Jump to content

Talk:Poppers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Comments removed

[Personal attacks removed]

Single-purpose accounts

I've noticed a proliferation of single-purpose accounts used solely to edit this article, or even solely to make comments on this talk page. I'll assume, for now, that these are all genuine new users, but please be sure that no one is violating the prohibitions on abuse of multiple accounts which are set forth at the page on sockpuppetry; note also that the creation of new accounts by multiple users specifically to participate in and influence a disputed issue is against policy. MastCell Talk 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Questionable with Hank Wilson controlling this article

One of the most prolific posters in the poppers article is the person named Hank Wilson, who is well known as an aggressive anti-popper person. As an AIDS researcher myself (unwilling to post using my name) I am familiar with Wilson and his associates John Lauritsen, Peter Duesberg, Harry Haverkos and others as well as with their many theories over the years about poppers being the cause of AIDS, KS, and a myriad of other maladies.

This article must be careful if it is to achieve NPOV. Many if not most of Wilson's references have been not only flawed but sometimes duplicates and have even presented conflicting results which he himself has then interpreted as negative toward poppers. Some of his postings have put a negative spin on poppers no matter what the actual article he references may have said about poppers, good or bad.

A typical tactic of Wilson and his associates is changing the subject, as he did when he was not able to present a credible argument earlier in this discussion page about immune system issues; he abruptly switched the subject to the International AIDS Conference and some unsubstantiated claim about a presenter who had a "slide projection".

The article should be watched for potential sabotage. 65.199.96.2 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry section

I'm tempted to remove or completely rewrite the Chemistry section, but I'd like to see if there's a consensus here. IMO, there should only be a very brief overview here, with {{main}} at the top linking to Alkyl nitrites. Does anyone have any other opinions? me_and 11:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would vote to clean up the Chemistry section, too, or maybe even remove it altogether.
A valid question is whether the Chemistry section is really needed or not. The numerous links from the Poppers article to Alkyl Nitrites and other nitrites articles take the reader directly to very comprehensive articles on these various compounds.
I could see removing the Chemistry section, but also could see a clean up. Munatobe7 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten it using text from Alkyl nitrites. As always, improvements are always welcome. me_and 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I like the Chemistry rewrite. Well done. Munatobe7 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :D me_and 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Award nomination

The article is looking pretty good these days.

Does it make sense to nominate it for some kind of notice or award from Wikipedia? (It might be a good idea to try to find a better photo then the one that's on the main page right now.) Munatobe7 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean something like WP:GOOD, perhaps? I think WP:FA would be a bit ambitious, at least at present.
I think there's still some work to be done before that, though: a consensus of some form would have to be reached first on the Health Issues section, to allow the NPOV warning to be removed, and personally I'd like to see the Popular Culture and the Media section tidied up or removed as well—at the moment it's little more than a dumping ground of trivia.
I've just had a look through Wikimedia Commons, and the only alternatives to the present image are Image:Poppers bottle.jpg and Image:Poppers.jpg. A better image might be a cropped version of the present one—zooming in on two of the bottles, for example. I presently have neither the time nor the software to do that, however. me_and 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambling attack used as reference source?

Should a rambling attack on poppers as the cause of AIDS and KS, given at a gay symposium 8 years ago, be included as a credible source in this article (see "added quote from cited source" by Meand 7 June 2007)? If so, shouldn't a reasoned response to it also be included in the article?

Just asking....... Nospinhere 18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a very good source; indeed a consensus was reached a while ago to try to avoid citing VirusMythPoppersMyth.org, VirusMyth.net, AllAboutPoppers.com and the suchlike—I completly forgot about it. Admittedly this talk page is rather ugly, but if you look under section 3 of this talk page, for the paragraph beginning "One correction: according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources…" it is there.
As such, I've removed all those citations, and replaced them where necessary (the one you picked up on, I've replaced with an article from the San Fransisco Chronicle). As such, I've just removed the citation you've added as well. Of course, the cosensus can change, and indeed the consensus was reached when the article was a lot less stable, so it may be worth discussing it. (Although I am personally in favour of attempting to avoid these sites still.)
Please don't take this as discouraging you from editing this article—bold editors are always much appreciated! me_and 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Article says that popper damage to the immune system goes away after a few days. What if the use is relatively constant - more than every few days. How long does it take to kill the immune system . Once dead or damaged does the immune system regenerate. How many days/months/years/etc of constant use ( or often enough so the immune system can't recover ) does it take to ruin the immune system ? Is this distinquishable from AIDS? 159.105.80.141 15:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By my understanding, the immune system does regenerate, and it is distinguishable from AIDS as AIDS, according to Wikipedia "is a collection of symptoms and infections resulting from the specific damage to the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans". My understanding, however, is entirely irrelevent; particularly on articles such as this, it is the understanding of verifiable, reliable sources that are relevent. me_and 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Meand is correct, the understanding any of us may have about the science is irrelevant. There are conflicting opinions by credible researchers and there are a number of places you can read more about all this. Some of the main HIV/AIDS researchers have suggested that the immune system issues that have been raised seemingly have been based on flawed studies, or on studies that appear to have been done by people with potentially personal agendas or who "invested their career in" a theory and for whom it was "very difficult to let their pet hypothesis go."
It seems unlikely that typical inhalation of these products can cause any significant harm to the human immune system. I have no idea about people actually 'killing' their immune system, or if that's even possible -- but surly not with poppers. Killing ones immune system is out of the range of the scope of this article and you'd have to research the immune system itself for that information.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "ruin the immune system", but my reading of the available literature on poppers indicates there's no substantial concern with them relative to harming the immune system and for certain it doesn't look like you can 'ruin' your immune system with them.
It also appears that the FDA, which controls medicines in the USA, found poppers essentially harmless as well. In April of 1984 Mark Novitch, who was head of the FDA at the time and a President Reagan appointee whom I'd venture to guess was not inclined to support the misuse of products by homosexuals to enhance sexual activity  :-), wrote a letter to the White House which said "...there is very little evidence of acute toxicity related to use of butyl nitrite." “...relative to lifetime use by homosexuals, although some groups contend that the possibility exists that repeated use among homosexuals may produce adverse effects, there is virtually no direct evidence to support that." Munatobe7 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Citation (19) says damage that can be undone. I suspect there has not been much study beyond what this citation mentions. Wiki - Poppers cites this so I assumed that poppers are immune system unfriendly on a one time basis - just guessed that continued use might be unwise. Should the citation stay - the sentence?159.105.80.141 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. There's nothing scientifically incorrect about it as far as I'm aware and seems applicable to the majority of users. --John T. Folden 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear on what's being suggested. I would caution that basing statements in the article on phrases such as "I suspect", or "I assumed" , or I "..just guessed" is not a good idea.
What sentence are you suggesting be used and where in the article is it proposed to be used? (BTW, what is "citation (19)"?) Munatobe7 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
He's suggesting that the source and sentence concerning damage to the immune system (poppers may weaken the immune system, however any damage is undone in a few days.[20]) be removed on the basis of his random speculation. --John T. Folden 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Thanks for explaining. Not sure why I couldn't grasp it myself. A brain-fart maybe? Munatobe7 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Reagan and poppers but a quick check of the internet says that poppers are illegal and dangerous as hell. You are basically sniffing gas - their legal use is as video head cleaners. Amyl nitrate is totally illegal, if your pharmacy carries it then call the cops. I believe amyl nitrate is the poison of choice - the head cleaner stuff is weaker. I suspect that in 1984 Mr Novitch wasn't totally up on this stuff - check out the web for yourself on this one but it didn't seem safe to me - once maybe but who does anything fun once.159.105.80.141 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)If you type i "poppers immune'" the second thing I got from 1999 - post Novitch - was a study showing 300% increase in cancer etc - other sites get better.159.105.80.141 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia the goal is to present credible and supported evidence, not guesswork and personal bias or assumptions based on news articles
Although none of what you've just posted is accurate or even makes any sense, it's acceptable for the Discussion page, but would not fly on the main article page. It's a perfect example of what had been going on in this article. Munatobe7 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I have no dog i the fight over those who want to take poppers going their own way - but for those who are looking for some good (as in correct ) information I suggest you look up poppers and immune system on the internet. AIDS.org is quite at odds with much of this article. Reagan's time is some years back and his expertise in the immune system probably was cursory at best - I have seen nowhere but wiki that seems to think that poppers are safe and nondamaging. Maybe you have some links as to their mild effects.? 159.105.80.141 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the above links - the one about pet hypthoses was interesting ( the guy certainly had a pet theory himself if appeared - HIV or nothing ( too bad that not all AIDS patients seem to have HIV, but he tried). The other study was very old.159.105.80.141 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion about President Reagan. It was not suggested that he knew anything about poppers, as I doubt he did. (But, hey, who knows... maybe he and Nancy got down with them once in a while after-all. :0) ) Rather, it was under his conservative administration that poppers were very closely scrutinized, studied and investigated by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the FDA and other agencies.
Like any subject, looking to the internet for information on poppers means being careful. For example, you're going to get lots of sites that claim they cause AIDS, when we know that is not true. Most, btw, appear to spring from the theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS which you described as "too bad, but he tried", an apparent reference to Peter Duesberg, Hank Wilson, Ian Young and John Lauritsen. These men all seem to have personal agendas and there's no doubting that they have a 'dog in this fight'. You probably saw their many sites when you searched on 'poppers'.
You asked for "links as to their mild effects". I'm not aware of any such links, but there are sites with credible information supporting the position that poppers do not cause AIDS or any of it's infections.
The goal in this article is to move it toward NPOV. Munatobe7 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I didn't delve into their catalogs but it appears that some of the sites minimizing the effects of poppers also sell them - they truely put their(your) money where their mouth is. This whole story seems to have hit an emotional nerve - not amiable to much science ( like telling my brother that drinking is causing his liver to die ).159.105.80.141 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Is there any reason for maintaining this as separate from the Alkyl nitrite article? This is the only drug article I know of that does this, everything from ecstasy to Dextromethorphan to methamphetamine is covered in a single unified article that documents both pharmacology and sociology. The split was done a ways back, but it might be time to reconsider and try merging the two. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge. By my understanding, the original split was to reduce vandalism on Alkyl nitrite. Since this article is much more stable than it has been in the past, I should think that much less of a risk. I'm not even convinced that displacing vandalism in that way is such a good reason for the split in the first place. I've added the merge template to this article and to Alkyl nitrate; hopefully that should garner some other opinions. me_and 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Reducing vandalism appears to be one reason, but it may also be due to the fact that only one alkyl nitrite is a drug -- amyl nitrite. The others are used in a range of ways including, of course, nitrite-based room odorizers (often misused as poppers). Munatobe7 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Cyclohexyl nitrite is used as a drug too, and as you say yourself the others are used as poppers. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A compound is only a 'drug' if the FDA or similar agency has jurisdiction over it. Otherwise it's classified as a consumer product. For example a common correction fluid such as Wite-Out®, which is misused as an inhalant (a drug use), is not a drug. It is a consumer product. Inhaling it is a misuse and is contrary to labeling instructions (another FDA criteria).
It's the same thing with poppers. Remember that poppers is a street name, not a product name. Various alkyl nitrites (including apparently cyclohexyl nitrite) are used for various applications including as the primary ingredients in nitrite-based room odorants, video head cleaners, or leather cleaners. People can and do misuse these nitrite-based products contrary to labeling instructions, but they are not drugs per-say. (Just as Wite-Out® is not a drug per-say.)
A manufacturer has to promote and sell the product for a drug use, with labeling instructions and package inserts that promote a drug use, otherwise it is a consumer product. So poppers technically are not drugs. Except, of course, amyl nitrite, which is an approved drug.
I think the past effort to separate the alkyl nitrites article from the poppers article is because poppers are just one of many uses for alkyl nitrites and someone wanted to keep them separate for simplicity and better organization. Munatobe7 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That's quite a legalistic way to look at it. Nitrous oxide is also used for many purposes, some drug, some not, and they're all covered in one article (with a summary-style section linking to an extended article on automotive use). There's no reason to break up the usages of a single class of substances so much so that the main article doesn't even mention its applications. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Night Gyr, the nitrous oxide article is a very well done article. Thanks for bringing it up here. The poppers article could do with a bit more polish. Munatobe7 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Drug: "A drug is any chemical or biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that when taken into the organism's body, will in some way alter the functions of that organism." Trying to define a drug based on the FDA's rulings completely ignores the fact that Wikipedia is international encyclopedia, not an American one. me_and 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Avert vandalism, articles have very different scope and it is not unusual to have pages non-chemistry / chemistry for a substance for example vanilla / vanillin asperin / Salicylic acid V8rik 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Avoiding vandalism is not a justification for editorial decisions, if it was we wouldn't have an article on Jesus or George W. Bush. As for your examples, each of those pairs talks about different substances. Vanilla is a plant, a food, a marketed commodity, vanillin is a single substance that contributes to its flavor. Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) has a large article that covers all aspects of the substance as does salicylic acid, the two are separate because they're different substances. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: I think previous discussions on this are still valid and there's no overriding reason for reversing that consensus now. Keeping the articles separate but cross link if/when needed. --John T. Folden 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Alkyl nitrites are a functional group. Poppers are a cultural thing. So these seem to be distinct. It seems that well-intentioned editors who dont know chemistry often to wish to morph or merge chemical articles into some other topic that is more understandable but where the chemical content is compromised, all with the best intentions as in this case. WE provides chemistry a rare public forum to present itself without being redescribed in a social context. It is a very precious and very powerful aspect.--Smokefoot 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poppers refers to the recreational use of nitrite inhalants. The term "alkyl nitrites" is technical and will be unfamiliar to many people.Hankwilson 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HankWilsonHankwilson 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is why Wikipedia has redirects—Poppers could redirect to an article with a formal name, rather than a street-slang name. me_and 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That HIV/AIDS argument

