Fentanyl in a 5-Amino-1MQ liquid, or a Precursor Setting Off the Strips?

The story began when a customer sent the product to ILS laboratory for testing. The customer hadn’t specifically requested fentanyl analysis, but ILS routinely screens incoming samples for fentanyl free of charge as part of its internal safety protocol. The first Lab said it prepared the liquid sample using nuclease-free water before applying it to a routine fentanyl test strip. Although it described this as “reconstitution,” it appears to have meant dilution. Janoshik later said his laboratory diluted its sample in phosphate buffer before testing it with two different immunoassay strips. Under the laboratory’s protocol, the technician immediately stopped working on the sample and reported the result to management. It was then reviewed for a second time and, after the result was confirmed internally, the sample was disposed of because the laboratory considered it unsafe for staff to handle. That meant no further analysis could be performed on the original sample. The Vendor Believed to Be Behind the Blend The vendor believed to have supplied the 5-Amino-1MQ is known in the community as Beebo, using the Discord account gopluckastring8802. At this stage, however, that attribution hasn’t been independently confirmed and is still rumour. The vial shown on Janoshik’s report doesn’t display a visible vendor name, and the report identifies the client only as anonymous. Beebo should therefore be described as the vendor thought to be connected to the product, rather than definitively named as its source. A Second Vial Goes to Janoshik After the first laboratory’s result, a separate vial was sent to Janoshik specifically for fentanyl analysis as the original vendor would only accept a Janoshik result. Information later shared on Reddit raised questions about whether the vial sent to Janoshik was still in the condition originally supplied by the seller. A Break in the Chain of Custody? According to the Reddit user, the anonymous submitter had transferred the liquid into another vial before sending it for testing. If correct, this introduces another possible point of contamination and means the photograph attached to the report can’t establish the condition in which the seller originally supplied the product. It doesn’t invalidate the positive screening reactions, but it complicates any attempt to attribute whatever caused them directly to the vendor. The resulting report was issued under an anonymous client name and listed the sample simply as “Sample 7.” Under “Tests requested,” it stated “Fentanyl presence analysis.” The result was recorded as: Fentanyl presence: Positive. Understandably, that caused alarm when the report appeared in the community. A positive fentanyl report attached to any product isn’t something anyone expects to see. Questions were immediately raised about the test, the customer, the sample and why anyone would specifically request fentanyl analysis. What “Positive” Actually Meant As the discussion continued, Janoshik provided more detail about how the sample had been tested. He explained that the blend had been screened using two different immunoassay test strips and that both returned positive results. The sample had been diluted in phosphate buffer before testing. Combined with the first laboratory’s result, that means the product has apparently produced at least three positive screening reactions: One routine fentanyl-strip result at the first laboratory. Two positive results from different immunoassay strips at Janoshik. That is certainly enough to justify taking the vial out of circulation and investigating it properly. However, all three remain screening results. None has yet specifically identified fentanyl using a definitive analytical method. Janoshik himself acknowledged this. When asked whether the result could be a false positive, he replied that it might be and then added that it most likely was. He explained that even two different immunoassays can return false positives. The report was issued immediately because of the potential seriousness of fentanyl contamination rather than waiting for confirmatory analysis. That was the safer decision from a warning perspective. The difficulty is that the report doesn’t describe the result as presumptive. It simply states that fentanyl presence is positive, which sounds far more conclusive than the testing currently supports. Fentanyl, a Precursor or Something Else? Another possibility was then raised, the strips may not be reacting to finished fentanyl at all. Janoshik confirmed that fentanyl precursors can also produce positive screening results. This is relevant because China is more commonly associated with the production and export of precursor chemicals used to manufacture illicit fentanyl than with supplying the finished drug itself. If the 5-amino-1MQ or its raw ingredients originated from a Chinese chemical supplier, contamination with a precursor or another related compound is therefore one possible explanation. It might also help explain why several immunoassay strips reacted even if finished fentanyl is not present. But it remains only a possibility. 5-Amino-1MQ is a single synthetic small molecule studied as an NNMT inhibitor and it’s also a quinolinium compound, not one of the piperidine-based precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production. The presence of “amino” in its name therefore doesn’t, by itself, connect it to fentanyl manufacture or explain the positive screening results. The tests could currently be reacting to: Fentanyl. A fentanyl analogue. A fentanyl precursor or related chemical. An ingredient in the amino blend that interferes with the assays. Another unidentified substance causing false-positive reactions. The strips cannot tell us which explanation is correct. The Sample Has Now Been Sent for Confirmation Janoshik has said the sample has been sent to the national drug laboratory for definitive confirmatory analysis. That testing is intended to establish whether fentanyl is genuinely present and, if it’s not, identify the substance responsible for producing the positive screening results where possible. This is the result that will matter. There was some discussion over whether the national laboratory’s findings would be shared publicly. Janoshik initially said that hadn’t been decided, citing the difficult balance between public interest and client confidentiality. He later clarified that a positive confirmation would, of course, be shared. However, a negative result should be published too. If fentanyl is confirmed, the community needs to know because the potential consequences are extremely serious. If fentanyl isn’t found, that also needs to be disclosed because Janoshik has already issued a report stating that the sample tested positive for fentanyl. Client confidentiality doesn’t require the analytical conclusion to remain secret. The customer is already anonymous and can remain so. For now, the most accurate conclusion is that a 5-Amino-1MQ has returned three presumptive positive fentanyl-screening results across two laboratories. That’s unusual, concerning and sufficient reason not to use the product, but it doesn’t yet prove that the vial contains fentanyl. The national drug laboratory will now have to answer the question the strips cannot: Is this actually fentanyl, a precursor setting off the tests, or a 5-Amino-1MQ causing one very alarming false positive after another?