Talk:Poppers/Archive 3

message: I've noticed a proliferation of single-purpose accounts used solely to edit this article, or even solely to make comments on this talk page. I'll assume, for now, that these are all genuine new users, but please be sure that no one is violating the prohibitions on abuse of multiple accounts which are set forth at the page on sockpuppetry; note also that the creation of new accounts by multiple users specifically to participate in and influence a disputed issue is against policy. MastCell Talk 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-purpose accounts 

message: One of the most prolific posters in the poppers article is the person named Hank Wilson, who is well known as an aggressive anti-popper person. As an AIDS researcher myself (unwilling to post using my name) I am familiar with Wilson and his associates John Lauritsen, Peter Duesberg, Harry Haverkos and others as well as with their many theories over the years about poppers being the cause of AIDS, KS, and a myriad of other maladies.
This article must be careful if it is to achieve NPOV.  Many if not most of Wilson's references have been not only flawed but sometimes duplicates and have even presented conflicting results which he himself has then interpreted as negative toward poppers.  Some of his postings have put a negative spin on poppers no matter what the actual article he references may have said about poppers, good or bad.
A typical tactic of Wilson and his associates is changing the subject, as he did when he was not able to present a credible argument earlier in this discussion page about immune system issues; he abruptly switched the subject to the International AIDS Conference and some unsubstantiated claim about a presenter who had a "slide projection".
The article should be watched for potential sabotage. 65.199.96.2 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Questionable with Hank Wilson controlling this article 

message: Any reaction to this published article? 
I think the part about Andrew Weil's assessments of dangers of popper use are especially pertinent.Hankwilson 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented above. So did User Munatobe7. Why have you created a new heading for this? --Peter cohen 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was interested in feedback from Scientistdoc to see if where common ground might be on the KS issue. I thought the article brings the KS poppers connection controversy up to current...as opposed to relying on older references.Hankwilson 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article may be more up-to-date, but it isn't peer-reviewed ehich I think is important in such a polarised discussion as this. Also the type of reviews that are most scientifically respectable are systematic reviews where clear criteria are laid out in advance for how reviewed articles are found and for what inclusion/exclusion criteria apply. I suspect that the review from Pharmacotherapy might be systematic, but I, or someone else, would need to look at the article itself and that needs a fee paid unless we can find someone (an American pharmacist?) who has access to it. The article you have included is not systematic. --Peter cohen 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions to KS - Poppers Connection article in The Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology ? 

message: Which ic in Jungle Juice? and is the effect different depending on which nitrate uded or just the strength?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Nitrate in which Product 

message: The votes are in and the winner is: "No merge".  Is it time to get rid of the 'merge' tag, too?  Scientistdoc 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

message: The federal ban on sales of alkyl nitrites went into effect in 1991. A reference is needed for that and it could be one of the existing references...2002 CPSC memo might. Hankwilson 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a pointer to 1991 but have found a press release giving 1990. --Peter cohen 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to the sentence about the 1969 reversal of the FDA to include recreational use because it's my understanding that was the reason for the change. That they were concerned about so many people buying it OTC and using it for increased sexual pleasure. Scientistdoc 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congress banned sales of isotbutyl nitrite in 1988 and then banned sales of alkyl nitrites...the broad class of poppers..in 1990.  

