Talk:Poppers/Archive 2

message: See Talk:Alkyl nitrites
This seems a good idea to me.
But, there was a guy here a few months ago, a doctor or a scientist (I can't remember which), who suggested keeping them separate.  I think his concern was that he wanted to the chemical article to steer clear of the chaos that had been going on in the 'poppers' article.
Now that the clamour has calmed down, maybe the articles could be linked.
I tried to find his postings in the discussion page, but for some reason the page has been removed or at least all the history has dissapeared.
216.54.197.236 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a mistake and posted here instead on the page where I should have. I apologize. I agree with Dr. Zak, that these articles should be kept separate.  See his explanaiton here  Talk:Alkyl nitrites  216.54.197.236 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Mr Wilson: kindly do not alter or edit my study analyses.  To add your own comments about any of the studies, please use Wikipedia formatting, and do so outside of my analyses of the study.  That way it is clear who said what.
Thank you. New Orleans Jazz 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOJ: Your study analyses do not belong in this article, for they constitute original research not permitted in Wikipedia articles. The proper place to discuss the veracity of references is here on the talk page. --Scheinwerfermann 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References study analyses 

message: The most common name for these products is "Poppers".  Also common are the names "Rush", "Locker Room", "Brown Bottle", and in the UK "Liquid gold". Rocky Mountain Stream 00:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Names 

message: I've removed the section, and replaced it with a single external link to the site concerned. The section was longer than the article itself, and had several paragraphs of analysis, which didn't belong there. HawkerTyphoon 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There have been several media reports of relatively young gay males dying after using poppers and viagra. Three deaths were reported in Los Angeles/West Hollywood shortly after Viagra became available. And there has been a death in Boston.  Hankwilson 02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viagra + Poppers and Reported Deaths 

message: I've reverted the poppers article to the last version before yesterday's mass deletion of the entire References section. The stated reason for deleting the References section was that it "had several paragraphs of analysis, which didn't belong there".  The study analyses are revealing, and it seems reasonable for them to accompany the studies listed in the References section.  Any decision to remove entire sections from an article should be discussed on the Talk page, and agreed upon under a consensus before the deletion occurs.
A long-standing statement about Viagra® and poppers was also deleted yesterday. The reason, as described in the Discussion section, was: "There have been several media reports of relatively young gay males dying after using poppers and Viagra®. Three deaths were reported in Los Angeles/West Hollywood shortly after Viagra® became available. And there has been a death in Boston".  If these deaths occurred, it's important information that should be included the Health Hazards section, along with information about any subsequent deaths since that time. But, it's also important that the articles being used to support such a statement are cited, so as to avoid the potential of making inaccurate statements based on rumors or gossip. Until there is proper support for a statement that mixing poppers and Viagra® actually causes death -- rather than it "may cause death" -- then, one cannot say it has actually happened.
Yesterday's edits also included an inappropriate effort to insert various popper brand names into the Street Names section, and those have been removed now.
Wikipedia points out that, while edits made in a collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought then reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. I hope we can keep the poppers article contributions and discussions on the high road, so that the article can be both objective and accurate.  Mass deletions of entire sections in an article are not appropriate without first having a thorough discussion and then arriving at a genuine consensus about such deletions.
It's important to consider that over the past year, the poppers page has become more and more accurate, making it a more sophisticated article, worthy of Wikepedia inclusion.  The goal should be that it becomes one of the most well-researched and factually-supported articles on Wikipedia. Lt. Dan 17:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Deletion of Refernces Section, unsupported statements in Health Hazards section, spam in Street Names section 