Having recently discovered this article and the arguments here, I did a search on MEDLINE and found this [1] of which "Controlled clinical trials to examine this potential correlation have not been conducted, and the use of nitrites simply may be a marker for other high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex." is the key sentence. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can access the full text of the article. But, taking the abstract on face value, this indicates that there is no reliable evidence of a link between the aggravation of HIV infection and the action of poppers on the human body. Given that MEDLINE shows no more recent publication on this link, a NPOV requires stating that there is njo concrete evidence that supports the claims of such a link. --Peter cohen 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you'll find a significant degree of support for your statements here. But there are a couple of people posting in this article who could be reasonably described as having potentially personal agendas and for whom it's seemingly impossible to let go of their pet hypothesis, which has made it painfully difficult to stabilize the article. Munatobe7 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm curious about your change in the Health Issues section today where you inserted ".. appears to be a statistical correlation between popper use and these problems", meaning AIDS, HIV and KS.
What is the statistical correlation between poppers and HIV or AIDS? It seems there is no causal relationship between them.
KS is a separate issue, but even then, the literature seems clear that there is no causal relationship between poppers and KS, but that it appears that some portion of the poppers-using population is prone toward higher risk behaviors.
Would you be comfortable with a slight re-wording that separates the issues of HIV/AIDS and KS as they relate to poppers? Munatobe7 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Returning to the abstract of the review, it only mentions only Karposi's. I'll change it. --Peter cohen 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Health Issues (The Dead Horse Sandbox)

Isobutyl nitrite was nominated by the Consumer Products Saftety Commission to the National Toxicology Program for toxicology and carcinogenicity studies because of its possible contribution to the high incidence of Kaposi's Sarcoma among gay AIDS patients and because of the lack of available data on the potential carcinogenicity of isobutyl nitrite. The 1996 assessment concluded that there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of isobutyl nitrite. See PubMed PMID:12594527. This is a significant risk that should be included in the health risks section. Hankwilson 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank, are you aware that by shouting that there is "Clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of isobutyl nitrite reported by National Toxicological Program..." you are posting a terribly misleading header for a new section?
A quick scan of this study shows that it apparently suffers from the same flaws as many of the others you've posted here, and even in spite of that, there's no significant harm demonstrated to humans at all.
I don't agree with your statement that "This is a significant risk that should be included in the health risks section." It's just not a true statement. Munatobe7 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


This article seems to be a rodent study not a human one. It would be interesting to see a meta-analysis of human studies or at least a systematic review on this subject. See, for example, "Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual mens with AIDS". Valerie Beral, Diana Bull, Sarah Darby, Ian Weller, Chris Carne, Mick Beecham and Harold Jaffe. The Lancet v339.n8794 (March 14, 1992): pp632(4). Beral et al. found no evidence in their own data and two of these authors were involved in a reanalysis (reference [7] in the following) of Haverkos et al 1985 (reference [11]). It obviously predates your reference
  • Our findings do not support the notion that Kaposi's sarcoma is due to the use of the sexual stimulants known as poppers.[11] 57 of the 87 subjects who were included in the original study implicating poppers[11] had been interviewed for the CDC's case-control study of patients with AIDS diagnosed in 1981.[4] Reanalysis of the data from these 57 subjects shows that the men with Kaposi's sarcoma practised insertive rimming significantly more often than did men with other opportunistic infections and that there was no significant association with frequency of use and poppers.[7] --Peter cohen 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This NIDA sponsored research by Dax EM et al, (Pubmed PMID #: 2902516) found popper inhalation by humans to be immunosuppressive. This is a significant risk factor that should be included in the health risks section. The study demonstrated that natural killer cell function was significantly suppressed. It took 4 days for the immune system to recover and then the immune system stayed stimulated which is hazardous if a user had been exposed to HIV.HIV replication is dependent on a stimulated immune system.

The article should cite the original research instead of a health columnist. "4 days" should replace "a few days". And there needs to be an inclusion that the immune system stayed stimulated. Portraying a "return to normal" is inaccurate.

The interpretation of the research findings can include multiple perspectives but the findings of immunosuppression should be included. NPOV would allow for the research limitations and variable interpretations to be included. NPOV would not allow omission of this important research finding. Hankwilson 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Hank, this study was discussed at length a few weeks ago. Why are you again putting it up here?
If the work presented in this paper is accurate, the overshoot in immune activity could easily be interpreted as evidence for nitrite use causing an increase in immune function.
The study used only eight HIV- male volunteers, and the investigators found that amyl nitrite inhalation caused an initial suppression in immune function that was followed by an overshoot seven days after cessation of drug. The study had a low sample number and was not repeated.
As you have already been reminded, the results were also contradictory to results obtained by other research groups.
This study simply does not provide any credible support for any significant damage to the immune system, and it obviously does not warrant your creating a new section with such an alarmist and misleading heading.
You should stop doing this as it could fall within the definition of vandalism, which could get you banned.Munatobe7 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
With those few numbers I would certainly hope that it would only be used as part of a meta-analysis.

The link has been demonstrated multiple times in published epidemiological research. Whether the link is causal or correlational is unknown. NPOV allows inclusion of the published research findings and conclusions. NPOV allows qualification that whether the link is causal or correlational is unknown. Hankwilson 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the Beral et al. article I cited above suggests that the link can be correlational. That the sort of people who take poppers also behave in other ways that are high risk. Cna you give more details of the Drumright meta review? --Peter cohen 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hank, even if you're correct that "dozens of published research studies have found a significant link between popper use and risky sex and/or HIV infection" (a review of the literature does not support such a statement), there are "dozens" more which have contradicted such studies.
As was pointed out earlier, some of the studies you reference even demonstrated contradictory results within themselves.
As a result you cannot draw a conclusion of harm -- certainly not any significant harm.
The poppers article has stabilized and this has been made clear. NPOV means just that: neutral point of view. Munatobe7 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank, in your absence the poppers article had finally become stable. But now that you've resurfaced using your familiar tactics again, the discussion page has suddenly exploded with multiple new sections containing alarmist section titles.

Instead of starting up a shouting match again, would you be willing to allow a more civil discussion to take place around your suggestions that poppers are inherently dangerous. Would you be willing to calm down and take a more measured approach to making your case by presenting credible support for your statements rather than shouting at us with headlines atop ever more new sections? Munatobe7 23:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is tempting to add a new heading titled "TIRED OLD PISSING MATCH" to this page. Does no one, especially Hank Wilson, read the guidelines at the top of this page?

Within five blocks of my NYC home, there are at least 20 establishments that sell poppers. Thousands of bottles. If people were really getting ill, or worse, dying from the use of these products, wouldn't it be in the news?

Of course risky sex leads to HIV infection. If one is to indict popper use in that equation, then why not include lube, air, even incandescent light to the list, since they are likely present during risky sex also? The PRESENCE of poppers does not prove their CAUSE of risky behavior or HIV infection. One has only to look at the numbers (how many people use poppers vs. the rate of infection) to see the absurdity of such a claim. The idea that poppers cause risky sexual behavior is fantasical, neither factual nor scientific, as is the idea that sniffing this chemical suddenly causes someone to lose control of their ability to govern their behavior. Where are there people claiming, "I wouldn't be HIV-positive if I hadn't used poppers?"

What is truly unfortunate about this ongoing spitting match is that: 1) People seeking unbiased information on poppers are likely to be misled, or just turned off, by the overwhelming repetition and bias in these postings, and 2) People won't know who/what to trust for information when truly dangerous substances (such as crystal meth) merit warning bells (see the late Peter Jenning's courageous and informative ABC News special on Ecstasy, and how the government's mishandling/misinformation about that drug has lead to a lack of governmental credibility regarding actual drug hazards).

Please, for the sake of truth and in the name of civility, LET THIS END. All sides have stated their cases. There is clearly nothing more factual to add to the discussion. Quit trying to get the last word. Let THIS be the last word, and trust readers discern for themselves the truth about poppers.

This NIDA sponsored research by Dax EM et al, (Pubmed PMID #: 2902516) found popper inhalation by humans temporarily boosted the immune system. This is a significant factor that should be included in the health risks section.

The study demonstrated that the human immune system was temporarily boosted with a spike in function proving that improving the immune system is a positive side effect of poppers.

The interpretation of the research findings can include multiple perspectives but the findings of an immune system boost should be included. NPOV would allow for the research limitations and variable interpretations to be included. NPOV would not allow omission of this important research finding. Scientistdoc 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

People, let's not make a new heading on this page every time someone sneezes, okay? If you'd like to suggest improvement to a particular area of the article then making a clean heading for "Health Issues", for example, rather than sensationalist comments. --John T. Folden 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The sole human study to date on popper use concludes: "The results showed that exposure to amyl nitrite can induce changes in immune function even after short exposure to moderate doses. Several tests of immune function showed an "overshoot" over basal activity at 7 days following nitrite inhalation after an initial immunosuppression. A possible interpretation of the results would be that nitrites cause a cycling of immune activity between suppressed and nonspecific stimulated levels. This situation might result in a period of immunosuppression followed by a proliferative period in which virus-containing cells propagate in the presence of a nondirected immunosresponse."

While the National Toxicology Programm(NTP) demonstrated toxicity and carcinogenicity in rats and mice, NIDA's Dax study PMID assessed immunological effects of popper inhalation by humans. Natural killer cell activity showed an initial significant decrease, then returned to baseline levels by day 4 post-inhalation. The Dax human research (1988 PMID 2902516 and 1991 PMID 1685501) is worthy of noting because its a human inhalation study and compliments the findings of most of the animal inhalation studies: poppers effect the immune system. Admittedly, there are limitations of the research and whether the findings are negated is controversial.The controvery could be articulated with the goal of letting readers decide.

The Dax findings should be relayed to readers to foster an informed choice. Alternative perspectives should be included. Seems this multiple perspective inclusion fits in with NPOV .

The article should reference the demonstrated finding: inhalation of poppers by humans resulted in an initial immunosuppression effecting natural killer cell activity taking 4 days to recover to baseline followed by a 7 day cycle of immune stimulation.

