Talk:Poppers

message: (Sorry for my english)
It is write :
Today, reformulated poppers containing isobutyl nitrite are sold under brand names such as RUSH,[1][4] Locker Room,[1][4] Snappers,[1][48] and Liquid Gold.[1] 
'''
So on the webstite of Liquid Gold, it is write that Isobutyl is cancerous, and prohibited since 2007.
http://www.liquidgoldaromas.co.uk/contact.php
This is the directive Eu:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2006%3A033%3A0028%3A0081%3Aen%3APDF
I have read a mail on a forum from RAM (Jungle juice brand), it was write that new formula is only ISOPROPYL, no ISOBUTYL.
http://www.junglejuice.org/Aromas/aromas/JUNGLE-JUICE-25ml--57/
But on this website from RUSH it is write ISOBUTYL :
http://www.rush-poppers.org/
If I understand it is a resellers, the makers is PWD, I think is it a error because law, and on the forum it is write ISOPROPYL too :
http://www.rush-poppers.org/rush-forum/10130.shtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: This article has two sections titled Legality which contain nearly identical information.  I attempted to rectify this by removing one of the sections, but the entry was restored and I was given a (presumably automated) warning about removing information.  My suggestion is that someone with the ability to edit this and make it stick do so, unless it is Wikipedia's policy to include multiple sections with the same information and title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.9.128 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated Legality Section

message: Can anyone think of a better name for the "AIDS" section?  The current one implies there is a direct relationship, when it's correlational.  Perhaps "correlation with HIV infection"?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, or "Association with AIDS epidemic". Or the entire section could be folded into the "Health issues" section, without its own subheading. MastCell Talk 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea for a separate heading, for the very reason we're even having this conversation - it was a topic of intense interest, it's a false idea that's been bandied about for many years, and it allows direct linking to a section that quickly and thoroughly disarticulates it.  I don't mind "Association with AIDS epidemic", I'll paste that in for now and see what happens.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A deceased editor of this article was a big campaigner off the AIDS and Poppers link. I suspect that there will be a lot less resistance to toning down the language than there used to be.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS title 

message: LiteratureGeek may have the best answer here, should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS?  Is it already?  I've got an official source for the poppers/viagra indication (), shouldn't it go in a separate contraindications section?  
I might be jumping the gun, lazily I haven't reviewed MEDMOS to see if it's already lined up.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a huge amount of research on poppers or its chemical names on pubmed, so it may be difficult to get a fully comprehensive medical article but if contraindications, interactions can be found and sourced then I think adding in medical sections would be benefitial.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be tricky to follow WP:MEDMOS, because the term "poppers" applies specifically to recreational rather than pharmaceutical uses. Nitrates do have actual recognized indications (most typically in the form of nitroglycerin or nitroprusside for angina or hypertensive emergency), but poppers don't. I think that whatever format we follow for other recreational drugs makes sense here. MastCell Talk 20:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More in line with WP:MEDMOS 

message: "Initially poppers were considered as a hypothesis for the then-burgeoning AIDS epidemic, and the idea has persisted in large part due to the activities of AIDS denialists as a pseudoscientific rationalization for the presence of AIDS in homosexual males.[39]"
The cited page links to the following article: Does drug use cause AIDS?, published in Nature in 1993. But in fact shows that every incidence of AIDS occurred among the cohort of popper users which were all homosexuals (no heterosexual popper users were in the cohort). This entire wiki article should a) cite better, non-secondary sources and b) not rely on dubious secondary sources especially when the articles THEY cite do NOT refute (nor confirm) the idea that poppers may in fact cause AIDS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Chao et al. () clearly states in its abstract: "These findings do not support a biological association between use of these substances [including poppers] and KS development in HIV- and HHV-8-coinfected homosexual men." Our text could be clearer, and I've tried to clarify it, but the study authors very clearly argued that their findings do not support a biological link between poppers and KS. MastCell Talk 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The article rejects a causal link between poppers and AIDS, but notes a statistical correlation (see correlation is not causation). Popper use is a marker for other high-risk activities, like unprotected anal sex, that do transmit HIV and thus can lead to the development of AIDS. That doesn't mean that poppers cause AIDS. There's a 100% statistical correlation between opening your car door and subsequently starting your car, but that doesn't mean that opening your car door starts the engine.To be specific, the prevalence of popper use was apparently 88% in the HIV-positive group and 56% in the HIV-negative group. So popper use is statistically associated (perhaps - no p value is given) with HIV seropositivity, which makes sense since it's a marker of other high-risk behaviors. But 56% of the HIV-seronegative group used poppers, and none of them developed any opportunistic infections, which is evidence against any potent immunosuppressive effect of poppers. On the other hand, opportunistic infections developed only in the HIV-positive patients, which (combined with the extensive body of knowledge of the biology of HIV infection) is convincing evidence in support of the fact that HIV causes AIDS. MastCell Talk 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I explained it clearly. Popper use is correlated with high-risk behaviors like unprotected anal sex. The correlation isn't directional - one could just as easily say that unprotected anal sex is correlated with popper use. The point is that they cluster together statistically. If poppers caused (or were necessary for) AIDS/immunosuppression, then one would expect some of the HIV-negative popper users to develop opportunistic infections. None of them did. That's pretty strong evidence against a causal role of poppers, and strong evidence in support of a causal role for HIV.In and of itself, it doesn't "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, or that poppers don't. Causality generally isn't proven by a single study - that's a canard fabricated (or promoted out of ignorance) by AIDS denialists. Incorporating this one epidemiologic study with the thousands of other pieces of published science on HIV, from the level of basic virology to population-level epidemiology, proves the case. A general tactic of AIDS denialists is to attack individual studies (usually on ignorant or scientifically illiterate grounds) rather than address the sum of available evidence. But I digress. MastCell Talk 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: You should be able to get the full text of the article at any library. If you want the raw data itself, you probably need to contact the study authors, or the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which conducted the research. MastCell Talk 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Citation Error!  

