Metocin (4-HO-MET) #

XÜM supplies Metocin (4-HO-MET) in 3mg tablets at 99% purity. They deserve credit for working to make a psychedelic experience accessible within the constraints of a challenging legal environment.

Subjective Report #

This is a single case report and should be weighted accordingly.

I tried 40mg first, which felt safe and manageable. Then I took 80mg. This is equivalent to roughly 27 XÜM tablets, well above their “deep transcendental” 6-tablet recommendation. Onset was clear; there was no doubt the substance was active.

The experience was superficially similar to daime (ayahuasca): the same subtle visual shimmer in the background, easy to tune out, and mildly pleasant body sensations. Energy was slightly elevated but not stimulating in the way caffeine is.

What was strikingly absent was psychological weight. Daime optimizes conditions for sudden insight—it creates an interior impairment that helps surface new ideas. Metocin at 80mg produced almost none of that. Cognitive function felt largely intact. The mysterious psychological depth that makes Daime valuable was missing. Disappointing. 😿

One minor annoyance: the metabolites leave a noticeable chemical taste on the breath during comedown.

Potential as an Active Placebo #

Blinding is a persistent problem in psychedelic research. Participants almost always know when they’ve received an active substance—the phenomenology is too distinctive—which undermines the double-blind and introduces expectancy bias.

One solution is an active placebo: give the control group a pharmacologically active substance so that no participant can confidently conclude they received inert placebo. Metocin is a plausible candidate. My conviction is that it differs from classical tryptamines like psilocybin in some meaningful way—what that way is remains uncharacterized.

A study could pair Metocin against psilocybin in a double-blind design, where participants know they received one of two active substances but not which. Whatever differences emerge—in therapeutic outcome, subjective depth, or insight—could then be attributed to the pharmacological distinction rather than to expectancy.