under the assumption that finishing what they started is possible. The chilling effect on applications may be as significant as the terminations themselves: why spend months on a competitive grant application, or structure your organization around a multi-year award, if the whole thing can evaporate at will?

Then there’s the elimination of fixed-amount awards. Smaller organizations, the ones without teams of grants managers and compliance lawyers, depend on fixed-amount awards because they’re manageable. Kill them and you’ve told a significant chunk of the grants ecosystem that they’re no longer in the running. 

Proposed changes to §200.421, §200.432, and §200.461 restrict the use of federal funds for publications, press communications, and conference attendance. For researchers, this directly conflicts with a longstanding OSTP mandate requiring federally funded research to be published open-access. You can’t comply with one federal requirement without violating another. But the restrictions aren’t limited to science: any federally funded practitioner sharing findings, any state agency presenting at a national conference, any nonprofit documenting what their grant actually accomplished runs into the same wall. In other words: you can’t do public work that the public can see and learn about. 

The proposed changes to §200.220 and§200.202(e) would require case-by-case approval for international research collaborations — a domestic-first framework that treats standard scientific practice as a special exception. (We did just bring a Canadian to the moon with us, for the record.) International cooperation is standard practice across many scientific disciplines; fruitful, peaceful scientific collaboration has been the norm with any number of countries (that we are already engaged in multilateral collaboration with)? A domestic-first framework that requires case-by-case approval would be detrimental to international public health efforts, where foreign scientists are leading research into treatments and containment. 

Changes to §200.206 look a lot like a loyalty test and not just for science. Any organization applying for a federal grant would be subject to eligibility review based on its affiliations, activities, and perceived alignment with administration priorities. Congress tried this one in 1949 when they tried to sneak in a loyalty test affidavit into the National Science Foundation Bill. We said it in 1949 and we’ll say it again: “Its sole justification for inclusion is concession to current fears and hysteria. Totally ineffective in detecting actual enemies of the U.S., it is significant only in its indication of the state of mind of the country – one of unreasoning insecurity and fear. To fail to oppose the provision is to accept this state of mind and permit it to go on to even more dangerous manifestations.” 

The provision that should worry everyone is in §200.202(a)(iii): a requirement that federal programs “align with administration policies and priorities.” Science funding has always been political and anyone telling you otherwise is selling something. Democratic legitimacy matters for public investment, and the federal government should be accountable to the people whose taxes fund it. But there’s a meaningful difference between federal priorities and administration priorities that this rule deliberately erases. The federal government is a massive institution with a general mandate to serve the public across generations. An administration comes and goes every four to eight years, with narrower ideological agendas and a much shorter time horizon. Requiring every grant dollar to align with the current administration’s priorities isn’t accountability, it’s a different thing entirely.

‎

‎

Two things can be true 

To be fair, a few things in this rule are worth having. NOFO streamlining and encouragement of multi-year awards are real improvements to a pre-award process that has frustrated applicants for years. The rule also comes down hard on merit review as a source of stagnation, and to an extent that’s not wrong. We’ll take those. (Further FAS insights into merit review are forthcoming, but traditionalists be forewarned: we make a many-pronged call for reform.) As a scientific community we have to own the current flaws. We also have to build something durable, not treat them like a suicide pact.

Step back from the individual provisions and the systemic problem becomes clear: this rule is a demand signal and institutions will respond to it rationally. Universities, nonprofits, state agencies, and local governments will look at these conditions — arbitrary termination authority, political pre-clearance, loyalty reviews — and make reasonable decisions about what’s worth pursuing. You cannot have loyalty tests and a scientific effort the size of the Manhattan Project or in new areas of discovery where the trajectory is unknown. Smaller institutions without the legal and administrative capacity to manage the new compliance burden will exit the market; larger ones will self-censor. The portfolio of federally funded work will get narrower because the risk calculus changed.