Seems we have agreement that more research is needed. Prevalence of use warrants more research. Correlation with risky sex and HIV infection warrant more research. Hankwilson 06:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I'll play in the sandbox for just a second.
Wilson you sound like a broken record. Do you even read this page before you post? There is nothing to your comment that it "seems we have agreement that more research is needed." Where in the discussion has that even been discussed?
For the love of god people, especially Hank Wilson, please stop beating this dead horse. Poppers do NOT cause AIDS. Poppers do NOT cause KS. Poppers do NOT significantly impair the immune system.
They may not be totally harmless but what is? CNN ran a story two days ago about a woman who used too much of a body lotion, so much so it rose to a toxic level. Just a few months ago an athlete in California died from drinking so much WATER it became toxic.
Anything can be toxic at some level and poppers are no different. But there is no evidence that poppers are toxic or otherwise harmful at anything near the levels used by people exposed to those tiny bottles. For god's sake, they've been around for hundreds of years and no one has gotten hurt by inhaling them. Scientistdoc 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The second of the Dax articles 1991 PMID 1685501 does have an abstract I can find online. It looks suspiciously like the source for which the Simon Sheppard article (Speaking of Poppers. Sex Talk p. 2. Gay.com. Retrieved on 16 March 2007. “There is evidence that using poppers does lower immune function, though the damage is undone in at most a few days.”) is cited and I'm inclined to replace that citation with Dax. AFAIC for scientific claims it is better to site the original source rather than a lay exposition.--Peter cohen 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that using the actual study could possibly be a better idea then a lay exposition. But Meand had suggested that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (I think that's what he called them). Also we need to be mindful that some of the studies that were earlier used in the old references section were either flawed due to protocol problems or reached conflicting results.
On another matter, there is data discussed here that would indicate the statement on methemoglobinemia may be inaccurate.
A study in a nitrite bottling plant exposed men to high concentrations over long periods of time, with no resulting problems. The study is said to confirm that there is no significant potential toxicity due to methemoglobinemia from alkyl nitrite inhalation. Munatobe7 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The nitrite bottling plant study was paid for by a company headed by Joseph Miller, the owner of Great Lakes Products, producers of RUSH and self proclaimed "world's largest nitrite odorant company." The conductors of the study should disclose that their funding source had a Joseph Miller connection. The dose exposures of the workers could be very different from recreational popper users, who are intentionally inhaling concentrated doses of fumes. Also, there is a continuum of use among popper users from a few hits(inhalations) to dozens. Users at the highest end of the continuum would be at risk for methemoglobinemia. There are numerous emergency room reports in the journals reporting such cases.Hankwilson 05:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 05:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE to Hank Wilson: I'm reinserting my earlier two paragraphs which you deleted. Please don't take them as a personal attack as they were not intended as such. But, you seemed to imply that what appear to be preeminent researchers who authored Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds were bought off by the poppers industry and I was responding to that. Your attack on Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds coincides with your authorship of your own book on poppers, called Death Rush, which is reviewed on Amazon.com (unfavorably so). The question I posed to you makes sense in the context of your involvement in this article and your links to the poppers industry, and was not a personal attack. I'm sorry if you took it as same. Munatobe7 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The following was posted earlier today:
Hank are you suggesting that the authors of Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds were bought off by a poppers maker? At least two of the authors this book have impeccable pedigrees and the book, which is a quick read, appears to be credible (I downloaded the pdf from the website).
Is it possible that having published your own book, Death Rush (which is reviewed on Amazon.com and also available at a website run by you and John Lauritsen), shortly after Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds was released, you are unfairly biased against Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds? You seem to have a running and personal battle with anything associated with poppers. Munatobe7 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Death Rush was published in 1986. Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds was published in 1978 and commissioned by W.J. Freezer, chair of Pharmex, the company that at that time producing RUSH and Bolt. I was in error in attributing sponsorship of that publication to Joseph Miller who subsequently took over producing and marketing RUSH through his Great Lakes Products. I was correct in stating that the sponsor of the study was a manufacturer of poppers. The credentials and motivations of study investigators is always a potential issue and is why many publications require divulgence of funding sources...They call it "conflict of interest" statements.I would be impressed with a study which looked at exposure levels using direct inhalation, as opposed to passive inhalation as in the bottling study.
The Dax human study did measure direct inhalations. The inhalations were on the low end of the spectrum because the safety monitoring committee would not approve a greater number of inhalations. In the community, the number of inhalations varies from a short single hit, to dozens of hits. Not surprising that everyone does not develop metheglobinemia, but important to include with caution less people think that quantity of exposure is unimportant.
The exposure levels in the bottling plant study do not compare to intentional inhalers taking dozens of hits.
Size of the bottle is not important in metheglobinemia, it is the quantity of inhalations.
The poppers industry has circumvented pre safety testing mandated by the food and drug laws by labeling their products as room odorizers. This is a scam to avoid safety/toxicity testing which they would have been mandated to do to market an inhalant.
My goal is to educate about the known hazards of using poppers. Part of the education is to inform about the research findings. I received my first communication from Joseph Miller back in 1981 under the guise of an inquiry from CHEMSEARCH. It was years later that I recognized his signature as the owner of Great Lakes Products which was included in a series of full page popper ads in THE ADVOCATE. The series was billed "Blueprint for health" and ran for several months. This was a major campaign in 1983 to proclaim poppers safe and hazard free. Its the same message from the popper industry since 1981 despite 2+ decades of accumulating research.

I continue to meet gay men who are clueless, or misinformed, or confused about the research on poppers. My goal is to inform consumers and potential consumers about the hazards of popper use so that they can make an informed choice. We had the opportunity to ban poppers in SF back in 1982 and we(Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights, the gay and lesbian doctors organization) opted for an education strategy. We passed a point of sale warning law in 1982.West Hollywood and California followed our model in 1986 and passed a similar law. The need to educate continues.See the Seattle survey of 276 gay men. It is online. It shows the community wants information. Hankwilson 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On Primary v secondary sources: a well executed systematic review from a peer-reviewed journal is a secondary source that is preferable to the articles it reviews reporting the findings of individual research projects, the primary sources. So the review from Pharmacology looks to be the best source referenced in the article. Whilst one-off research articles have their limitations especially if they are epidemological studies or rodent studies rather than human random-control studies. It's a pity that no one has yet said they have access to the whole Pharmacoloy article and not just the abstract.
Less formal secondary sources, for example information sheets, depend on the understanding of those who put them together. I would respect a sheet produced by Drugscope because I know they have an extensive library of primary sources and, certainly when they were the ISDD, referenced the original sources. I would be wary of an unreferenced information sheet whose pedigree I did not know. Similarly I would be wary of newspaper reports as journalists often don't understand the subtleties of scientific reports. Then you come to secondary sources with an agenda which have been identified on both sides of a debate and I certainly would rather trust a peer-reviewed primary source than a biasded secondary source.--Peter cohen 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Your (Manitobe) link re methemoglobinemia appears to be to a paper published in 1978. The links in the article post-date that. Unfortunately they don't cite their sources, but as one is a government information sheet, I would tend to assume that it examines more up-to-date evidence than 1978. --Peter cohen 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter, yes the link I found is to a book that was published in 1979 called Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds. It's an interesting read, old but when it comes to methemoglobinemia I would think worth a consideration. Could you point me to the government information sheet you're referencing? I'd like to compare the two views on methemoglobinemia. It appears methemoglobinemia is not an issue worthy of note for people using the small poppers bottles, but it'd be interesting to see how the two views compare. Munatobe7 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of [2] Havign re-examined it is the drug data sheet, so I'm not sure whether it was created by the NZ government agency that publishes it online or by the manufacturer themselves. In either case ut was thought worth a mention. --Peter cohen 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is also mentioned by Merck if you follow through to the toxicology table. As a medical reference work, Merck is the sort of secondary source that I would regard as worth citing.--Peter cohen 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Merck would be a good secondary source. Does the Merck comment relate to inhalation of specific amounts? That seems to be a key to methemoglobinemia. Exposure by various methods can lead to methemoglobinemia, but sufficient inhalation from the small poppers bottle seems unlikely to result in methemoglobinemia. Munatobe7 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It doen's specify. It's about two thirds down the large pdf at [3] under nitrites. --Peter cohen 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology (2006) 1: 317-322. Abstract: Because inhalant nitrites were thought to be rapidly cleared from the body, the lay literature has somewhat downplayed their toxicity. However, scientific reports have documented their immunosuppressive effects in animals, and epidemiological studies have implicated their use with the development of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in humans. Because inhalant nitrites are exogenous nitric oxide donors, we hypothesized that these substances of abuse might exert part of their toxicological effects through this biochemical product, which has been shown to alter gene regulation and angiogenesis. In a series of studies, we showed that acute and chronic in vivo exposure to isobutyl nitrite produced significant tissue-dependent alterations in the expression of a number of cancer-and angiogenesis-related genes in mice. In particular, hepatic mRNA and protein expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was significantly stimulated. The in vivo growth rate of a subcutaneous VEGF-responsive tumor was also shown to be accerlerated by inhalant nitrite exposure. Because the development of KS is extensively linked to VEGF and its receptors, the purported link between inhalant nitrites and KS may be explained mechanistically, at least in part, through the stimulation of VEGF expression by these inhalants.

You can find this article online by doing a Google search: "Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology"; . The article's reference list is extensive and indicates multiple published research studies. The article takes issue with Andrew Weil's dismissal of poppers having any hazards.

The Ho-Leun Fung research group is funded by National Institutes of Drug Abuse to study immunospressive effects of poppers. The work builds on the previously NIDA funded work by the Soderberg group which demonstrated that poppers were immunosuppressive.

Some have discounted the immunosuppression findings. It has been demonstrated that poppers are immunosuppressive and this hazard of popper use should be included in a credible section on the health risks of poppers. The nuances of dosing, quantity, frequency of use, degrees of hazard should be included also.

This discussion overtime has illustrated that the perspective on poppers remains controversial. I support inclusion of the various perspectives on poppers and the research to date to facilitate a NPOV. Hankwilson 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is worth a mention, but there are some factors that prevent me from taking it as definitive. It is invited and therfore presumably not peer-reviewed; it is by authors whose own research forms an important part of the literature that they are reviewing, it concerns largely animal studies. However, their observations that the apparent lack of harm from poppers mentioned in earlier literature was contributed to by a lack of methods to research any harm makes sense. --Peter cohen 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I tend to disagree that the article may be worth a mention. The individuals who are 'invited' have their own agendas based on an already existing bias toward nitrites and a desire to bolster their previous published or even unpublished work. The subject work has also been shown to be flawed. And, the results of animal studies cannot be extrapolated to the human organ.
Hank, it's not particularly significant that people like Fung got their funding from NIDA. Lots of sloppy work comes out of research done by folks who were great grant writers able to get government grants. It happens all the time. In fact, the Fung studies have already been shown to have been flawed.
For example Fung and Keibasa, in their 2000 work in Biochem and Biophysic. Res. Comm, 275:335, exposed rats to excessive amounts of nitrites for hours -- nothing like human exposure. Their somewhat sloppy work could actually lead one to say that inhaling nitrites could actually depress tumoricidal activity. They certainly did not prove any harm comes from inhaling nitrites.
You continually bring up "the Soderberg group" as support for your theories that poppers are immunosuppressive. But aside from the fact that he appeared to have once be a prolific grant writer himself when he was working together with you in the 1980's, it has been shown that all of Soderberg's studies on nitrites were seriously flawed. The fact that you worked closely with him, even providing the compounds he used in his studies (whatever it was you gave him), shows that the two of you are clearly biased against poppers and have your own personal agendas in this article.
Your statement that Soderberg's previous work demonstrated that poppers were immunosuppressive is simply untrue. This has been pointed out ad nauseam over the past several months yet you continue to disregard it.
I would tend to disagree with your statement that this discussion has 'illustrated that the perspective on poppers remains controversial. Every-time a consensus is arrived at and a NPOV has been established, you have restarted the discussion and arguments all over again.
Since you discovered how to create new sections in the Discussion page you have continually opened new sections with either alarmist or misleading titles. You were asked not to do that two days ago yet you did it again today. In discussion after discussion here we have been unable to find any credible support for your statements that poppers are significantly immunosuppressive in humans. And in a NPOV consensus article, both claims have been described. What more is it that you want in the article on this matter? Munatobe7 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
the complete article is available online. www.springerlink.com/content/vp5555853053?sortorder=asc&p_o=10

for the article "Effects of inhalant nitrites on VEGF expression: a feasible link to Kaposi's sarcoma." by Ho-Leung Fung and Donah C. Tran in Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology (2006) 1:317-322.