message: In 1981, in response to the initial reports of gay men dying of pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma(KS), the Committee to Monitor Poppers was formed by gay men in San Francisco. The goal was to educate the gay community about the known and potential hazards of using poppers. Doctors were involved from the beginning. Previously in 1977, Dr. Richard Hamilton cautioned gay men that poppers were hazardous and he unsuccessfully petitioned the California Health Department to stop sales of poppers. In 1982, the Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights, a gay and lesbian doctors organization, joined the Committee to Monitor poppers in successfully lobbying the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to mandate that warnings be posted where poppers were sold. The city of West Hollywood passed a similar poppers point of sale warning law. In 1986, The California AIDS Advisory Commission, recommended that California pass a similar state popppers point of sale warning mandate. Several doctors were on the commission and state law mandated that a warning be posted where poppers were sold. 
Hank Wilson was a founder of the Committee to Monitor Poppers. He and John Lauritsen co authored DEATHRUSH, a book about the hazards of using poppers in 1985. Lauritsen subsequently became a leading AIDS denialist while Wilson continued gay rights and AIDS activism.In 1985 Wilson co founded Mobilization Against AIDS.  In 1987, Wilson was diagnosed with AIDS and as of 2006 is a long term survivor, and continues his AIDS activism. It is a distortion of reality to characterize Wilson as an AIDS denialist. Popper proponents mischaracterize Wilson in an attempt to discredit his education efforts about poppers. Hankwilson 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some History 

message: "You anti popper types are all alike: you don't have any basis in fact for your outrageous claims that poppers are harmful, you cannot engage in civil or coherent debate on the issue, you disregard and dismiss valid science in favor of flawed studies and biased reporting, and you're basically just wrong about nearly everything you believe and espouse about poppers. On top of all that, you personally attack anyone who disagrees with you rather than trying to support your position with valid information and fact."
'''
This is great stuff!  Bully for you. Thanks for saying it so well.  Hank Wilson and his friend Dalamation -- popper haters each (I wonder, too, if they are the same person) -- have continually vandalized this wikipedia article on poppers for the last year or more. He has removed all the wonderful analysis to the flawed "studies" he's posted in this article, and constantly alters and edits any posts to remove information he does not agree with.
Seems he can't justify his position, and instead deletes anything that challenges him.
Gostu98 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper Haters 

message: I think this article and its discussion page are a good illustration of the fact that the Wikipedia principle just doesn't work out. Drug producers promote their drug here which is illegal in most countries, they declare scientific results as "not neutral", they accuse others of homophobia and publish disgusting hate texts against homosexuals themselves, and even though they're ignorant of the medical research on the topic and of the background needed to understand it consider themselves responsible for "guarding" the article. Isn't that absurd? How can Wikipedia ever aim at becoming a reliable source of information with letting such things happening? 
Looking at the texts above, I consider Wikipedia rather a platform for hate speech than an encyclopedia. The claim of being the latter is an insult to the true encylopedists, especially Denis Diderot.
--85.216.120.103 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Wikipedia doesn't work 

message: I don't care anymore. If these pages are transformed into ads for illegal drugs, this would only be more proof that Wikipedia is garbage. Why should I waste my time in guarding scientific content on an anti-scientific platform? Go to hell! --91.89.6.103 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is anti-scientific 

message: Just dropping by to share something.
Hank Wilson and Dalmatian may be one in the same, but it appears Dalmatian, when he posts without signing on trying to hide his identity, is always using the same server in Germany.  Wilson uses severs in San Francisco.  (If Wilson lives in San Francisco, this would make sense unless he's doing some fancy VPN from elsewhere.)
Dalmatian is either in Germany, or he's eslewhere in Europe (perhaps even in one of the alledged shady Eastern European countries). Given the change in IP addresses when he posts, he's probaby moving around and using WiFi at one or more different coffeeshops near where he lives.  Or maybe he's using VPN from somewhere.
Because he complained about a German Wikipedia page having administrators who are blocking him from vandalizing the German Wiki poppers page, it's likely that they know him well over there.
This all points to the real possibility that Dalmatian and Wilson are working together in some coordination of their anti-popper campaign, and that the Europeans are keeping them from vandalizing their Wiki pages.
That's how it looks from here.
In case anyone is interested here's the trail that I discovered:
23 Jan 07 19:47 Dalmatian threatened a poster by telling the poster to "Go to hell!!" Dalmatian used:
IP address is 91.89.6.103
City: Frankfurt Hessen
Country: Germany
Continent: Europe
Time Zone: GMT+1
23 Jan 07 Dalmatian Complaining about being blocked from vandalizing the German Wikipedia with Hank Wilson's flawed bibliography Dalmatian used:
IP address is 87.139.42.96
City: Frankfurt Hessen
Country: Germany
Continent: Europe
Time Zone: GMT+1
23 Jan 07 15:13 Dalmatian proclaiming that Cactuspus cross posted to the German Wikipeia Dalmatian used:
IP address is 87.139.42.96
City: Frankfurt Hessen
Country: Germany
Continent: Europe
Time Zone: GMT+1
23 Jan 07 11:09 Dalmatian/Hank Wilson posted the following in Talk:
::Do you know better than the authorities, and is that why the industry chooses to outwit the law? The poppers industry graft their drug onto the gay community like a cancer and the motive is profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalmation55 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalmatian and Hank Wilson 