message: I've reverted the edit about the UK until discussion takes place. I looked at the page linked to but cannot find anything that says sale is prohibited.  Can you lead us to the text that shows that sales are prohibited? Also, do you have any idea why sales still allowed? Perhaps it's due to various formualtions?
Also, we're trying to clean up the article and are listing support as references/footnotes, not inline links to the articles. If this info is to be included it should be woven into the text. Munatobe7 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed as category C2 in Schedule 2. That category is discussed in the section referenced. I'll look at how the text is put together, particularly referencing but I expect to be at least partially undoing your revert --Peter cohen 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peter. I didn't have time to rewrite the section to include the information at the time.  Your insertion works  well.  I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of weaving it into the main paragraph a little differently, and also noting that retail sale appears to be 'technically' prohibited, not 'effectively' prohibited given that retail sale is widespread. This may be more of a legal question of some sort.  It's interesting that the compound is classified in this manner, considering that there appears to be no evidence to support such a classification.  Munatobe7 01:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence that supports poppers classification as a carcinogen: See 
"NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Isobutyl Nitrite (CAS No, 542-56-3) in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies) in National Toxicology Program Technical Report Services
1996 July; 448:1-302.  Hankwilson 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably worth having a brief reference such as this specifically to Isobutyl nitrite in the health section now that it is mentioned in the legal one. --Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this one of the studies looked at in the old references list that used  to populate this article? It seems to mimic others in the sense that the dose is excessive. I note also that the authors report that "Exposure of rats to isobutyl nitrite by inhalation for 2 years resulted in decreased incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia in males and females" and that "The increased incidence of thyroid gland follicular cell adenoma in male mice may have been related to isobutyl nitrite exposure."  The word "may" suggest no firm conclusions. Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I also spotted a mention of an age limit on one of the UK sites, but I haven't currently got the time to follow it up.--Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Age limit for what, Peter?  As in age under which one may not buy these products, or shelf life of the products? Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minimum age for the person --Peter cohen 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: i will be submitting some information on the enforcement of the ban, the prosecution, fines, etc for violators of the ban on sales in the United States. Soliciting feedback prior to adding to article. Hankwilson 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think it's in the best interest of the article to have detailed sections on the legal status of the product in numerous locations. This type of info, if overdone, strikes me as being un-encyclopedic. --John T. Folden 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. The legality issue is already addressed in the "Availability & Legality" section.  I fear "Overdone" may turn out to  be an understatement. Munatobe7 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Summary style indicates to me that the US subsection is quite big enough already for a top-level article on poppers. After all this is an international encyclopaedia. There is a potential to spin off a separate article on the law on poppers around the world. Obviously if people from various countries start popping up and supplying info on the law where they are to the detail we have on the countries discussed so far, then we would have to do so and keep a summary that describes the types of variation that can occur. Issues concerning systemic bias would require similar treatment to be allowed to that which the current countries receive.  There is also the possibility of a separate article on the law on poppers and enforcement in the US, but that would depend on how things are seen on the grand scale of things. I can imagine some people wanting to delete such an article as not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not familiar enough wiht how it is implemented to know one way or the other. --Peter cohen 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, thanks for the note about Wikipedia:Notability.  Having just read it, it's hard to imagine poppers even being notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia, given that such a tiny portion of the population has ever heard of them, or maybe more importantly, has ever used them (Per the US Senate, "...less than 3% of the population has ever used"...poppers).  IMO a separate article on a subsection for legality seems sufficiently obscure as to undoubtedly fail the Wikipedia Notability test and deletion could be expected. Munatobe7 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is the way that notability applies. Less than 3% of the population of the world have visited Rwanda, watched the ballet, know any speakers of any numner of languages, etc. Poppers are notable but more specialist articles may not be. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way.Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe someone else had volunteered for this. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize we're all volunteers and I didn't mean to imply anyone was dropping the ball or anything. I'd just like to see that section either cleaned up or deleted (I don't think it makes sense to try to weave that stuff into the main article; just mho). If left to me, I'd delete it, but I'm not sure it's my place to do that. I'm still of the opinion that the article is getting good enough to nominate for a Good Article citation.  Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should include a section on the enforcement/non enforcement of the federal ban on sales of poppers. 

message: I backed out an unreferenced insertion of new information.
A quick google suggests that HHV8 infection is a necessary condition for KS. But that is too weak a claim to definitively take poppers out of the picture. My understanding is that HHV8 is an opportunistic infection that takes advantage of weaknesses causes by other factors, notably HIV infection. The dispute is whether poppers are one of the factors that give HHV8 an edge. --Peter cohen 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KS and HHV8 

message: In the first section of the article it is stated:
 Some men report that a reduction in erection stiffness can interfere with sexual performance.[1]
The author cites source number one, yet an inspection of the source says nothing to that respect. I'm not even sure that the effect of a nitric oxide donor would have that effect. I believe that that sentence should be removed. What does everyone else think?
Ajmbc 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issue in 'Effects' section 

message: HIV acquisition is a significant health concern. Merck fails to incorporate the published research about HIV acquisiton in gay men. The placement change gives better balance to the article.Hankwilson (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merck analysis of poppers ignores published research finding poppers use increases HIV acquisition.  

message: I question the inclusion of the 1983 CPSC report. It is 25 years old, obsolete in the context of the subsequent published research about poppers. The article could have a historical developments section or a "Poppers Industry Position" section, and perhaps a "Public Health Position" section.
www.HIVinsite.com    go to Knowledge base article about malignancies, then to the resource section box to find the bibliography of published and unpublished research(abstracts,presentations,unaccepted submission -Watson 1982).
www.poppers.cfsites.org also references of published research about poppers, public health and community responses to poppers use by gays and men who sex with men. 
www.virusmythpoppersmyth.com has a critique of the published research. Alert that the website is a poppers industry promotion site.
The 1983 CPSC report has historical value but is unresponsive to the subsequent research published about poppers.
The Merck Manual may have general credibility, but its information about poppers is incomplete failing to reference the hazards demonstrated in the accumulating published research.(immunosuppressive, HIV transmission risk factor, HHV8 and KS risk factor). 
Hankwilson (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merck is just the sort of secondary source that Wikipedia policy favours. A systematic review would be more academically respectable, but I don't think I've seen one.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIVInsite of UCSF Center of AIDS Prevention has posted a bibliography of research about poppers done subsequent to the obsolete 1983 CPSC report. 