message: This edit looks suspicious to me, as it completely reverses the messaging in the health effects section without any change to the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poppers&diff=588078169&oldid=588077608  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.170.2 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed this and further issues with today's edits. He was right, but went about it in a lazy, and inappropriate way (attributing a right conclusion to a wrong source). Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism? 

message: http://forum.xumuk.ru/index.php?showtopic=152660
http://sakrutov-grisha.livejournal.com/619.html 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:36 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are self-published, contain Wikipedia content, and/or are only available in Russian, and so are not suitable sources for the encyclopedia. However, the apparent concern of this editor for "harm", and the matter of chemistry, were addressed (hopefully, in accord with this editors interests). Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  harm poppers in Russian links, personal experience and discussion of chemists 

message: I did some major editing of the article, to address a tendency toward adding statements without citations, and a propensity to make the page an erowid-type article of use for potential experimenters (rather than an encyclopedic article).
Important changes are fully cataloged in the Edit summaries, and include:
* introduction of  Pharm Phys section, so that the known impacts on physiology, based on alkyl nitrite pharmacology, can be summarized,
* collecting, and making clear the fatalities and injuries that have been associated with use of these agents (which earlier were subsumed/hidden under administration),
* restructuring of the Health effects section, including moving administration to use, and adding subsectioning appropriate to remaining material, and
* noting throughout, when material was unsourced, or poorly sourced, and where sources were unforgivably incomplete.
As well, I found a source in the LGBT online literature that was up-to-date, and made clear that formulations of the title subject change, and that these changes have impact on health aspects of their use.
Finally, I added content to the lede (summarizing the health material in the main body), and moved/removed material in the lede that was unsourced and not in the main body. (This was conservative, but bold.)
In doing these things, I addressed some concerns appearing above in Talk, as noted. 
Please discuss here any concerns, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this day

message: The following unsourced statements that appeared in a prior version of the article are moved here, as they lack any sourcing whatsoever. Please add them back to the article, only with high quality secondary sourcing, appropriate to the encyclopedia:
Please do not return either statement without sourcing, and checking that source as to the accuracy of the content. (In my experience, editors choosing not to source, are also apt to misstate source content.) Any concerns, please discuss here, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved to talk

message: Do any poppers even have this in them any more?
Is there any data on whats actually in each brand?
--Simon19801 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wikipedia is not a user's guide. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: If you can find a source for that, feel free to make the change. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: AmylNitrite

message: This article is so full of speculation, opinion and devoid of references, that it would be better served by being completely nuked than continuing to spread (potentially dangerous) unsourced or mis- information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.73.43 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful 

message: I can't find statistics in the article about the use of "poppers" in sexual assaults, like the one that Bette Midler relates happened to her. She has said repeatedly since about 1991-ish that she was forced into the bathroom of her home by two men who then snapped a couple of poppers under her nose and assaulted her. If these things can be used in this manner, then I'm sure that Midler isn't the only one to have been subjected to such a violation. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in sexual assaults? 

message: The article states "The French chemist Antoine Jérôme Balard synthesized amyl nitrite in 1844." yet Balard died in 1876. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Balard, also http://www.nndb.com/people/586/000114244/.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.151.128 (talk • contribs) 21:06, November 30, 2018 (UTC)
:1802 born
:1844 synthesized amyl nitrate
:1876 died
:What is the problem? - SummerPhDv2.0 04:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date question 

message: I am pleased to announce that Australia's TGA board has rendered a final decision on the legality of Poppers in Australia.
As I am insufficiently equipped to make edits myself, I have simply posted this direct link to the TGA's decision for any editor that wishes to peruse and edit as they please.
Final decision(s) for matter(s) referred to the March 2019 Joint ACMS-ACCS meeting  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.133.142 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status In Australia Change - Edit needed