message: I have never posted on the German wikipedia page and have no idea what you are talking about. Conspiracy theories apppeal to those that fear authority, do they not? I feel rather embarassed for you, you are clearly a very silly person.Dalmation55 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rubbish 

message: Someone earlier mentioned an Australian study and I located it. True enough, it shows that there is no link between popper use and unprotected sex amongst HIV-positive gay men, at least not in Sydney, one of the world's major cities.
Hank Wilson continues to deny it, but the Australian researchers seem to have just confirmed it: Earlier studies looking at the relationship between recreational drug use and sexual risk taking have produced conflicting results. Although some studies, often conducted in the US, have found a link between the use of specific illicit drugs, particularly methamphetamine, and unprotected anal sex, these findings have not been supported by other studies. There have also been methodological limitations with many studies, particularly as they have simply tried to establish if unprotected sex and drug taking occurred within the same time period, not on the same occasion. 
In this new research the investigators found that “illict drug use was no greater in encounters in which a condom was not used than in those which a condom was used.” 
I'm sure Wilson will attempt to debunk this study, too, but it'd be better if he'd just allow both sides of the story to be told, and not fear an open discussion on the matter.
Reference 
Prestage G et al. Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney. AIDS 21( suppl 1): S49 – 55, 2007. 
Msmchaser 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No link between drug use and unprotected sex amongst HIV-positive gay men in Sydney 

message: The poppers article is getting better.  There are fewer personal attacks in the discussion page too. If the extrremes can be kept at bay it may stay that way. Bay House Deals 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is getting better 

message: I'm performing a big cleanup of the article. I'm not going to add or remove any information, but I'm referencing anything I can find a reference for, and leaving requests for references for things that I can't find. I'll go through the references section itself as well, and remove anything that doesn't contribute to the article itself--it's pointless having a reference that isn't used IMO. If they're particularly relevent, but don't contribute, I may move them to the "External links" section.
I'm using footnote referencing, as that way, every fact can be verified, and the sources checked easily. I think one of the problems this article has had is that people have been adding information without references, and because the reference section is so huge, nobody's put the effort to see if it is actually true. me_and 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm completely removing a load of references for various reasons. For posterity, I'll leave a list of them here me_and 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major references edit 

message: A meta analysis of published research between 1980 and 2005 found "the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites" use as a causal factors for acquisition of HIV/STDs. "Club Drugs as Causal Risk Factors for HIV Acquistion Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Review" in Sustance Use and Misuse, 41:1551-1601,2006. . The authors found 17 studies that met their criteria: 13 demonstrating popper use as an association with acquisition of hiv/std or risky sexual behavior and 4 did not, "indicating good consistency and strength in association." There were 7 longitudinal studies, 3 case control studies, and seven cross-sectional studies. 6 or 7 longitudinal studies demonstrated associations between popper use and elevated incidence of sexually transmitted infections, unprotected anal intercourse with a serodiscordant ot unknown status partner, or relapse in condom use during anal sex; providing evidence for temporality.
The studies cited in this analysis can be cited and the evidence cited as a concern about popper use fueling the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men.
The controversy section needs to cite 1.the role of poppers being a factor in behavior change leading to HIV acquisition.2. that poppers are immunosuppressive and the article needs to include every published article showing immunosuppression. Whether the immunosuppression is significant is debatable. It may be that dose, i.e. quantity of sniffs,or frequency of popper use may determine susceptibility to infection. 
Published research about poppers should be cited and referenced. If you mention immunosuppression as a controversial issue then you should include all the studies that assess immunosuppression, independent of limitations. Most research has limitations hence almost every discussion section cites some.
Hankwilson 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited this to correct the formatting and make it easier to read. Hope you don't mind me_and 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that point 1. is already in the controversy section, albeit without a source (as I have yet to find one, although I'm still trying to make sense of the references section). Point 2. is also already in the controversy section, and indeed is in the health risks section, with citations. me_and 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for poppers use as a causal risk factor for HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men. 