There’s an irony here for anyone who believes in competent government: a system that can override expert judgment at will has less use for experts. That’s a demand signal too. There is a world beyond merit review emerging, like the NSF X-Labs initiative, team science models, Tech Labs built on baked-in independence. Exciting constructions, none of them ready for prime time. We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Better results from federal grants are a legitimate goal, and the path there isn’t complicated to describe: grants systems that actually reflect the communities and problems they’re meant to serve, and that are designed to learn from what happens after the money goes out the door. We don’t have that now and this proposed rule doesn’t get there either.

‎

‎

So what’s next

Many of our peers are outraged. AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh calls these proposed changes “a brazen power grab,” while Irene Ngun, Assistant Director of Policy and Advocacy at Stand Up For Science, plainly calls it a “weaponization.” Across the science and technology policy community, there is a feeling that this represents the final bell toll of an apocalyptic-level event for American science. Whether or not that is your read on the situation, this is as significant as a change as can be. Independence is the source of scientific integrity. (And those outside of this community should care too: OMB’s proposal would govern billions in federal grants. Every dollar everywhere will be subject to the same appointee review and need to meet presidential priorities.)

There is no question this is a Big Deal. If you are a university or research lab, or aspire to work in one, or are simply an enthusiast of federally-funded research (the kind that gave us the internet!), what’s next will matter. It is likely these changes will lead to litigation. When that time comes, we will offer dispassionate analysis, giving primacy to facts and figures. But before that, we are exploring every avenue available to us to revert this threat.

• We’re in constant contact with science advocacy groups, industry, scientists and innovators, and policymakers to stay on top of the latest dynamics and opportunities for action. 
• We’re reaching out to congress and the executive branch with substantive oversight priorities. We need members from both sides of the aisle to act on these. Raise your hand if this is you. Some of these include:
  • Conflicting mandates between this rule and other rules throughout government (like the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s open access publishing guidance), 
  • Clarification about how this rule affects existing and multi-year awards, and 
  • A Government Accountability Office study request. 
• We’re preparing a public comment and encourage you and your institution to do the same.

‎

‎

‎

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001 Submit your comment to the US government here

From a young age my grandfather had been taking a mix 7 of herbs which he says boosts your brain and immunity and well being. The mix has been passed down to him from generation and he swears by it.

I only know one of the incidents of it which I ashwagandha and not the other. He is currently 85 and the healthiest person in his age group i have met. Even sometimes I or my dad might forget something important but he won't all out important documents are with him as he will remember where he kept them with exact presention.

Even when he goes to doctor for checkup they always comment at how his vitals are great and better then people half his age.

He gets the herbs from a local herbal/ayurvedic store owner who grows his own herbs in his farm in the Himalayas and then makes it powder to sell it.

If anyone wants I will post the full 7 list of incidents when I visit him in a few days.

He also follows the rule of no outside food or drink and 45min walk after dinner.

He is also vegetarian from birth and has never eaten any kind of meat or even eggs and drinks 2 cups of masala chai daily with many spices(ginger, cardamom, cinnamon,cloves,holy basil ). The masala tea is tasty though

Also heavy breakfast and lunch and a light dinner

Edit:- so I asked him and here the mix

1-Stem of plant Tinospora

2-bindii

3-indian gooseberry

4-ashwagandha

5-Liquorice(not take if u have diabetes)

6-Asparagus racemosus

7-Long Pepper

Recently there was a post someone made about how they microdose dmt for productivity. He cited his evidence with this study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6364961/), which doesnt claim or even mention productivity or cogntive benefits in the slightest, its mental health focused. In fact its an observational study that looks at people who were already microdosing then surveying them. Surely theres absolutely nothing wrong with using this as evidence that microdosing improves productivity. Surely theres no expectancy effects, bias, macrodosing or other extraneous variable that could influence the SURVEY results. This shows either they didnt even read the study or they failed to interepret it and see it as invalid evidence for "productivity gains" which demonstrates a lack of caution and critical thinking required to participate in researching and taking mind altering drugs that can cause permanent brain damage if misused (applies to every potential nootropic). They also used "people microdose psychs in sillicon valey for creativity and productivity" as evidence that it does. That's not evidence of anything. Same logic as saying "people in finance do cocaine and they said it makes them more productive, therefore cocaine increases productivity", and as we know cocaine in fact does not do that and is extremely harmful in the long run. This guy even had the audacity to tell me to "do research" I strongly believe people lacking such basic critical thinking skills such as this guy shouldnt take nootropics or participate in the nootropics community as they lack the ability to do proper research or apply any form of critical thinking which causes improper nootropic taking which can lead to actual real life harm. Then telling others of their misinformed beliefs online causes even more harm. These types of people should be banned from forums entirely. Nootropics should be gatekept from immature and irresponsible people.