As for the bottling plant study, just a head's up of who sponsored the study. The cigarette/tobacco industry have hired guns including "experts" with credentials.
As for the ad hominen attack on Hank Wilson, Wilson stopped working with Lauritsen when Lauritsen became an AIDS denialist and an a leader/spokesman in the AIDS denialist movement.The book DeathRush was written prior to AIDS denialism. Wilson is a longtime AIDS activist open about his being a person with AIDS. Wilson is a long term AIDS survivor.Wilson is an AIDS educator and debunks AIDS denialism.
As for the critique of the Soderberg, Fung, and other NIDA researchers methodology, there has been no consensus that the research is flawed.There has been a core of debunkers of the research,difficult to tell how many and if they are paid by the poppers industry, but their credentials are questionable and unpublished. It's common practice for researchers to fine tune their research overtime and modify protocols to mitigate limitations. The body of research produced, taken as a whole, supports the claim that poppers are immunosuppressive. Not a suggestion, but a demonstrated finding of the published research.
As for working with Soderberg, Wilson provided one bottle of RUSH to enable Soderberg to do some preliminary analysis. This was in the early 90's when people were dying predictably and the life saving treatments had not been discovered. There was a sense of urgency about proceeding with the research. Soderberg subsequently accessed his own supply of poppers for subsequent work.
I would advise anyone new to this discussion to review the archives and examine who supports acknowledging the controversies and who resorts to ad hominem attacks, and who predictably deletes information.
the poppers industry is alive and marketing as if there was no federal ban. Their perspective surfaces in this discussion regularly and predictably. Beware. Hankwilson 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is what I was responding to earlier, your attempt to disparage the authors of the book Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds. An earlier attempt to point out your potential personal conflict came across to you as a personal attack, which it was not meant to be. Please don't take the following as a personal attack, as it is not intended to be such. It's simply pointing out some facts.
It's valuable to know if there was a connection to the book by the poppers industry, though that in and of itself does not necessarily diminish the validity of the information it contains or it's importance as a credible reference on the subject. There is no doubt the authors are credible and recognized experts in their fields. In the case of Dr. Nickerson it's hard to believe he could be bought off. Did you read his bio on the U. of Michigan site?
What's more important is whether or not there is a pattern in this article of anyone planting misleading information or using unnecessarily alarmist section headings in a potential effort to sway the debate or disparage other people.
Fact: In your allegation you make claims that a company called Great Lakes Products paid for the "bottling plant study". But, in the preface of the book the authors of Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds give gratitude to two large drug companies, Burroughs Wellome Company and Eli Lilly and Company, as well as a company called Pacific Western Distributing for their help. There is no mention of Great Lakes Products. In both this TIME magazine article and this Wall Street Journal article, both written around the time of the book's publication, the Chairman of Pacific Western is reported to be W. Jay Freezer. In an article hosted on Peter Duesberg's anti-popper/anti-HIV site, where you are also prominently mentioned, W. Jay Freezer is referred to as the "Pope of Poppers".
Fact: You are mentioned in numerous articles like this one as having published your own book called "Death Rush", which is reviewed on Amazon.com (unfavorably so), and which is at odds with Isobutyl Nitrite and Related Compounds. In your own words you make claims that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but instead by poppers.
Fact: You have used the sections feature of the Discussion page in the past and just this week to post unnecessarily alarmist comments, which you were asked not to do.
Contrary to what you've said, there have been credible analysis of the studies you keep posting in this article (some by no less an AIDS expert then the researcher who gave AIDS its name) which have shown that many if not most of these studies were flawed in their protocols and/or produced conflicting results with other studies. Moreover, in some of the studies you referenced, the researchers produced conflicting results in their own studies. When this happens you cannot use those studies as support for statements like you've been making about poppers. The alarmist section headings you've been creating have been inappropriate.
Whether a "poppers industry is alive" or not is irrelevant in the context of this article. Even if it were dead the article must be at NPOV. Several people have been trying to get this article stabilized at NPOV for quite some time. The article has been at consensus a number of times, but each time you have disagreed and restarted the debate. Are you interested in getting this article to NPOV?
With all the respect due an AIDS activist, but given that it appears that most other AIDS activists do not share your views on poppers, have you ever considered that it's possible you may be too close to the subject to be objective, or that you may be operating from the constraints of a personal agenda? Munatobe7 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. First off to Hank. Do NOT remove other users comments from a Talk page such as this, unless they are clearly vandalism. That was most certainly not the case with the ones you removed earlier. If you have a legitimate complaint with a post then there are proper channels but you can't remove something just because you don't wish to deal with it or have other people see it. If you're directly connected to the issue in any way, I think it should be noted. Secondly, please refrain from continually making new headers for articles that all center around the Health Issues section of the page. It just makes a mess and there's no reason to have them continually separated as we are NOT here to debate each and every article or report in existence.

As a general note, I'd like to politely suggest that we NOT continually bring up new articles and sources for inclusion unless they are going to dramatically change how we look at the Health Issues section. Personally, I think the Health Issues section is already getting MUCH too wordy. It was nicely concise just a couple of weeks ago and is starting to creep into cruft again, imo. I think it would be nice if we could streamline that section just a bit, again. --John T. Folden 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.
Which is why I'm hesitant to post this link, but has anyone read Death Rush?
Be prepared. It's extremely anti-popper, anti-HIV, anti-anyone or anything that does not say poppers are dangerous. It's chilling how virulent it is, and how militant Wilson and his co-author come across. And how wrong they are on so much of what they rant against. These guys blame the U.S. government, gay leaders, gay journalists and newspapers, and anyone else who does not agree with them. It is full of utter bull shit. These two guys are very angry men.
It's evident this is the wellspring for Hank Wilson's posts and ranting in this poppers article. It includes the same studies he's been posting here and uses similar tactics of misleading statements, half-truths and falsehoods.
His co-author has put the book on a private wiki and blocks anyone from posting any comments. The discussion page is locked.
Sorry, but there's no way Hank Wilson can ever be objective on the subject of poppers. He will never be able to say he made a mistake or be able to accept a NPOV poppers article. As they say, it just ain't possible!
Scientistdoc 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I resent the suggestion that my changes to the health section are just cruft. I have added references to peer-reviewed journals looking at the argument that is continuing within respectable research circles. This talk page is dominated by single purpose accounts. User:Hankwilson is one of these and there are posts from IP addresses that seem overly keen to back him up. But at least the name means we know who Hank is and people can link him to a well-publicised stance beyond the world of Wikipedia. However there are a number of single purpose accounts on the other side of the argument too who hide behing pseudonyms such as, yes, User:Scientistdoc. I have gone to the academic research literature using MEDLINE to try to find the real evidence rather than going to propaganda sites and I have written up what I have found. If you want the NPOV tag removed, then you have to accept the sort of contribution I have made. Now if you really want to get rid of cruft, why not look at the popular culture section? --Peter cohen 08:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter, my "I couldn't agree more" comment was about Hank Wilson's abuse of the Talk page, not the 'cruft' comment. But I think cruft could become a problem again if not watched. Your contributions are fine. I don't think anyone's complained about them. Yes I'm a single purpose account, but that's my right. You live far enough away that you don't have to worry about Hank Wilson, I'm not that lucky. Did you see my earlier post with the NIDA reference? Not from a propaganda site. :-) Yep. You're right, the popular culture section doesn't make any sense to me, either. Scientistdoc 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you were focusing on Hank's contributions that's fine. But my additions to the health section do seem to be what User:Jtfolden is concerned with. I'd appreciate a more detailed criticism than the pejorative "cruft". As for your reference to NIDA, I think you'll find that in large parts of Europe that NIDA is regarded as a propaganda organisation by many drug professionals ;-). --Peter cohen 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Peter my comment was not aimed directly at your edits specifically and am sorry if you took it that way. My comment was perhaps more pre-emptive than anything because, in the past, that section has been extremely volatile. It goes through a predictable cycle where it will grow and grow and grow to become the focal point of the page, only to be finally hacked away on until it's concise again and then a couple months later will balloon to ungainly proportions once more. It needs constant looking after and people need to keep this in mind as they edit it, not only to see if they are making valid editions but if the source and statements can be more concisely presented. --John T. Folden 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if it wa pre-emptive and you're not propsong removing my attempts. --Peter cohen 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What the heck just happened? I'm away from my computer for 20 minutes and it looks like Hank Wilson blatantly deleted my post and John T Folden then reverted it back. Is that what happened? Wilson said he did not remove that post earlier today? Hellooooo.......he deleted it. We all saw it. He was called on it. Not only is this vandalism, but there may be a bit of 'convenient memory lapse' going on, or maybe even pathological lying. Anyhooo.... Hank, don't delete my posts. It's vandalism. Scientistdoc 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I find the behavior most troubling and I, also, find it most interesting in regard to the specific responses he chose to delete. Once is bad enough but to lie about it as you delete a second one within the same edit is just... well, I shan't say here but it isn't good and if someone took it upon themselves to contact an Admin or similar I would think it justified. --John T. Folden 06:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
At first I couldn't believe what Hank Wilson had just done in deleting both our posts, and then editing and plagiarizing parts of your post for his own. It was like I had to rub my eyes and then re-read it on the history page to be sure of what I thought I just saw. He was so blatant about it. But even more bizarre, when he tried to cover his butt on his earlier vandalism, he just boldly lied about it. Like it never happened. Can it be that Wilson doesn't understand that when you post or edit something in Wikipedia, a record of your actions is there forever? Scientistdoc 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at the history page and comparing the most recent versions with Wilson's vandalism.

Hank, you state that John T Folden is "mistaken about you removing material". You tell him it "was someone else", and that you "also did not get to see it...". Then you say that you assumed it was "another ad hominem attack" which someone else removed. But if you go back up and read it, you'll see that you actually RESPONDED to it after your deletion of it was reverted! What's your problem? That's a bold-faced lie. (Or am I missing something here?)

First you delete a legitimate post this morning, then you lie about it, then you delete another post tonight, then you cut and paste some of the deleted post and add it to some stuff you come up with trying to make it appear it's all yours.

This is exactly the kind of stuff you find on the site with your book, where you use the same kind of tactics. You can get by with that on your private wiki because you lock out comments, but you won't get by with it here. That kind of stuff is vandalism. Scientistdoc 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reactions to KS - Poppers Connection article in The Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology ?

Any reaction to this published article?

I think the part about Andrew Weil's assessments of dangers of popper use are especially pertinent.Hankwilson 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented above. So did User Munatobe7. Why have you created a new heading for this? --Peter cohen 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I was interested in feedback from Scientistdoc to see if where common ground might be on the KS issue. I thought the article brings the KS poppers connection controversy up to current...as opposed to relying on older references.Hankwilson 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That article may be more up-to-date, but it isn't peer-reviewed ehich I think is important in such a polarised discussion as this. Also the type of reviews that are most scientifically respectable are systematic reviews where clear criteria are laid out in advance for how reviewed articles are found and for what inclusion/exclusion criteria apply. I suspect that the review from Pharmacotherapy might be systematic, but I, or someone else, would need to look at the article itself and that needs a fee paid unless we can find someone (an American pharmacist?) who has access to it. The article you have included is not systematic. --Peter cohen 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting information is not my intent. If it happened it was accidental. That said I would welcome an objective review of the deletion and personal attacks.

A review is welcome on deletions as well as personal attacks. I will use this format for making input. I think this format has no deletion results. Not so sure about other option.

There is a live controversy between those who believe that popper use is a significant hazard and those who do not. The current article does not do justice to the controversy. There is plenty of space on wikipedia to have a full inclusion of the controversy. Can hazards of popper use be included? Can research results be included? Can recommendations of AIDS researchers and prevention workers be included? How does a NPOV for the article allow for divergent opinions to be included in an article? Hankwilson 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hank, your arrogance could be described as nothing short of astounding. Do you seriously believe anyone will fall for this nonsense or allow these tactics to go on?
"IF" a deletion happened? It not only happened, but it happened twice. The second time you selectively deleted someone's post and then took parts of the deleted post, plagiarized it and used it in your own post!
Now you've thumbed your nose at others and created two new sections, after having been asked not to do this stuff. Helen Keller could get a clue better than you. No one here wants to waste time arguing with you about your bizarre behavior when there's nothing to debate or 'review', it's all a matter of public record. Nothing you say can change that.
At the least this is really bizarre behavior which could also be described as scary. Scientistdoc 08:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank, how about it. Do you think we should create a new section with this NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) Research information: "The recreational use of inhalants such as amyl and butyl nitrite has become more common in the last decade. We are not aware of any data to suggest direct neurotoxicity associated with the abuse of these substances. "

This is from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It's a 1990 Research Monograph Series called 'Residual Effects of Abused Drugs on Behavior'.

NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the Index Medicus and are included in the coverage of American Statistics Index, BioSciences Information Service, Chemical Abstracts, Current Contents, Psychological Abstracts, and Psychopharmacology Abstract.

How about it, should we create a new section with this info? It's never been discussed on this Talk page.