message: This recently published study  underscores the importance of poppers use being a cofactor in HIV acquisition. This study should be in the reference section and cited with a cite number. 
Artiles,documents,etc in the reference section  should have numbers so that several studies can be cited in the the main article to validate a statement. For example, in the controversial issue of whether poppers are immunosuppressive, it would be helpful to have a dozen plus references, or their cite numbers, following such a contention. Makes it harder for the "poppers are not immunosuppressive, or not significantly immunosuppressive" to just dismiss the contention when the published research overtime is accumulating.
Taken as a whole, from 1980s onward, the evidence supports that poppers are immunosuppressive. "Significantly immunosuppressive" seems debatable and may depend upon the dose and frequency of popper use. 
The reference list needs to retain all the studies showing immunosuppression, independent of whether there are study limitations. That they have been published in research journals  should warrant their inclusion. Hankwilson 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: formatting again me_and 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relationship Between Methamphetamine and Popper Use and Risk of HIV Seroconversion in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study" J. of Acq Immune Defic Syndr Feb 2007 

message: Why have Pac West been allowed to vandalise this article YET again? Also, they are constantly planting their brand names on the article - Rush and their new brand, Locker Room. When will this be stopped? Is Wikipedia now accepting adverts from manufacturers of "room deodourizers?" This is shameful. Cue the usual puppets....Dalmation55 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? "Locker Room" and "Rush" are common names for them, just as liquid paper is often called "Tip-X" and pocket tissues are often called "Kleenex". I'm pretty sure none of the cited sources have any business with Pac West... me_and 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dalmation55" is involved in the sale of counterfeit RUSH® and other fake PWD products.  He and his associates own several websites selling fake RUSH®.  The fakes are made in Canada and shipped to Dalmation55's group in Prague, CZ.  Dalmation55 then sells them to dealers around Europe, and to the public from his web sites. Some of his customers in Europe have already been sued and and no longer buying the counterfeit products from him -- hitting him right in his pocketbook.  This is what drives him and his venomous attacks on Pac West Distributing.
What total bullshit! The reason why many people point to Pac West (actually GLP, and the lonely owner) is that he has a long history of using this page as a link farm for allaboutpoppers.com. That dates back several years. I was not the first to point out who was behind this vandalism.
This crazy, and wholly innacurate attack, which is based on god knows what, is an indication that the poppers sellers are very active on wikipedia. Everyone knows this. It has been exposed many times.Dalmation55 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dalmation55 is working together with Hank Wilson, the anti-popper zealot from San Francisco in efforts to harass Pac West Dist.  Wilson's personal vendetta toward Pac West goes back to the 1980's and drives his efforts to demonize the company and it's products, all of which is well-known.  DrKnow07 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pac West Vandalism 

message: Thanks me_and for the reference edit. Two corrections:
1. The correct PMID is 16288974 for Tran, DC. et al. "Effects of repeated in vivo inhalant nitrite exposure on gene expression in mouse liver and lungs." Nitric Oxide 14(2006) 279-289. "These studies demonstrate that in vivo exposure to inhalant nitrites results in changes in the angiogenesis cascade." "We examined the effects of multiple repeated in vivo nitrite exposure on the hepatic and pulmonary expression of a selected panel of genes related to angiogenesis and cancer, using gene microarrays." Research on KS and the mechanisms of tumor growth continue to be explored. 
2. The correct PMID is 16414306 and the correct author spelling is Mbulaiteye SM, et al. "Risk factors for human herpesvirus 8 seropositivity in the AIDS Cancer Cohort Study. In analyses adjusted for smoking and drinking, HHV-8 seropositivity was positively associated with nitrate inhalant use (OR=1.7;95% CI 1.3-2.3) among men who have sex with men. Research on KS and HHV-8(also known as KSHV) and the factors that effect them continues. 
References to KS need to include some kind of statement and reference that researchers continue to explore KS risk factors. Having the KS virus(HHV-8 or KSHV) does not usually result in KS. Other publications finding popper use related to HHV-8:
Casper, Corey et al. "HIV serodiscordant sex partners and the prevalence of HHV-8 infection among HIV negative men who have sex with men: baseline data from the EXPLORE study." Sexually Transmitted Infections 2006: Vol 82 Issue 3: 229-235. 
Casper, Corey et al. "Correlates of prevalent and incident KS-associated herpesvirus infection in men who have sex with men."
Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002 April 1;185(7):990-993. .
Pauk, et al. : Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men." New England Journal of Medicine; 2000 Nov 9; 343(19):1369-77. . 
Hankwilson 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hankwilson, I'll put those in shortly. me_and 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Major reference edit. Two corrections and citations should be included as references.Research about KS and poppers continues. 