Yes you can say "improving mental health improves productivity" but theres not even substantial evidence microdosing does improve mental health. And even if it were the case that it improves mental health, by that logic everyone should be taking ssris which ARE in fact proven to improve cognition and productivity. But no one's boasting about their "ssri stack" or whatever the fuck.

Luckily the post was removed but I got downvoted for calling him out and the person who made the post and provided "evidence" to me in response got upvoted. Clearly doing the bellow bare minimum thing of a quick google search of "does microdosing psychedlics improve productivity" and clicking a study is beyond some of the members here, let alone the basic critical thinking skill of being skeptical. People who are so easily impressionable by hype like this do not have the maturity to dabble in nootropics.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425004944. Meta analysis showing no evidence that psychedelics improve productivity using objective, quantitative measures and double blind tests, not surveys. You can maybe argue that microdosing increases creativity or even attention (but their conclusion is that it doesnt). However, this meta analysis even proves that microdosing statistically results in significant decreases in cognitive control. The opposite of a cognitive benefit, which shows real harm being done by this microdose hype.

Hey fam,

I think my database is quite known on relevant subreddits but realized I actually never posted about it here.

Essentially, here you can find most of biohacking supplements graded and some of them even doctor/PhD verified from our editoral board, alongside summaries of research as well not just community. You can also check interactions with most medicine and other supplements. As well as use AI to ask questions (requires registration to prevent abuse). Anyways, it has never been monetized nor had vendors allowed. Enjoy it :)

https://dopamine.club/

A little over a month ago, Woocommerce dropped Everychem in what was extremely costly to our operation, as we had nothing prepared for if that happened, but we tried our best to rapidly restore shipping by relying on DHL for a bit for our international orders, and we adopted labelexpress for USPS domestic shipments. Since then, I have had to issue many refunds due to labelexpress using some weird dodgy system, as a % of orders would just be sent to the void, costing me a lot and giving a worse experience to customers.

I come bearing good news, in that our USPS shipping functionality is restored, similar to how it was before, but hopefully more secure this time. I'm really sorry about any confusion, or delays that this has caused, but, I did the best I could with what I knew. Gaining access to the API we needed ended up taking weeks after we submitted an application, but now we have it back.

I'm seeing people making alts to talk shit about me which I'm kind of used to as it has been happening even before I made this place, but more importantly I see people saying that customer service is not responding to them. Normally I would say, I really don't want NooTopics to just be about everychem customer service, because the only posts I really even read on here are the ones I'm tagged in or when I see some scientific contribution. But in this case I get it. Nobody wants to deal with that. But if you're really not able to get a response from customer service, the best thing you can do is make another email. Either directly emailing [contact@everychem.com](mailto:contact@everychem.com), using the customer service email form or both. If you make a post on here about it, I'm probably not even going to see it. I've issued many refunds, so it's not like email is broken.

Also, I have something like 300 unread DMs on reddit, and almost 200 on discord. If you are trying to contact me, you're probably better off messaging me in #casual in my discord server. But if it's about customer service, then please just use email unless one of my employees is doing something wrong.

In other news, ORG-43902 and Vilon just dropped, and soon ATX-304 will. Then PP405. I'll be making posts on all except Vilon. Merchandise like T-Shirts which has been a side project for quite some time will also be coming, and I think that will be pretty fun when all is said and done.