(This may rightfully be tossed because someone might consider it an incitement to vandalism, but it's just a joke to demonstrate the absurdity of what Hank Wilson is doing. ) Scientistdoc 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


The deletions in question can be viewed here. (I'm sure there's a tidier way to link to these but I'm not yet sure how): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poppers&diff=next&oldid=138139432

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poppers&diff=next&oldid=138280701

Now, I see people reply incorrectly all the time (which I can give the benefit of the doubt that you did that when attempting to respond to my specific comments). HOWEVER, the two posts that you removed, were removed very cleanly. It doesn't look to me like the type of thing to happen accidently. Just my POV of the subject. I'd also like to ask again that you not keep making new sections for each article suggestion. Simply add it onto the end of the Health Issues discussion section. --John T. Folden 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which Nitrate in which Product

Which ic in Jungle Juice? and is the effect different depending on which nitrate uded or just the strength? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up tags

There are now two clean-up tags in the article which I feel the team of editors in this discussion topic should work to remove.

Trivia

The less controversial one is the trivia tag. I feel there is some value in having some material on poppers in culture, (popular or otherwise,) with an indication that it appeared in works from the 1970s onwards, often ones with a sexual theme (Score, Queer As Folk etc.) What is not needed is a collection fancruft like the reference to them in the first line of a NOFX song - one of my favourite bands but it's trivia - unless there are no other references to poppers in songs after 2000 and there is a source looking at nitrites going out of vogue.

The trivia section should probably stay as is since it's probably reasonable to expect people to try to dump such stuff in the article over time. It'll be easier to make them park that kind of thing here then to try to add it to the article somewhere else. Munatobe7 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Munatobe, if the article is to contain a trivia section, it at least needs to be written up as a proper section of uses in popular media. I suggest limiting it to major books and films, rather than just anything that mentions poppers. Thus, for example, the notes on mentions in the press would go. On the talk page of most films and books, there is a rating of the importance of the article to Wikipedia (for example, Great Expectations is of top importance, whereas Verdigris Deep is of low importance). If nobody else does, I'll try and rewrite it at some point after next week (damn exams!). me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Studies come first! :-) Scientistdoc 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote to eliminate the trivia section entirely. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article and IMO the article be better without it. Scientistdoc 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


I think the article lacks much of a sociological perspective. I used to have a copy of Tyler's Street Drugs, which was good on that sort of thing, but it has been "borrowed" permanently. I think a culture section which dientifies the sort of works and scenes within those works include poppers might cover the gap. --Peter cohen 11:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The lack of a sociological perspective seems to me to be the last remaining area in the article that needs work. I'd agree that the section entries should be limited to major books and films.
Peter, I'm not sure what you envision as being important enough to be included in a cultural section but Meand's idea of using a rating system goes toward creating a standard to go by. You're right that a culture section which identifies the sort of works and scenes within those works that included poppers makes a great deal of sense.
Andrew Tyler's Street Drugs has a good reputation for telling it like it is. Do you know what the book has to say about poppers?
There's a quote taken from E.M. Brecher's book from the Consumers Union, "Licit and Illicit Drugs", where Brecher says that while he personally found amyl nitrite sexually unrewarding, a lady friend told him that: "For me, an orgasm is like a hippopotamus. But with amyl nitrite, it is like a whole herd of hippopotami."
I remember seeing Nunsense on Broadway and watching the nun hold up a bottle of RUSH while an entire scene was played out around poppers.
It also seems important from a sociological perspective to include the scene in the HBO adaptation of Randy Shilts' book "And the Band Played On", where Lilly Tomlin encounters poppers in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco and they're discussed in the context of the AIDS crisis.
Just some thoughts. Munatobe7 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my copy of Street drugs went missing long enough ago for me not to remember how much space he gave to poppers. And there's been another edition since the one I had. But Tyler tended to give good historical and sociological backgrounds. I can remember his talking about things such as the opium wars and the golden triangle and crescent in the chapter on heroin.
I searched CSA Sociological Abstracts earlier. They had twenty to thirty articles on poppers, mainly looking at them as a gay or youth drug. Much covered the discussions on sexual context, allegations re AIDS etc we had already discussed. Some stuff on how poppers are seen by some users as just another form of pleasure seeking and some on hwo young users are more likely than their non-using peers to be delinquent. I'm not sure how many of the full articles I have access to. I think a description of the types of cutural works that feature poppers would actually cover similar grounds as the works tend to be concerned with subcultures, sex and gays. I'll add a couple of bits in the main article. --Peter cohen 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


In looking around at various Wikipedia articles for examples of 'popular culture' sections, I came across rimming, giving me a whole new perspective on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. :-)
But I think a popular culture section for the poppers article is essential, and if done carefully, could be an important component. However, beware, such a section could easily get out of hand and become a dumping ground for all kinds of material. It would require monitoring. Munatobe7 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


The trivia section is not really trivia at all, just a list of pop culture references. Why not just rename it 'Poppers in popular culture'? --Karuna8 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

The votes are in and the winner is: "No merge". Is it time to get rid of the 'merge' tag, too? Scientistdoc 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV=

As far as the NPOV tag on the health section is concerned, I feel the article is currently neutral. Are there any issues highlighted in systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals or by medical or pharmacological references of the nature of Merck that are not included in the section? With one-eyed material being published by both pro- and anti- authors, I feel it reasonably to set the bar at this level on what to include. --Peter cohen 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right Peter. The NPOV tag can finally be removed. The article seems very stable now.
Good job team! Especially to Mean, John T Folden and Peter Cohen for bringing some sense to the debate while adding a dash of discipline by holding people's feet to the fire on support for their statements.
One example of something that could also be added to this section is that Lilly Tomlin, playing a health official, encounters poppers for the first time in a gay bath house in San Francisco as depicted in the HBO movie "And the Band Played On", based on the book by famous AIDS reporter Randy Shilts of the San Francisco newspaper. Munatobe7 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I know many think the article is at NPOV, and I think it's close. But I have a suggestion that could help the article some more.
There should be a mention of the most current data which shows no link between popper use and unprotected sex amongst HIV-positive gay men in Sydney . This is a major study, the only one of its kind in the world, designed specifically to look at the matter. That fact, along with the results of the study which show there is no link between unsex sex leading to HIV/AIDS and poppers, makes it worthy of being included in the Health Issues section IMO.
This seems an important addition to the overall attempt to get Health Issues section to NPOV. I think this study's link at AIDSMAP should be a reference in the Health Section at a minimum, and maybe even mentioned in the section. Scientistdoc 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The free full text access on the internet for the Journal Of Neuroimmune Pharmacology "Ks - Poppers Connection" review article.
two options: www.springerlink.com/content/t57j471321784061/fulltext.pdf
www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html
Also, note many of the references cited in this review were not cited in the Romanelli review. Both reviews have strengths and weaknesses. Romanelli failed to cite any of the studies finding immunosuppression.
note in contrast to the Australian article is the Drumright LN et al. 2006 Review article on club drugs and HIV transmission risk behavior. PubMed ID 17002993
and the Ostrow DG case control study of HIV transmission PubMed 6562964
I earlier posted 9 other PMID recent studies showing popper use related to risky sex....in contrast to the Australian article.
Also, the Australians found no association between crystal meth and risky behavior in contrast to US studies.Hankwilson 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Scientistdoc, I'm not convinced the article you cite says anything that hasn't already been said in pro-popper research; I'm concerned that attempting to include it would start another "citation war". me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. It's like playing poker always trying to one-up the next guy. First there's the Australian study, then we're reminded about other studies finding differently, and it goes on and on. Scientistdoc 09:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Okay I have now added those bits and run out of articles I can access online from my search. --Peter cohen 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice touch Peter! I added the bit about sales to minors to help round it out. Munatobe7 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Your addition worked out quite nicely given that I had just discovered very different published rates for young people in the UK. --Peter cohen 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
At one point I was not allowed to record my changes directly and I thought something was broken; but it turned out you were editing at the same time. Isn't it time for you to go to bed! :-) Munatobe7 23:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)



Re the articles suggested by Scientistdoc and HankWilson. First, the Australian findings. Here's the abstract:
  • Background: Illicit drug use among gay men is common and is associated with behaviours that are at high risk for HIV transmission.
  • Methods: We explored illicit drug use within an ongoing cohort study of gay men living with HIV in Sydney, Australia. Most (84.3%) of the 274 New South Wales participants interviewed in 2004 for the Positive Health Cohort of HIV-seropositive gay men had used illicit drugs in the 6 months before their baseline interview.
  • Results: One in six men (17.8%) used 'party drugs' at least monthly. At 12 months' follow-up, in 2005, these patterns of illicit drug use were similar. Being younger, participating in gay 'party scenes' and engaging in 'esoteric sex practices' at baseline were associated with any and more frequent use of party drugs, both in 2004 and 2005. Illicit drug use was, however, not associated with condom use at the most recent sexual encounters.
  • Discussion: Illicit drug use appears to be highly contextual among these gay men living with HIV, and the association with risk behaviour may reflect participation in sexually adventurous subcultures as much as a direct causal effect.
It adds nothing to what is already in the article about a correlation between poppers and certain higher risk behaviours.
Next Drumright et al.
  • We reviewed medical and psychology databases for articles published between January 1980 and August 2005 demonstrating associations between HIV/Sexually Transmitted Infection risk and club drug use. Seventy-four articles were reviewed, of which 30 provided adjusted risk ratios for associations between HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk and club drug use among men who have sex with men. Definitions and lists of club drugs were broad and inconsistent. We constructed a conceptual framework of biologically plausible pathways for causation. Using Hill's criteria to examine club drugs as causal risk factors for HIV, we found the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites; however, more studies are needed.
There's a clear publication bias in how they describe their review. The summary of findings is too vague to be clear but it probably is worth mentioning that some authors are looking for biological pathways.
I'm still wary of the Journal Of Neuroimmune Pharmacology "Ks - Poppers Connection" review article as a) it was invited and b) does not describe any sort of systematic search methodology, c) was by authors with an already clear perspective on the issue.
Ostrow is just one study and quite small.
If you have access to Romanelli et al and their methodology, I'll be interested to see it.--Peter cohen 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Good perspective on each of the articles. Impressive input. I agree with your comments on each article. Scientistdoc 10:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the additional edits about KS. IMO editors here should be careful not to let the article go off on a tangent and become an article on Kaposi's sarcoma, where BTW there is no mention of poppers as causative or even recognized as a factor. Scientistdoc 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive comment. I inserted the one extra sentence in line with the comment I made under Drumright. I think a fair summary of the state of play is "There is a correlation; some researchers explain it by what else popper users get up to; others think that there is mileage in looking for causal mechanisms." I think that is now what the article says.--Peter cohen 11:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I am removing part of the description of the Senate review as it is superceded by later reviews already mentioned in the article. --Peter cohen 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I reinserted that because I thought it had accidently gotten deleted. No problem with your edit. It makes sense. Scientistdoc 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. --Peter cohen 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I thought for fairness and better balance it made sense to note that the Congressional investigation actually also included a finding on Kaposi's sarcoma in addition to HIV/AIDS. I hope you agree. These are two separate (though related) issues. Munatobe7 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's have another go at agreeing that we have achieved NPOV. I vote yes. --Peter cohen 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum

I have just archived most of the conversations on this page; the vast majority had very little to do with the article. It already says this above, but if editors could please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Per the warning template at the top of this page, it is acceptable to delete comments that are devoted to the discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers. Saying that the article should say x as cited at y is acceptable and encouraged. Saying that poppers are fun/dangerous/whatever does not contribute to the article and only serves to make the talk page harder to follow for other editors. me_and 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Peter cohen 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! Go to the head of he class. Scientistdoc 09:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to archive all that conversation. It's good for history, but what a mess.
Your reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and that its standards allow for deletion of comments that are merely devoted to the benefits or risks of poppers, provides valuable support for responsible editors to help keep both the article and this talk page clean. But it will require vigilance.
Is the article at a point where it could be nominated for even the minor award of being "good" yet? Munatobe7 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty close. Wikipedia:What is a good article? gives the criteria. I think the trivia section needs to be dealt with before we apply. And the issue on the pictures copyright mentioned on your tlak page needs to be cleared up. --Peter cohen 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am trying to improve the article by adding graphics where appropriate. In the process of learning how to do this it became clear we must be careful about trademarks and brand names. As a result, I've added '®' where appropriate.