message: I plan on removing the following sentence in the current article: "Manufacturers reformulated their products to abide by the law, and today nitrite based products are sold as video head cleaner, polish remover or room odorants.[1]"  The citation for this characture of the poppers industry's response is dated prior to the ban, and does not accurately reflect popper industry behavior post ban. 
The law enforcement section needs to include that the 1990 law has been enforced on individual sellers and that the industry has been fined for violations of CPSC regulations. A section on The CPSC record to date needs to be included. There are also local and state regulations of poppers which need to be included to accurately reflect what is happening in the United States today.  
Hankwilson (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the frustration expressed here - my heart sank when I saw Hank's name as the latest contributor -  but he does have a point when he says that the reference pre-dates the ban. I'm going to replace the reference with a fact tag. If no one can preoduce evidence of it as a continuing practice, then the sentence should be removed. However, I am reluctant to expand the material. The US already has the most in depth coverage. Oen fo the references is actually to a notice of CPSC action.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response of the poppers industry to 1990 US law banning sales and distribution:continuing violations with some enforcement by CPSC 

message: Peter: I spent a bit of time expanding the 'History' section per the tag you'd placed there earlier.  I hope it was ok to include the photo of Sir Lauder Brunton. He perhaps could rightfully be called the 'grandfather' of poppers -- or at least amyl nitrite.
Munatobe7 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tag for history section expansion and expanded section 

message: In the movie, The Professional, does anyone know if the pills Stansfield (Gary Oldman) pops during the film are poppers? Judging by the way he cracks them in his teeth, then gets some sort of immediate reaction from them, I suspect that they may in fact be poppers.
I've searched all over for some information to back this up, but all I can find is speculation, and not one mention of amyls.. Does a book or screenplay exist, perhaps?
Weasel5i2 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wondering about another pop-culture amyl reference

message: Hi, I just copyedited the article for style, wording, etc., and had a complete revert from Munatobe7. Wikipedia pages are not "owned" by the major current editors. The Wikipedia policy on reverting states that it is a serious measure that should only be used against vandalism (e.g., profanity/ nonsense).  What I find frustrating with Munatobe7's complete revert is that it undoes EVERY change. Fine, disagree with some of the changes and change them. But to do a complete revert even undoes the edits that I imagine you would agree with, like joining orphan sentences into paragraphs. So you asked me to please discuss on talk page. So here is the request..............................The article has orphan sentences, grammar errors, and so on, and I would like to copyedit it for style. Now I suppose I wait for permission?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to edit article 

message: I'm very impressed with how wonderful this poppers article has become. It's been a year or more since I last looked at it and back then it was a mess. Now it's full of relevant and credible information.  This Kansas City resident is grateful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.161.130 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poppers article very good 

message: For over six months a notice has appeared in the "Availability and legality" section stating that "This section does not cite any references or sources.:, and further stating that 'unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
I would agree that this section is full of un-sourced posts. Since it has been over half a year and no one has been able to verify the material, I propose to delete this section, unless a majority disagrees.
The article is very long and this will help streamline it.
Munatobe7 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-sourced and unverifiable 'Availability and Legality' section 

message: The above assertion in the lede seems wildly inaccurate and rather dubious for the lede. Do we really have comprehensive studies on the impact of poppers on societal harm? And which other drugs is this compared to? Thoughts?  -- Banjeboi 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Banj, The drug rank of harm was calculated from a large number (I think 50) expert doctors and psychiatrists who work in addiction medicine, criminal justice including police and other experts in the field so it was a fairly comprehensive study. Here is a link to the picture of the results. I think poppers ranked low on the scale of harm because habituation/addiction is very rare with poppers, people don't become violent, commit property crime to fund their habit, death is also rare etc. Compare that with cannabis (cancer, habituation, possible increased risk of chronic psychosis), alcohol (harms too numerous to list), tobacco (high rate of addiction and early death), heroin (crime, addiction, overdose, blood bourne diseases), cocaine (addiction, crime etc), barbiturates (addiction, overdose high risk), GHB (overdose, date rape, withdrawal problems) and so forth. Poppers isn't as bad as these drugs but it certainly is not safe as this article states. I did add in about the potential for neurological damage and acute adverse effects and expanded the health effects section with this regard so I do feel that the adverse effects have been put into context. Perhaps though we could work out a compromise on the wording?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious? 

message: I see that one section of the article repeatedly refers to alkyl nitrates rather than alkyl nitrites in connection with carcinogenicity. 
Is this intentional or a blooper? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nitrite not nitrate