Talk:Botulinum toxin/Archive 1

message: Is the spam warning still needed?  I checked the external links, and I don't see any that aren't either references (e.g., the Good Morning America appearance) or to non-commercial sites.  Eggishorn 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and removed it.Mmoneypenny 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam warning

message: -What is the point of having this article have links to Botox if Botox redirects to this article? 
Why Botulin Toxin. As some one who has worked on it in the lab, it is always Botulinum toxin.
Shurley Shome Mishtake?  Bassophile 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I have made an addition on the topic of side effects. Let me take a closer look at the structure of this topic, and - if people approve - make this article more fact-based and less controversial.--BrianWalker 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old, unsections comments

message: Excerpt from the article: Throughout the 1950s, the toxin was used experimentally in the medical cosmetic treatment of politicians. Then actor-turned-politician Ronald Reagan is rumoured to be one of the earliest patients of this microexpression-concealing procedure.
While performing toxin experiments on politicians does sound appealing, I'm assuming that the procedures performed on Reagan et al weren't experimental in nature, but rather applying a technique without necessarily proven results? (Ie, I wouldnt think people going in for penis enlargement surgery would be referred to as volunteers for human experimentation) GeeJo (t) (c) 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimentation on politicians?

message: I miss a bit of NPOV in this article. The use of Botox for cosmetics is prohibited in most countries outside the US. And for each production unit, about 60-100 mice must be killed to adjust the right (very low) concentration. The glorious wonders of this substance should be described a little more differentiatedly (does this word exist?). --Lode 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I was going to ask for a source, but it wasn't hard to find quite a few:   As for the "banned in most countries" I also found sources about British celebrities using (or being accused of using) it.  It appears to be banned in Spain.  So yeah, feel free to add it.  -- Pakaran 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal in most countries! 

message: Hello,
a question to those knowledgable: what's the use of the toxin to the Clostridium bacteria themselves? Or is it simply "garbage" left over by their life processes? -- 145.254.129.135 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do the Clostridium bacteria themselves profit from this poison? 

message: Change of BTX-A to BTX-B approval for dystonia obtained from 
http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic585.htm#section~botulinum_toxin_type_b_for_dystonia
MeekMark 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit notes 

message: ...recently added text:
In the Journal of Dermatologic Surgery, Eric Finzi claims to have treated clinically depressed patients with botox. On Good Morning America, he explained that by taking away the ability to frown, he was also taking away the ability to feel depressed. [1]
...seems to give undu weight to what seems like a rather odd use of a paralysis inducing neurotoxin, also I recall from microbio that there's a rather complex reaction cycle for the botulinum toxin itself, which seems to be omited in favor of more comercial® interests--70.107.115.168 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parent company of ABC News is Disney, and if Disney owns some pharmaceutical company that produces botox, then that should've been disclosed in the broadcast. But I don't recall such a disclosure. Cholerashot 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, two seperate questions, didn't mean for them to both get mushed together--70.107.115.168 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's alright. But thanks though for putting in the extra measure of skepticism I should've put in in the first place. Cholerashot 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: uh...

message: I'm about to use botox for my hands for my suffering of hyperhidrosis. Just tell me, please. What can happen to me in worst case?
Why would you ask strangers instead of your doctor?Cloviz 02:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous?? 

message: I removed the following edit to the main article to here, as it seems to be an opinion, not related to the article:
: The German physician and singer Justinus Kerner called botulinum toxin "sausage poison", as this bacterium often causes poisoning by growing in badly handled prepared meat products. He first conceived a possible therapeutic use of botulinum toxin. In 1870, Muller (another German physician) coined the name botulism, from Latin botulus = "sausage". (This is a commonly repeated factoid about how the product got its name. It is certainly true that C. botulinum can grow in inadequately preserved meat products. (Although it has also been reported in badly preserved beans, mushrooms, yoghourt and even honey.) However, it seems far more likely to me that the name is derived from the shape of the bacterium itself: C botulinum is a rod-shaped bacterium which often appears to be slightly curved under high-powered light microscopy. In other words, it is the bacterium itself which resembles a sausage - hence Clostridium botulinum = 'the clostridium species which resembles a sausage'.) In 1895, Emile Van Ermengem first isolated the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. In 1944, Edward Schantz cultured Clostridium botulinum and isolated the toxin, and, in 1949, Burgen's group discovered that botulinum toxin blocks neuromuscular transmission. Throughout the 1950s, the toxin was used experimentally in the medical cosmetic treatment of politicians. (This seems like a highly dubious statement - no evidence is offered in support of it. Scott (see below) is usually cited as the first person to deliberately administer toxin to humans.)
MeekMark 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed opinions to here 

message: Removed the sentence, "A single drop is capable of killing 50,000 people."
I'm guessing that no one has ever tried to kill 50,000 people with a single drop, so it could be said:
"It has been estimated that a single drop is capable of killing 50,000 people."
Although it would still be ambiguous. Does this mean that if you put a drop in the water supply 50,000 would die? Or that there are 50,000 people in the world who would die if you made them drink a drop of botulin toxin?
But if you put a drop in the water supply, and so everyone was exposed to the same amount of toxin, why would only 50,000 die?
Bantosh 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, It means that the toxicity of one drop(imprecise size) if divied evenly to 50,000 people all of them would die. Phöénix 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But how does one divide a single drop of anything into 50,000 discrete parts and deliver it to 50,000 different people? I'm saying that this sounds awfully like a "fact" that someone just made up to impress how powerful botulinum toxin is. Bantosh 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Drop Killing 50,000?

message: WE HAVE SOME REDIRECTS 4 LEVELS DEEP, AND ONLY ABOUT 10 PAGES LINK PROPERLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.83.132 (talk • contribs) .
:First, is your "freaking" keyboard broken that you can't fix them yourself?!  It took me all of two "freaking" minutes to do all eight of them.  Second, there wasn't a single "freaking" redirect more than two deep.  Third, I'll thank you to maintain some "freaking" civility.  Fourth, sign your "freaking" talk page posts.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, his freaking keyboard is, in fact, broken:  The caps-lock key is stuck.  This is problem for fixing freaking redirects, as Wikipedia is freaking case-sensitive.  Depth perception is altered in some freaky drug-addled states, which might account for why he mis-estimated the depths of the freaking redirects. --Slashfreakingme 11:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIX THE FREAKING REDIRECTS 

message: I think it's fine to have this in both cats. I've added :Category:Biological weapons per the definition found at Bioweapons. Feel free to revert if you find it twisting your knickers. ... aa:talk 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bio or chem