I am not a graphics designer, so if anyone has any suggestions about changes, don't be shy about saying so. :-) Munatobe7 03:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures make the text look better, but I've noticed the query on the copyright status on your page. --Peter cohen 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the pictures make the entire article look much better. Other well-done Wikipedia articles are similarly sprinkled with pertinent photos and/or graphics.
The copyright issue is important and I didn't handle it properly. Thanks to Meand I'm fixing that. Of the three photos I added, one has been removed: Leonardo's Sphincter Muscles (I agree it really didn't fit the article); one is ok: The use of the graph is permissible, with attribution, per the owner's copyright notice and I've fixed that on the image page.
The third image is the one at the top of the page. I scoured the web looking for an image that would show some of the many brands and sizes but which were not already opened/used (like the previous image). I came across a static, one-page site, that oddly has no contact info. I'm not sure what it's for. I grabbed the image from this site.
Should I send an email to 'info' at the URL and see if I can get permission to use the image? Or do you know of another 'legal' image that could be used to illustrate current-day 'poppers' at the top of the article? Munatobe7 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I forgot. I did four images. Sorry about that. The amyl nitrite image from the Mandate add also needs to be dealt with. Not understanding the copyright tags I hastily chose the one that says I created the work.
I've found the Mandate magazine website. Should I email them to see if we can have permission to use the image? Munatobe7 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Going through my collection of old men's magazines produced several advertisements for RUSH and other popper brands. I replaced the one with the copyright ambiguity with one that I felt qualified and which also seemed appropriate for the section. My collection goes as far back as the mid-1970's. Let me know if you want any others. Nospinhere 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I object to the photo. 1.It looks promotional and has appeared in promotional ads. 2. The photo promotes specific products and brands. There should be a generic picture, brandless if any.3.

The sales in the United States are illegal. The brands shown have chemical formulas which are illegal to sell and distribute as poppers.Hankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An issue with the pictures is finding a free to use one or one in the public domain. If you have a brand-free one that meets these criteria, let us know. --Peter cohen 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Peter's comment, I'd like to point out that "looks promotional" or the legal status of the product is not in itself a reason to remove a picture, imo. It's obvious that marketing and selling poppers is not the intention of this article. These are there for clarification of the text and for historical reasons (as in the case of the advert). I'm not sure what their status in the US has to do with anything, either. --John T. Folden 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am researching the Prestage study from Australia and will be challenging some of the information presented on this discussion board. Also researching another study which was dismissed because of having less number of participants, when in fact it has more. This was a misrepresentation of which may affect the article.Hankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The Prestage study has not been included in the article. Therefore, as this is not a forum, there is no need to discuss it further here unless you or someone else coem up with a reason for inclusion. For the other point you need to be more specific. And you should raise it as a comment to where it is discussed, instead of here. --Peter cohen 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism -- major deletion attempt by anonymous editor

I just caught an attempt by an anonymous editor (apparently located in the Denver, Colorado area) to completely delete an entire section, with no good reason given. Please do not delete sections from this article without discussion and consensus first.

An international team of editors has worked diligently for quite some time to bring the poppers article into compliance with NPOV, and to futher enhance and improve it. Please do not make arbitrary deletions. It is requested that you give these hard-working editors the respect they deserve by discussing your concerns and proposed changes to this article on this talk page before making any significant changes.

Depending on the nature of your edit, disregarding this request may result in a reversion of your edits without discussion and/or a report of vandalism.

Thank you for your cooperation. Munatobe7 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Peter, I note the upset editor earlier today who deleted the "Users" section. I think I know why he's upset.

I've closely read the TIME Magazine and Wall Street Journal articles on poppers and it's clear that the use of poppers is not confined primarily to gays and drug-users. I suspect that the 1988 study you found was biased due to the fact that it was undertaken in an area known for high crime and drug use in general -- the Baltimore-Washington DC area, which is still true today.

Both the TIME and Wall Street Journal investigations found that popper use was spread across a wide spectrum of people, from construction workers ("I carry a bottle with me all the time," 28 year old California carpenter Ron Braun told TIME), to a "trendy East Side NYC couple at a chic NYC nightclub, to disco dancers, and from a "Los Angeles businesswoman in the middle of a particularly hectic public-relations job" who confided to the WSJ author that "I could really use a popper now."

I've taken the liberty to edit only the first paragraph in the Users section to better accommodate the upset editor and to more fully describe the results of the media's investigation. Munatobe7 06:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that my additions were referenced, despite the claim they weren't, and were based on scans of two academic databases, the deletions were most certainly vandalism. Perhaps the association with gay men and general drug users are in the mind of academics but a scan of, for example, ZETOC for poppers shows that research is largely published in journals concerned with gays, AIDS or health in general or general drug use. (That is once you ignore all the reference to Karl Popper also shown up.) Thanks for reinstating my text.
Munatobe, can I suggest that you include a reference to specific issues of Time and WSJ or to your source which references them. --Peter cohen 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the lapse. Munatobe7 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I now notice that the articles you reference were the two in the trivia section. I'll remove the mention from there, as it was already suggested that they should go. --Peter cohen 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hank Wilson's Objection to Images in the poppers article

I hope this doesn't turn into a big deal, but I though it best to separate the images issue just in case it does. It'll be easier to keep it all in one place on the Talk page.

Hank, your objection to the images in the article are noted. But it's difficult to do justice to a description of the history of poppers in an encyclopedia or on Wikipedia, without mentioning RUSH® or Locker Room® just as you can't describe the history of automobiles, soft drinks or toothpaste without mentioning Chevy® or Ford®, Coke® or Pepsi®, or Crest® or Colgate®. RUSH® and Locker Room® are the brands most often mentioned in the media reports of the time. I think the RUSH® image (which is a decades-old promotional advertisement in a major men's magazine), instead of the amyl nitrite image I'd first used, is a much better example of the "aggressive marketing" that is being reported on by the TIME and Wall Street Journal articles referenced in that section.

I have to say, I think your objections ring hollow. In searching for appropriate images to use, I discovered that on sites where you are either affiliated or where your anti-popper book is promoted, there are numerous images or photos of branded poppers, including past advertisements for various brands. In fact I took the "amyl nitrite" ad directly from this site (Which is one of the reasons I did not know how to account for its copyright status). On this page on that same site there are at least 16 other images of past promotional advertisements for branded poppers.

The entire editing team (including moi) has spent a lot of time and undertaken a lot of hard work to get this article to a point where it's stable and a potential nominee for a Wikipedia "Good Article" award, and we have been sensitive to your many complaints and suggestions. But, with all due respect, your close relationship to this subject, as a well-known anti-popper activist, and your apparent lack of objectivity, seems to be making it hard for you to accept a NPOV in this article. None the less, if you have constructive criticisms they are welcome, and if you have any images you think might be appropriate for the article we'd like to see them. Munatobe7 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind criticism of my edits if based on sound reason. The 1980 Penthouse advertisement shows the "aggressive advertising" reported by the two mainstream papers. I don't see how this is any different then all the old advertisements you've apparently presented at meetings and Symposiums going back to 1981.
That site, by the way, is full of outrageous statements and misinformation and shows you have a proven bias against poppers dating back to at least 1981 (a quarter century). The co-author of your anti-popper book claims you've been "ignored" by the press for years and have even been "attacked" by the press ..."for criticizing poppers". (Why would the press attack you for criticizing poppers?)
One of his most dramatic claims implies that he's even had his life threatened by a gay physician over your anti-popper collaboration: "I began collaborating with Wilson in 1983. We published a series of pamphlets and, in 1986, a little book, Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS. In 1983 I spoke out publicly against poppers for the first time, at a meeting of the New York Safer Sex Committee. I was savagely attacked on the spot by a gay physician (now dead from "AIDS"), who waved his arms and screamed at me like a maniac. That evening I received a death threat. The phone rang. It was a woman who said, coldly and professionally: "Don't be surprised if you don't wake up in the morning. 'CLICK'"
That sounds a lilttle far-fetched to me, but if you claim it happened, it must be so. NPOV requires a bit more reason and consideration to a subject. Nospinhere 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I found that article quite, shall we say, interesting, can I just point out that "this is not a forum"? --Peter cohen 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Congress banned sales of isotbutyl nitrite in 1988 and then banned sales of alkyl nitrites...the broad class of poppers..in 1990.

The federal ban on sales of alkyl nitrites went into effect in 1991. A reference is needed for that and it could be one of the existing references...2002 CPSC memo might. Hankwilson 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a pointer to 1991 but have found a press release giving 1990. --Peter cohen 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I added to the sentence about the 1969 reversal of the FDA to include recreational use because it's my understanding that was the reason for the change. That they were concerned about so many people buying it OTC and using it for increased sexual pleasure. Scientistdoc 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

UK

I've reverted the edit about the UK until discussion takes place. I looked at the page linked to but cannot find anything that says sale is prohibited. Can you lead us to the text that shows that sales are prohibited? Also, do you have any idea why sales still allowed? Perhaps it's due to various formualtions?

Also, we're trying to clean up the article and are listing support as references/footnotes, not inline links to the articles. If this info is to be included it should be woven into the text. Munatobe7 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is listed as category C2 in Schedule 2. That category is discussed in the section referenced. I'll look at how the text is put together, particularly referencing but I expect to be at least partially undoing your revert --Peter cohen 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Peter. I didn't have time to rewrite the section to include the information at the time. Your insertion works well. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of weaving it into the main paragraph a little differently, and also noting that retail sale appears to be 'technically' prohibited, not 'effectively' prohibited given that retail sale is widespread. This may be more of a legal question of some sort. It's interesting that the compound is classified in this manner, considering that there appears to be no evidence to support such a classification. Munatobe7 01:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidence that supports poppers classification as a carcinogen: See PMID 12594527

"NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Isobutyl Nitrite (CAS No, 542-56-3) in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies) in National Toxicology Program Technical Report Services 1996 July; 448:1-302. Hankwilson 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is probably worth having a brief reference such as this specifically to Isobutyl nitrite in the health section now that it is mentioned in the legal one. --Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this one of the studies looked at in the old references list that used to populate this article? It seems to mimic others in the sense that the dose is excessive. I note also that the authors report that "Exposure of rats to isobutyl nitrite by inhalation for 2 years resulted in decreased incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia in males and females" and that "The increased incidence of thyroid gland follicular cell adenoma in male mice may have been related to isobutyl nitrite exposure." The word "may" suggest no firm conclusions. Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I also spotted a mention of an age limit on one of the UK sites, but I haven't currently got the time to follow it up.--Peter cohen 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Age limit for what, Peter? As in age under which one may not buy these products, or shelf life of the products? Munatobe7 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Minimum age for the person --Peter cohen 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the European Trade Only publication, ETO, isobutyl nitrite is now listed as a toxin, and as of 8/24/07 is illegal in the UK and Europe: http://erotictradeonly.com/content/news/article89.php?id=1

Their article states that the legislation, the 29th amendment to 76/769/EEC of the EU Directive, now classifies isobutyl nitrite as a toxin, which means it will be illegal to sell publicly in Europe and the UK.