message: Canadian researchers call for rapid needs assessments of MSM's awareness of HIV-related risks associated with use of poppers. They report a "disturbingling high prevalence of popper use of young MSM during a period of rapidly increasing HIV incidence in British Columbia. Our results, together with those from previous studies, suggest nitrite inhalant use by MSM is associated with a synergy among risks for HIV seroconversion. Use of poppers is associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in anal intercourse with an infected partner and in addition, a higher probability of infection following each such exposure."  They conclude:"Efforts to reduce the use of nitrite inhalants during sexual encounters should be considered a high-priority HIV prevention strategy for MSM." from BMC Public Health 2007,7:35. article URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/35.  .Hankwilson 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for rapid assessment of MSM's awareness of HIV-related risks associated with use of poppers. 

message: Please, don't keep inserting a blog into the external links. Blogs are generally considered inappropriate per Wikipedia's guideline on external links. If you think this is a unique situation where we should disregard the guideline, please explain why here instead of reinserting it. MastCell Talk 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: This recent 2007 study from a leading AIDS research publication should be reinstated in the reference section and included as citation evidence for the controversial contention that popper use increases the risk for HIV infection.  clearly indicates this. That the specific word "nitrite" is not included is immaterial because "popper" is both in the title and in the summary several times.The removal of this study raises doubts about the neutrality of the editor who removed it.Hankwilson 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is definitely an important study which should be cited in context. MastCell Talk 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Relationship between methamphetamine and popper use and risk of HIV seroconversion in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study" is from a leading AIDS research publication and should be reinstated. 

message: I would agree that the study Hank Wilson mentions above should be referenced. However, it's clear that unprotected receptive anal intercourse and multiple partners seems to be the most significant variables, not poppers.
But more importantly, where is the NPV in this article?  It seems that studies which counter the ones Hank Wilson posts here are being removed. For example, the large study that was just published by Prestage G, out of Australia, which found no link between poppers and unsafe sex, has been deleted again.
I'd suggest to Hank Wilson that such deletions similarly raise doubts about the neutrality of the editors who removed these references. In other words, when Hank Wilson or his associates remove references to articles that they do not agree with, it raises serious questions about the neutrality of their posts here. 38.136.6.221 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is currently kind of a disaster, and it's a little tough to sort through all the anonymous IP's and single-purpose accounts to figure out exactly who is pushing which POV. The best approach is probably to discuss additions here, and to rely on reliable sources, including peer-reviewed medical literature, rather than advocacy sites of unknown provenance. Can you give us a PubMed ID number for the study you're mentioning, or the citation info (journal, date of publication, etc)? MastCell Talk 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction: Reference # 56 is the Prestage G study out of Australia.  This study is currently listed and the deletion accusation is erroneous.
Published articles about poppers, or related to popper use, from scientific journals should be included. Hankwilson 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPV not being adhered to in the Popper article 

message: The current wording says "it has been suggested". This should be changed to "Research has demonstrated that poppers are immunosuppressive." It is suggested that the demonstrated immunosuppression is significant increasing  susceptibility to HIV infection. Issues of quantity of popper use and frequency of popper use may be considerations effecting the susceptibility to HIV infection.Research is ongoing to understand the significance of the immunosuppression.
To refer to the immunosuppression research is to state reality. The research exists.  To judge it,critique its limitations,  characterise it, raises points of view issues but these can be included in the context of acknowledging that there is controversy on interpretation of the research.Failure to acknowledge the research is not neutral or objective.  Hankwilson 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've slightly reworded this section to indicate actual evidence rather than simply a suggestion of it so as to bring the statement in line with the original cited article. I can not mention anything further as it is not included in the current source article. --John T. Folden 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Health Issues" section should state that poppers are immunosuppressive reflecting the published articles in peer reviewed scientific publications..