Talk:2C-T-7

message: I can't find any sources claiming this compound is known on the street as "tetris." The article that I assume the second citation is referencing, , makes no claims of the sort, and is, in fact, incorrectly cited. The third citation also does not make this claim. Ohnodoctor (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tetris" 

message: To be honest, it doesn't seem like this violates no original research. Three deaths reported, not two, and why take out the bit about nootropic properties?
Miserlou 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murple 

message: Don't think there's such a thing.. the Analog Act exists in the US, not Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.85.40 (talk) 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian analog act? 

message: So, what's up with the section on the MAOI effects? Reading the cited journal, it appears they tested the thiopropylphenylethylamine wihtout the methoxy's. So it should be changed to a suspected or likely MAOI, no? At least the source doesn't seem to establish it conclusivly, though does suggest it. 65.185.93.86 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAOI effects? 

message: While Murple's paper may not be notable enough in general, it is on eof hte few reviews of this substance, and I'm kind of torn- wikipedia policy notwithstanding.
Here's what appears in the second paragraph of the article, in the lead (or whatever its called prior to TOC).
"There has been little real research done on this chemical other than Shulgin's comments in PiHKAL. There have been a few small animal studies mostly aimed at detecting metabolites, and an informal amateur research paper written by Murple titled Sulfurous Samadhi.[4]"
Given that the murple paper isn't well cited, if at all, I don't know if this is a very good source to mention in the second paragraph.  While I don't know if it's appropriate at all, I think an external link may be supplied, but I don't know if it deserves mention in the summary given that it isn't well-cited, though skimming it reveals it is likely accurate.
Thoughts?  I propose removing refrence of it in the lead and relegating it to the existing external link section with a brief description printed there.  IF some wikipedia guidelines invoker comes along I'd be in favor of removing it all together if it can be shown to be against policy- which it probably is, though I don't know.
I'll move it to external links only unless objections are raised.--Δζ (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murple's informal research paper on erowid.  Should refrence be included? 

message: Hey, I removed a citation needed tag and moved a paragraph from pharm to death sections, then expanded.  Could someone look over the article, particularly the deaths sectino and pharm section, and see what they think of it and/or my changes?  Also, could somone give me a link or help with citing a previously-refrenced footnote/source?  I don't want to just have the references filled with duplicated sources, but there are statements that look pretty suspect and/or just need a source to look like they belong in an encyclopedia, that I've not yet cited if the cite is included elsewhere, for formating reasons.  If someone could clear up how to make additional cites to new points in the text, that would help me and the article.
The new paragraph I made from some existing text is:
All of these known deaths of individuals under the influence of 2C-T-7, therefore, occurred in those known either to be intoxicated with potentially deadly[15]  stimulants such as ephedrine or MDMA or after the individual insufflated an excessive amount of 2C-T-7- excessive being an amount greater than necessary to induce the full range of the drug's effects, such as the reported 35mg insufflated dose taken by the individual who died in the Fall of 2000. This reported dose was characterized as "excessive" by the US DEA. Additionally, ephedrine, itself an MAO inhibitor,[16]  and MDMA may interact with any monoamine oxidase inhibition by 2C-T-7, which is presently speculative, to increase the effects of MDMA or ephedrine[17], which together were known to be present in two of the three deaths of 2C-T-7-intoxicated individuals. Ephedrine's cardiovascular effects[18]  have previously been shown to be potentiated by some MAO-A inhibitors[19]
These are all able to be cited, and I think I've got everything cited now that needs it, though not neccesarily in this paragraph (waiting to see how to cite one footnote in multiple places in text before adding the additional cites).  I hope this doesn't sound too much like advancing a point of view.  For disclosure, I find the reporting and political activities surrounding this substance to be a bit of a moral panic and pretty ignorant/pointless, but I've tried to stick to the facts and citeable stuff in my edits.  I feel the inclusion of the fact that no one has died except those who took potentially cardiotoxic drugs (ephedrine and MDMA) that have some MAO metabolism/inhibition issues, and those who took an excessive dose and insufflated it, is something that needs to be indicated- especially since the sources find these factors relevant, even the US DEA.
Thoughts appreciated.--Δζ (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed stuff around, could someone give opinion on article now?