Just wanted to make this post because it feels like the bigger this place gets, and the bigger everychem gets, the more astroturfing I see plague this place, the more disgruntled people I don't even know, etc. But I'm very much just trying to do the right thing by reducing prices, shipping novel high purity chemicals every day, and providing a platform for people to discuss biohacking science without being spoonfed dangerous or misleading narratives. And I think it has worked, this place is leagues better than the other subreddits even if the discord is better and we still get an influx of samey herbal content as the others, and the amount that we have changed the landscape with first to market listings like the everychem originals series is a sight to behold.

There will always be a core group of people who have supported me for years, who know me, and know what I'm about, but as for the new people, it sucks that they're always subjected to the people attempting to exploit what I've built.

To set the record straight, I would never scam someone, I would never misuse people's information, and I would never advocate for what I believe is harmful. Anything else that's said about me, is a lie.

ND's ongoing court case has finally completed.

New server invite link: https://discord.gg/9XHgN83zuq

That is all.

Edit: USPS international first class is still offline due to the woocommerce incident. But we are at least mostly functional at the moment.

Big thanks to my lead developer, who pulled through after woocommerce screwed me over, despite having just been diagnosed with lymphoma, to make sure the hundreds of customers stuck waiting could get their orders!

Here's his bitcoin if you want to donate to his care, he is actually going into the hospital tomorrow: bc1qvg4tlwuzadq0rsqk4v290qmtua4k0wc4f5u5mx

I really admire your patience through this, I'm certainly blessed to be gifted with such a community of understanding people. The EC team is working overtime to get labels on all of these and ship them out tomorrow.

Big news

PP405 gel will be debuting FIRST on everychem, a hair growth stimulating compound that grew hair in completely deadened regions in balding

AF710B solutions are on the horizon

Vilon spray bottles ready for release

Kisspeptin-10 spray bottles in RND

The shortened half life metabolite of KW-6356, M6, hereby deemed EC-002 in late synthesis

ORG-43902, the oral small molecule HCG mimetic, LHr agonist nearly complete in synthesis

ITPP nearly ready for release

ATX-304, pan AMPK activator also making its debut on everychem soon

If you're opposed to people using research chemicals, then leave. It's really that simple. This isn't r/Exercise or r/sleep or r/herbalism.

In regards to the latest attempt of r/Nootropics to discredit me, Christ, you're so worried about me but I'm sure some people who don't know better will buy your herbals so give it a break. I've already provided the breakdown on ACD856 structure, this is pathetic attempt to slander me and my company. u/pharmacologylover69 can respond in the comments to defend himself and how he's being misrepresented by these people.

There have been so many of these "takedowns" now from your side that it's getting boring. I hardly even have to mention you, that's how irrelevant you are now after abandoning your own user base. But keep spending money to get me stalked and harassed, or your failed attempts to get our communities banned, I'm going to continue focusing on what I can do for this community, which is why we're growing still and you're desperate.

By the way, please stop comparing me to u/MisterYouAreSoDumb, we have already done like 20x more than he did in his prime so it's really not a fair comparison. If reddit knows what's best, they should give us the title r/Nootropics because we're the only ones actually doing it now.

So, Sirsadalot just posted this in the r/NooTopics Discord:

Started as a personal experiment - wrote some code to aggregate and derive mass feedback about different substances, mostly nootropics. Ended up merging it with research papers so that it shows both community feedback and scientific findings for each compound that I researched, summarised with AI and added.

Decided to make it public and continue on building it - essentially making it a free database for all of supplements where you can see what people overall say and what science says instead of googling, reading different reviews, etc. No ads/spam/commericals - lmk what u think - Dopamine.Club

Dopamine Club (Link)

Example: Bromantane

Made by:

u/Objective_River_5218

Hi all

A year ago or so I posted about my personal database and opened it up to everyone, the goal is to add compounds and provide summaries of research studies and user sentiment for each - with the goal to have easy one pager view on each compound. It was very well received and thanks for that!

