Methyl-DMA
chemical compound
Methyl-DMA, also known as 2,5-dimethoxy-N-methylamphetamine or as N-methyl-2,5-DMA, is a psychoactive drug of the phenethylamine, amphetamine, and DOx families. It is the N-methyl derivative of 2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (2,5-DMA; DOH).
In his book PiHKAL (Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved), Alexander Shulgin lists methyl-DMA's dose as above 250 mg orally and its duration as unknown. The drug produced slight paresthesia and no other effects at tested doses of up to 250 mg orally. Other mixed and inconsistent anecdotal reports have also been described, with effects including nothing at all, threshold effects, "complete and thorough experiences", real awareness [of effects], tingling in genitalia, strange presence in the spine, and increased body temperature and blood pressure. These effects were said to persist for many hours. No clear hallucinogenic effects were described.
Methyl-DMA shows affinity for serotonin receptors in the rat stomach fundus strip (A2 = 316 nM). Its affinity in this assay was about 2-fold lower than that of 2,5-DMA and about 4-fold lower than that of DOM.
The chemical synthesis of methyl-DMA has been described. Analogues of methyl-DMA include Beatrice (N-methyl-DOM), methyl-TMA-2 (N-methyl-TMA-2), methyl-TMA (N-methyl-TMA), and para-methoxyamphetamine (PMMA; methyl-MA), among others.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Methyl-DMA” is chemical compound. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Methyl-DMA, chemical and compound, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “chemical compound” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6823923. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Methyl-DMA”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Methyl-DMA primary sources, Methyl-DMA archive and Methyl-DMA research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Methyl-DMA”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Methyl-DMA” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.