The article also says that a leading UK manufacturer is now making isopropyl nitrite instead, and is recalling any isobutyl nitrite poppers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistressplaid (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

online fulltext free at www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html reference to VEGF should be in KS part of article.

i suggest that a separate paragraph be devoted to ks and poppers which includes a reference to the Ho-leung Fung "VEGF expression" finding which was referenced in the article "Effects of inhalant nitrites on VEGF expression; a feasible link to Kaposi's sarcoma/" journal of neuroimmune pharmacology. For consideration the fulltext online available free at

www.springerlink.com/content/73h7w882j6616514/fulltext.html

Hankwilson 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We were reminded last week, Hank, that Wikipedia and this article are not a forum and that it's acceptable to delete comments that are devoted to the discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers. I didn't want to arbitrarily delete your post without discussion though. I also wanted to point out that Fung has a history of obtaining grants to do work on nitrites, none of which has confirmed any connection to nitrites and KS. In fact one of his studies produced findings that would support a role for nitrites in actually depressing tumoricidal activity. (Keilbasa and Fung (2000) Nitrite Inhalation in Rats Elevates Tissue NOS III Expression and Alters Tyrosine Nitration and Phosphorylation. Biochem and Biophysic. Res. Comm, 275:335.)
The reference to this recent work doesn't seem to add anything to the article, either. Especially when he notes in his abstract that a link is "purported" and "may be explained" by inhalation.
The existing article does a great job of encapsulating the currently understanding about any possible association between nitrites and KS. Munatobe7 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article should include a section on the enforcement/non enforcement of the federal ban on sales of poppers.

i will be submitting some information on the enforcement of the ban, the prosecution, fines, etc for violators of the ban on sales in the United States. Soliciting feedback prior to adding to article. Hankwilson 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it's in the best interest of the article to have detailed sections on the legal status of the product in numerous locations. This type of info, if overdone, strikes me as being un-encyclopedic. --John T. Folden 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The legality issue is already addressed in the "Availability & Legality" section. I fear "Overdone" may turn out to be an understatement. Munatobe7 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style indicates to me that the US subsection is quite big enough already for a top-level article on poppers. After all this is an international encyclopaedia. There is a potential to spin off a separate article on the law on poppers around the world. Obviously if people from various countries start popping up and supplying info on the law where they are to the detail we have on the countries discussed so far, then we would have to do so and keep a summary that describes the types of variation that can occur. Issues concerning systemic bias would require similar treatment to be allowed to that which the current countries receive. There is also the possibility of a separate article on the law on poppers and enforcement in the US, but that would depend on how things are seen on the grand scale of things. I can imagine some people wanting to delete such an article as not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not familiar enough wiht how it is implemented to know one way or the other. --Peter cohen 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter, thanks for the note about Wikipedia:Notability. Having just read it, it's hard to imagine poppers even being notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia, given that such a tiny portion of the population has ever heard of them, or maybe more importantly, has ever used them (Per the US Senate, "...less than 3% of the population has ever used"...poppers). IMO a separate article on a subsection for legality seems sufficiently obscure as to undoubtedly fail the Wikipedia Notability test and deletion could be expected. Munatobe7 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is the way that notability applies. Less than 3% of the population of the world have visited Rwanda, watched the ballet, know any speakers of any numner of languages, etc. Poppers are notable but more specialist articles may not be. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way.Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, just read your edit to the legality section. Well done. Thanks. (Hate to ask, but have you given any thought to how to deal with the trivia section?) Munatobe7 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe someone else had volunteered for this. --Peter cohen 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I realize we're all volunteers and I didn't mean to imply anyone was dropping the ball or anything. I'd just like to see that section either cleaned up or deleted (I don't think it makes sense to try to weave that stuff into the main article; just mho). If left to me, I'd delete it, but I'm not sure it's my place to do that. I'm still of the opinion that the article is getting good enough to nominate for a Good Article citation. Munatobe7 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Hank, the changes you were attempting to make today, and then reversed because you want to include even more information, serve as a reminder that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.

Also, we'd already pretty much agreed that it's not a good idea to begin to muddy up the article with the minutia of the smallest detail about this and that relative to enforcement, etc. John T Folden reminded us that "This type of info, if overdone, strikes me as being un-encyclopedic".

Also, as Peter Cohen pointed out a few weeks ago: "Wikipedia:Summary style indicates to me that the US subsection is quite big enough already for a top-level article on poppers. After all this is an international encyclopaedia. There is a potential to spin off a separate article on the law on poppers around the world. Obviously if people from various countries start popping up and supplying info on the law where they are to the detail we have on the countries discussed so far, then we would have to do so and keep a summary that describes the types of variation that can occur. Issues concerning systemic bias would require similar treatment to be allowed to that which the current countries receive. There is also the possibility of a separate article on the law on poppers and enforcement in the US, but that would depend on how things are seen on the grand scale of things. I can imagine some people wanting to delete such an article as not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability, but I'm not familiar enough wiht how it is implemented to know one way or the other."

As written, the article currently does a good job of telling the story in an encyclopedic manner. If you want to make substantial changes, such as those in your reversed edit today, would you mind not making changes or adding things without first discussing on the talk page? That would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Munatobe7 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

KS and HHV8

I backed out an unreferenced insertion of new information.

A quick google suggests that HHV8 infection is a necessary condition for KS. But that is too weak a claim to definitively take poppers out of the picture. My understanding is that HHV8 is an opportunistic infection that takes advantage of weaknesses causes by other factors, notably HIV infection. The dispute is whether poppers are one of the factors that give HHV8 an edge. --Peter cohen 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Made changes to make article accurate.

Researcher Drumright looked and found evidence for poppers use being a causal risk factor for HIV infection.

The epidemiolgogy studies find associations between popper use and both HHV-8 infection and also development of Kaposi's Sarcoma.

The point of sale warnings were proposed by both health educators and health authorities. And the cautioning and mandated point of sale warnings were motivated by both the link to HIV infections as well as Kaposi's Sarcoma.

It is not legal to market any alkyl nitrite for use as poppers. The previous wording needed to be clearer about what was banned. Hankwilson 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hank: You must surely know that the mandated point of sale warnings were not motivated by any demonstrated link between nitrite inhalation and HIV infections or KS. Rather they were mandated in a precautionary move based on unproven, but alleged, links in the early days of the AIDS crisis, before much research had been done. Would you agree with that?

Munatobe7 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Munatobe7: The first mandated point of sale warning was passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1983. Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights (the Gay and Lesbian doctors organization) and the Committee to Monitor Poppers prodded the SF Board of Supervisors to hold public hearings about poppers in 1982. BAPHR and the Committee to Monitor poppers pushed for an education strategy and opposed banning sales of poppers.

The 1983 mandated warning:

"WARNING: These products contain alkyl nitrites ("Poppers"}. Inhaling or swallowing alkyl nitrites may be harmful to your health. These chemicals can cause skin rashes, nasal iritation, sinus or lung infections, and rarely severe anemia. Inhaling concentrated alkyl nitrite vapors may cause you to faint and could be very dangerous if you have a hidden heart disease.Whether continued inhalation of alkyl nitrites may affect the immune system is not known, but several different studies have suggested that some impairment of the immune system is possible."


The SF board of supervisors amended the specified language for the point of sale warnings in 1986 and also banned use of poppers in public spaces...like discos. This was after research showed poppers were immunosuppressive and linked to KS. The State of California passed a similar point of sale warning mandate in 1986. West Hollywood,at the urging of their gay mayor, passed a point of sale warning law after the 1983 SF law was passed. The county of Los Angeles banned sales of poppers at the behest of gay health advocates and health officials in 1986.
The 1986 California point of sale warning mandate:

"WARNING: These products contain alkyl nitrites ("Poppers"). Inhaling or swallowing alkyl nitrite may be harmful to your health. The use of alkyl nitrites may affect the immune system. Several studies have suggested that the use is associated with the development of Kaposi's sarcoma (an AIDS condition)."

Concern about potential hazards of popper use had already surfaced in 1980:
"Knowledge gaps exist for all three compounds including teratogenesis, mutagenesis, and carcinogenesis. With their continued widespread application as drugs of abuse, studies must be initiated to identify possible problems before they arise. From the carcinogenesis viewpoint it is known that these nitrites are metabolized to the parent alcohol and nitrite ion which could be nitrosate tissue amines to nitrosamines which are potent carcinogens." Thomas Haley, PhD in "Review of the Physiological Effects of Amyl, Butyl, and Isobutyl Nitrites" form Clinical Toxicology, 16(3),pp.317-329 (1980).
1981: Covalla, J et al. "Severe Tracheobronchitis from inhalation of an isobutyl nitrite preparation" Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 15 Jan.81: 51-52.
1982: Goedert J et al. "Amyl Nitrite may alter t lymphocytes in homosexual men." The Lancet, February 20,1982:pp412-415.
1983: Neefe J et al. "Daily amyl nitrite inhalation decreases mouse splenocyte response to concanavalin A (Con A)." Federation Proceedings 42(4)March 5, 1983. Abstract 3850.
1983: Jacobs, R et al. "Cellular Immunotoxicity of amyl nitrite."

Journal of Toxicology and Clinical Toxicology; 20(5),421-449.1983.

1983: Hersh, Evan et al. " Effect of the recreational agent isobutyl nitrite on human peripheral blood leukocytes and on in vitro interferon production." in Journal of Cancer Research 43 March 1983: 1365-1371.
1984: Newell, Guy et al. " Toxicity, Immunosuppressive effects and carcinogenci potential of volatile nitrites: possible relationship to Kaposi's sarcoma." Pharmacotherapy Vol 4 Number 5 Sept/Oct 1984: 284-291. Also Editorial in same journal: 235-236.
1984:Lotzova, Eva et al. " Depression of murine natural killer cell cytotoxicity by isobutyl nitrite." Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy 1984 Vol 17:130-134.
1984:Mathur-Wagh Usha et al. "Longitundinal study of persistent generalized lymphadenopathy in homosexual men: relation to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." The Lancet Saturday 12 May 1984; Vol 8385 pp 1033-1038.
1985: Newell, Guy et al. "Volatile Nitrites - Use and adverse effects related to the current epidemic of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome." The American Journal of Medicine May 1985;

Vol. 78; 811-816.

1985:Newell, Guy et al. "Risk factor analysis among men referred for possible acquired immune deficiency syndrome." Preventive Medicine 1985 Vol. 14, 81-91.
Summary: The initial point of sale warning law was passed in 1983 after research had already surfaced indicating that poppers were immunosuppressive. Research continued to accumulate prior to California passing a point of sale warning law in 1986.
Hank: I appreciate your statement that you "find the wikipedia process confusing and difficult", but you shouldn't have any problem understanding that this is not a forum for general discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers.
As John T Folden pointed out earlier today, this article has been fairly stable for some time, and it's pointless for you to continue to re-open old discussions and re-introduce previously viewed and discarded data -- all of which has been discussed over and over ad nauseam.
Please adhere to the notice at the top of the page which states: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the benefits and risks of poppers. Any such messages will be deleted." Munatobe7 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Munatobe7: You asked some questions. I provided answers and verification that research showing that poppers was immunosuppressive and linked to KS had been published prior to the point of sale warning laws . I provided the specific language mandated in the warnings for reference .What I provided is part of the historical record.
It is hardly pointless to correct inaccuracies in the article....no matter how long they might have been there. It seems reasonable to answer questions that you asked.To cite the historical record is to educate. I presented what happened. I did not justify what happened, I put it out there as part of the historical record.
There appears to be controversy around whether poppers are immunosuppressive; whether the research conducted was adequate, what the relevance of the immunosuppression is. I presented published research that concludes that poppers are immunosuppressive. Others have raised limitations and problems with the research.
Where has the immunosuppression research been critiqued, other than on wikipedia and by who? What is the expertise of the evaluators? What was the source of the critiques? Where can these critiques be found? The burden of credibility works both ways. If the sources of divergent reviewpoints are both credible then both perspectives might be incorporated to first acknowledge that controversy exists, and then to treat it in a balanced way.
The time spent in the past resulted in changes in the article. I took a rest knowing that the article could still be improved. It takes time to achieve NPOV..if all points of view are to be incorporated and in a balanced way. I have no problem with the multiple perspectives surfacing.It seems others might.
Please provide the sources and credibility of those critiquing the immunosuppression research. Hankwilson 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Romanelli review of poppers failed to adequately address the published research about poppers being immunosuppressive.

The current wording does not seem neutral, but dismissive about poppers use being a significant risk hazard for HIV infection and risky sexual behaviors leading to HIV infection. It needs rewording so that the research indicating risk is not dismissed. Hankwilson 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And what evidence apart from a bald assertion do you have for the claim in this section title? --Peter cohen 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Romanelli review cited 3 references about poppers causing immune suppression: one was 1982 Goedert in The Lancet; one was in 1985 Newell in The American Journal of Medicine; one was Wilson, H in Focus-A guide to AIDS research and counseling, UCSF publication 1999.
These others need consideration and justify a stronger statement about poppers being immunosuppressive:

PMID 1685501 Dax E. 1991; PMID 2902516 Dax E. 1988; PMID 6235910 Lotzova E. 1984; PMID 6142118 Jacobs R. 1983; PMID 6186374 Hersh EM. 1983; PMID 2902514 Mirvish S. 1988; PMID 3140019 Maickel R. 1988; PMID 2902515 Ortiz J. 1988; PMID 2569972 Dunkel V. 1989; PMID 84622528 Mirvish S. 1993; PMID 1835258 Soderberg L. 1991; PMID 1778367 Soderberg L. 1991; PMID 8284799 Soderberg L. 1994; PMID 8787659 Soderberg L. 1996; PMID 8605963 Soderberg L. 1996; PMID 8647236 Soderberg L. 1996; PMID 8864129 Soderberg L. 1996; PMID 9439769 Soderberg L. 1997; PMID 9610684 Soderberg L. 1998; PMID 10048747 Soderberg L. 1999; PMID 10906432 Guo G. 2000; PMID 10964667 Keilbassa W. 2000; PMID 11310851 Ponnappan U. 2001; PMID 14521929 Tran D. 2003; PMID 15222982 Ponnappan U. 2004; PMID 15294346 Soderberg L. 2004; Hankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)



Hank, what is the support for your statement that poppers are "a significant risk hazard for HIV infection and risky sexual behaviors leading to HIV infection"? Based on the readily available published data there is no such degree of risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munatobe7 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Review these published articles for starters: PMID 17362516 Lampinen 2007; PMID 1573819 Colfax 2005; PMID 17602993 Drumright review article of published research 2006; PMID 173225605 Plankey 2007;Hankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited position is out of date('88) and not reflective of subsequent research.The bulk of research showing immunosuppression was published after the Kennedy Committee Report.