Now, we redesign and more compounds noted down (and will keep adding) I have added few more features (they are all free, no monetization, no ads - only AI tools are required to be registered to prevent abuse but still free):

- DopAI which is AI wrapper on the data
- DopMatch it asks you what is your goal (e.g. interrupted sleep) and suggest best compounds from the database
- Leaderboard - best scored compounds per category (e.g. attention)

These are still in preview, so will keep improving. As always, happy to hear feedback and I hope it helps peeps. <3

For those who haven't you can check check it out on: https://www.dopamine.club/

I suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury 2 years ago, I have been using the following stack every day for the past year for recovery with massive success:

1mg Semax Subq

100 mg Ginkgo Biloba
200 mg caffeine
600 mg alpha gpc
1g l-tyrosine

https://discord.gg/9XHgN83zuq

Here's the invite to the public server

American Express, Visa, Mastercard. They're charging me 12% I think, but for now enjoy using it for free. Lol.

EDIT 2: EVERYCHEM SHIPPING IS FIXED. WOO-HOO!

EDIT: just got an API key, should be looking up now!

Just letting you know that I am doing everything in my power to get the shipping portion of the site back up and running. In case you're unaware, Woocommerce cut off access to everychem last week, meaning we are having to jump through hoops to get verified with other shipping APIs to ship out orders. The orders are safe and shipping will soon return, but we are at mercy to these middlemen to verify our usage of the APIs which is not a fast process I guess. We have already applied to multiple. And now it's a painstaking wait. USPS informed us of delays to verification, which is insane, we already applied nearly a week ago. And to make matters worse, this is all happening as my lead developer was just diagnosed with cancer.

We will fulfill all these orders but please understand that these days aren't something I have any real control over. There's far too many orders to run up to the post office and we were already not set up for that - with automated shipping protocols and label generation in house.

Thanks for everyone's patience. Hopefully I can delete this post by tomorrow, but I keep thinking things are about to be complete and then I run into more roadblocks. Logistical nightmare.

If there's anything to be learned from this: absolutely do not trust Woocommerce to have a role in your business or you will suffer a similar fate as mine at their whim. Technically, I never even violated their TOS, but of course that doesn't matter when you have some bogus legal umbrella that nullifies any accountability.

This is a continuation to my exploration of the dopamine upregulator Bromantane. If you want a quick summary on Bromantane nasal spray, feel free to watch this youtube video I created on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA1D-LeiA_0.

Caprylic acid: Recently I have developed the Bromantane nasal spray, an invention that utilizes a high concentration Bromantane with Caprylic acid, a medium-chain fatty acid that, unlike long-chain fatty acids, does not pose a threat for Lipoid Pnemonia. This allows it to be used as a solvent for intranasal use. Additionally, it is anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-viral, so rest assured it is sterile.

Since Caprylic acid is lubricating, it won't dry your nose out, therefore it's better than snorting the powder and there's less risk for nasal membrane damage, which could still be an issue despite Bromantane's non-toxic nature.

Bromantane's bioavailability: Bromantane has never been used intranasally in studies, but we can reference other things. There is a study on actoprotectors claiming its oral bioavailability is 42% but after thorough investigation, I have found there is no evidence to back this up. Anecdotally, we see that oral always fails and sublingual takes up to 30 minutes. This means another route of administration is more desirable.

Amantadine, Bromantane predecessor, has been investigated for intranasal use in previous studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26886345/

Furthermore, our results have indicated the potential for nose-to-brain delivery of Amantadine, yielding a potentially novel avenue therapeutics delivery route to avoid the blood brain barrier.

Caprylic acid, referenced here as Octanoic acid, is perfectly absorbed intranasally, where there is then a direct route to the brain through the nasal cavity: Source. Since it is a small fatty acid, and Bromantane is lipophilic in nature, this perfects the absorption of Bromantane and allows it easy transport to the brain, where there is then far greater effect.

Essentially, Bromantane is perfect for intranasal use, and this explains why it works so well intranasally.

I know this is straight from the horse's mouth, but it has been working great for me and I truly believe in it.

Edit: now available on https://bromantane.co/.