Talk:Procaine

message: It seems that people are starting using that in BDSM play (to increase possibilities of pain play) for instance by penile injections of procaine. SHould it be mentioned ?82.120.129.36 17:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mention this until its use is verifiable. This would mean mention in publications that are not too niche. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Procaine and BDSM

message: I've read about procaine being cut with cocaine as well.  Does anyone have information about this?  Is it a common use?
--Spriteyone 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocaine

message: I had an adverse reaction to dental anesthesia: novocaine+carbocaine.  I ended up with severe vertigo & had to be transported to the emergency room before my procedure was finished.  Does anyone know more about this type of reaction?
--Aebarschall 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adverse allergical reaction

message: hey i'm new to editing, but i found a controversial statement which textbooks indicate is wrong that needs to edited by someone who's completely sure.
It's regarding pharmacology of Procaine.
It says Procaine is a vasoconstrictor, but actually it's a vasodilator. If this could be put on a discussion so that relevant people can moderate it, that'd be great. 
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingpistachio (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasodilator? 

message: The article mentions the trade name Novocain, and says that the drug was originally given the trade-name Novocaine (with the final 'e') by its creator. Perhaps some explanation or history is in order, to account for the respelling?
-Jack Vermicelli 98.209.134.64 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Novocaine vs Novocain?

message: It is not true that Procaine was first synthetic local anesthetic (“first injectable man-made local anesthetic”) : Stovaine was discovered first, in 1903, by :fr:Ernest Fourneau. Would you have a look on French article :fr:amylocaïne ? And please, would you see French book : Christine Debue-Barazer, « Les implications scientifiques et industrielles du succès de la Stovaïne. Ernest Fourneau (1872-1949) et la chimie des médicaments en France », in Gesnerus 64, 2007 (It seems to me that there is an English version of this text in the same issue of the revue).
I lament I am not able, as you can see, to write in an easy enough English to change the article to this way, and I have to let it done by an English contributor. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I'll fix it. I think the reason is that amylocaine is no longer in clinical use. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No, wait a minute. Procaine: 1898. Amylocaine: 1903. Procaine was first. No need to change the page. But maybe the French page needs correction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you are wrong. This year 1898 appears on Google to be copies of a first mistake, and, as far as I can see, none of those pages proves it by a reference to first publication. Willstätter elucidates the structure of cocaine in 1898, he synthesises it in 1901. For the rest, I think I am right. Procaïne was synthesised by Einhorn in 1904 and introduced as local anaesthetic in 1906. My own references have to be annihilated by other better quotations, before you change my modif. I am waiting for results of your own searches and will come back easily on my idea when you show the truth of another. Friendly regards. --Thierry (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I now agree with you, and will modify this page accordingly. Thanks for having looked at this carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for your own watchfulness, and I hope I'll have to work again with you. Friendly regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention here that the first synthetic local anesthetic still in use is not procaine, but benzocaine, introduced in 1902 according to "Harry Auterhoff, Lehrbuch der pharmazeutischen Chemie, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1968".  This source confirms the invention of procaine in 1905. Regards, --FK1954 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, FK. I hope you will agree with my way to try to keep remembrance of the very great historical impact of the discoveries of amylocaine and procaine. Cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stovaine (amylocaine) and Novocaine (procaine) 

message: This article suffers greatly from lack of neutrality 
it is barely veiled procaine bashing -- in its associations, omissions, title language, and topic emphasis.  
"FDA Ban" It is obvious that FDA banned Aslan's Gerovital H3 as a drug, but then it approved procaine compounds from U.S. manufacturers. Dr. Robert Koch for example owns several patents in the U.S.: 5,162,344 / 5,283,258 /.5,283,068 / 5,254,686 (and in Australia and in Canada as well).  
Equally, the dramatic title of "2003 UK Trademark revocation" has nothing to do with the biochemistry of procaine but with ownership of the trademark compound by Aslan.  
In regards to procaine degradation, according to Dr. Koch, procaine does not turn into DMAE and PABA, but into DEAE (diethylaminoethanol) and PABA. The DMAE and PABA are copounds found in some-over-the-counter health products claiming Gerovital activity.  
"Quality Control:" The fact that many manufacturers claim unique product quality does not disqualify procaine's physiological action. In fact it has nothing to do with it -- but it has to do with bashing of  over-the-counter medicine which has become pervasive in the Wikipedia.
    
Elena Marcus (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the point of this comment. The page has nothing about an FDA ban, or about UK trademark issues. The Aslan discussion appears to be WP:NPOV albeit unsourced. Although PABA is discussed, there is nothing about DMAE or DEAE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEUTRALITY 

message: Why is the bit about the discoverer/inventor/namer bashing dentistry as a use in the first section of this article? It doesn't belong. Especially since the somewhat parenthetical comment about this being caricature is also included. Move it to Einhorn's page or somewhere...
This part --> "Einhorn wished his new discovery to be used for amputations, but surgeons preferred general anesthetic. Dentists, however, found it very useful. Einhorn was displeased by this perceived misuse of his "noble" invention and spent many years touring dental schools to advise them not to use it. This is a caricature, to be sure, but it illustrates the attitude managers often take to the unexpected: “It should not have happened."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwiebe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's a good point. I deleted it from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the "caricature" bit somewhere else

message: According to my dentist, procaine is now more-or-less obsolete for dental use in Canada and the US. He says that lidocaine is used instead. I don't have a reference, but if this is the case the article should be updated.Bill (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Decline in dental use?