The 1988 Kennedy Committee conclusions need to be removed or contextualized so that reference is made to the subsequent(post 1988) body of published research showing poppers are immunosuppressive, and significant risk factors for HIV infection and HHV-8 infection. Congress as a whole banned the sale and distribution because of the links to HIV infection and KS despite the Kennedy Committee. The Congressional impetus for banning poppers was because of concerns about the links with HIV and KS . In addition, the NIDA monograph issued in 1988, indicated that poppers were immunosuppressive and potentially effecting HIV infection...the human study by Elizabeth Dax. The Kennedy report ignored the human study done by Dax and NIDA. Hankwilson 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hank, please look at the four edits you have done in the past few hours to this talk page and the article and notice the text errors you introduced: multiple signatures, here, half sentences and recked citations there. It doesn't particularly matter here, but you really should check how you leave the article. I've fixed your errors on the article now, but please bear in mind that undoing your edits is the easiest way to fix things and if you repeat this habit of not previewing your edits and copy-editing them, it will be extremely tempting to simply roll back your edits next time you do the same.
I have moved the Kennedy Committee material above the more recent HIV-stuff.--Peter cohen 00:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing. I find the wikipedia process confusing and difficult. I would hope that in the future there might be an easier boiler plate for referencing. Seems like it would help many of us with wwwlimitations.
Hank, it is reasonable to think that the Senate investigation ignored the Dax study because they agreed with the larger research community that it was not a valid study.
See "Dax et al. (1988) Effects, of nitrites on the immune system of humans. Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants. National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series. #83, 75.

In this study using eight HIV- male volunteers, the investigators found that amyl nitrite inhalation caused an initial suppression in immune function that was followed by an overshoot seven days after cessation of drug. This study had a low sample number and was not repeated. These results are also contradictory to results obtained by other research groups. If the work presented in this paper is accurate, one could interpret the overshoot in immune activity as evidence for nitrite use causing an increase in immune function. This conclusion refutes Wilson's proposal that nitrites are harmful to the immune system. Soderberg (1996) Inhaled isobutyl nitrite produced lung inflammation with increased macrophage TNF-a and nitric oxide production. AIDS, Drugs of Abuse, and the Neuroimmune Axis, Ed. Friedman et al., Plenum Press, New York, 187. This article contains the same information as a previously discussed Soderberg publication (Toxicology Letters, 104:35) with the same flaws. This is an example of an investigator increasing the volume of their work by publishing duplicative results. Soderberg and Barnett (1995) Inhalation exposure to isobutyl nitrite inhibits macrophage tumoricidal activity and modulates inducible nitric oxide. Journal of Leukocyte Biology, 57:135. This paper is a repeat of experiments (Toxicology Letters, 104:35) by the same author, except the tumoricidal activity of peritoneal rather than lung macrophages was measured. Interestingly, Soderberg obtained the opposite results between the two publications. For instance, in these experiments, there was a decrease in tumoricidal activity that returns in two weeks, which contradicts their 1996 publication showing an increase in tumoricidal activity of macrophages. Other data presented by Soderberg demonstrated that nitrite exposure increased TNF-a production by itself or in combination with interferon, but caused no change in response to lipopolysaccharide or interferon and lipopolysaccharide (stimulators of TNF-a production). In contrast, the other report stated that there was no effect of nitrite treatment on TNF-a production in either the absence or presence of interferon, but an increase in TNF-a production in the presence of lipopolysaccharide or lipopolysaccharide and interferon. Finally, the 1995 study reported a decrease in nitric oxide production stimulated by lipopolysaccharide and interferon, which contradicts the 1996 study. Interestingly, the author did not discuss these discrepancies. When an investigator publishes results that are the opposite of each other, one cannot derive conclusions from their work." Munatobe7 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


There is a reference listing of published research articles which is in the "history" of "poppers" in the "Reference" section for the 22:23 19 November 2006 date. The reference section on that date includes dozens of published articles finding poppers immunosuppressive. It also includes a hostile critique of each study. Almost every finding is dismissed. Admittedly almost every study has limitations, however, that does not always invalidate the findings.
The Romanelli review failed to reference the Dax human study.I don't understand that omission and the treatment of the immunosuppression issue in the review. Other than the inadequate treatment of the topic of immunosuppression, there is a respectable degree of objectivity in the review.
I will attempt to improve my editing skills. I realize it will increase any effectiveness. Thanks for assistance and patience. Hankwilson 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Hank, the federal ban on poppers was not due to any health concern as much as a political maneuvering.
WIth respect to the "dozens of published articles" you inserted into the references section last year, many were based on studies by friends or associates of yours, and nearly all of which were badly flawed. As you'll recall, your list included duplicates, which some on this discussion page suggested you may have included in order to boost the bulk of your list to make it look more substantial than it really was. Also, you had included articles in your list that were never peer reviewed, and made claims that they were authoritative studies (This is something that is unacceptable in science, and clearly does not demonstrate any valid finding). You also included studies -- by the same researchers themselves -- which contradicted their own flawed studies (in all instances where your researchers lowered their dosages to more closely resemble real-world usage, the studies demonstrated there was no significant harm in inhaling nitrites).
On the matter of immunosupression, there appears to have been no significant immunosupression ever to have been demonstrated with regard to inhalation of nitrites by any credible researcher. Please refer back to the massive discussion of this on these talk pages.
I hope you're not going to dig out all that stuff and expect us to have to go through it with you again. Been there, done that. Munatobe7 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Guys, this article has been fairly stable for quite a while now. I would like to suggest that no one re-open old discussions and re-introduce previously viewed and discarded data. It's pointless because it won't result in any difference the second (or third, or fourth) time around. On the other hand, if there's new research to look at or specific studies that we've missed that would GREATLY change the tone of the article then that's another matter. --John T. Folden 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Amen to that! Munatobe7 04:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
1.I have many associates in the AIDS field. That has been an asset, not a liability. I served multiple times on UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention Advisory Board,as well as the San Francisco HIV Prevention Planning Council. I was invited and served on a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation national advisory board. I strive to stay abreast of AIDS research and attended as many conferences as possible including the International AIDS conferences in Atlanta,Berlin, Vancouver, Geneva, Barcelona, San Francisco, and Toronto. I consulted with Elizabeth Dax on her study on the effects of nitrite inhalation on the human immune system. I assisted in the production of 3 pamphlets on poppers, "Poppers, Can you afford the risk?", 2 of which were funded by the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health's AIDS Office.

2. As for the credibility of the researchers being called into question, who is doing that calling? what is the credibility of the critiquers? I request it be presented for evaluation. 3. I feel the Dax human study of the effects of poppers on the human immune system had significant findings. Not an animal study, a human study. Natural killer cell function suppressed 30% immediately after 3 inhalations. Where is a credible critique of that study? 4. Some research cited in the current article can be supplanted with better ones and rewording can improve balance. Some current references can be supplanted with more credible ones. I will suggest and justify replacements, rewordings, and integrating additions of new research which you can evaluate. The goal is to improve the article. It may take time to improve the article. 5. As for including reference that is almost 2 decades old, the 1988 Kennedy Committee report, why include a 1988 recommendation that was made prior the context of the bulk of the immunosuppression research surfacing? 6. The Congressional ban on distribution and sale of poppers was in the context of an AIDS epidemic which had no effective treatments and an accumulating body of research showing that poppers were immunosuppressive and associated with KS and risky sexual behavior and HIV infections. Gay constituents pressured Rep. Mel Levine and Henry Waxman(both Los Angeles) on this issue and used the research findings as rationale. The poppers industry lobbied against the ban, but failed. You can review the archives of Bruce Voeller at Cornell University for verification of their failed attempts to stop the ban. 7.As for duplicates being in the bibliography. Duplicates in the sense that a study by one author was in 2 different journals, or an abstract from a conference might have been included. The purpose was to reflect whereever the information might be located. Some libraries have one journal, but not another. By knowing all possible information sources, interested parties can maximize finding something in their location. I don't believe there is a need for padding. In recent bibliographies, I highlight the Dax human study because it is more relevant to humans than mice studies. Hankwilson 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider Munatobe7's:"On the matter of immunosupression, there appears to have been no significant immunosupression ever to have been demonstrated with regard to inhalation of nitrites by any credible researcher"
What is your credibility to make this dismissive statement? Where has this perspective surfaced, been published and if so where?
Multiple researchers have concluded that poppers are immunosuppressive. They come from multiple independent research centers and have published their findings in scientific journals, most having some kind of peer review: Partial list:

James Goedert, MD, PhD National Cancer Institute; JR Neefe, Georgetown University; Richard Jacobs, MD National Center for Toxicological Research; Evan Hersh, Dept. of Clinical Immunonology and Biological Therapy at M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston, Texas; Guy Newell, MD Department of Cancer Prevention, M.D. Anderson Hospital; Eva Lotzova, MD, Dept. of Clinical Immunology and Biological Therapy, M. D. Anderson Hospital; User Mather-Wagh MD Dept of Medicine and Pathology, Beth Israel Medical Center; Elizabeth Dax, MD Addiction Research Center, National Institute of Drug Abuse; Lee Soderberg, PhD Dept. of Microbiology and Immunology at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; DC Tran, PhD University Buffalo, Buffalo; Ho-Leung Fung, PhD Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences,University of Buffalo, NY;

I'm not aware that any researcher claims that the research to date is definitive. Researchers have posed questions for future research. More research is needed.


The Dax study was formative research. Thus only 8 participants were used. NIDA did the human study because of Congressional mandate prodded by Rep. Henry Waxman of LA. Congress ordered the NIDA study and required a report back within 6 months. This could explain the small number. Budget limitations could explain the small number. The initial Dax study was followed by an 18 participant study. NIDA subsequently returned to study mice/rats...its usual vehicle for toxicology studies.

As for the issue of the immune system showing an "overshoot" over baseline activity at 7 days following nitrite inhalation after the initial immunosuppression: First, initial immunosuppression could increase susceptibility to infection if exposed to HIV, HHV-8, other infections. Second, Dax states:" A possible interpretation of the results would be that nitrites cause a cycling of immune activity between suppressed and nonspecific stimulated levels. This situation might result in a period of immunosuppression followed by a proliferative period in which virus-containing cells propagate in the presence of a nondirected immunoresponse. In the community, nitrites are often used in an eposidic manner, which may facilitate such cyclic changes."

I agree that the study should be replicated. Dax did conduct a second study on humans using 18 male HIV negative volunteers: "Amyl nitrite alters human in vitro immune function." Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology 1991;13(4):577-587.

I recommend that NIDA do a human study on the effects of poppers on the human immune system. We can now measure impact on HIV viral load as well as HHV-8 viral load and there are additional immune system markers available compared to 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankwilson (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Hankwilson 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Hank, please don't put someone else's words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it at all. I suggest you go back and verify who it is that made the statements you are quoting and replying to as it wasn't me. --John T. Folden 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That error of attribution was corrected. Thanks for the notice and apology for the mistake.Hankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation issue in 'Effects' section

In the first section of the article it is stated: 

Some men report that a reduction in erection stiffness can interfere with sexual performance.[1]

The author cites source number one, yet an inspection of the source says nothing to that respect. I'm not even sure that the effect of a nitric oxide donor would have that effect. I believe that that sentence should be removed. What does everyone else think?

Ajmbc 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased it in terms of what is said in the source.--Peter cohen 10:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Merck analysis of poppers ignores published research finding poppers use increases HIV acquisition.

HIV acquisition is a significant health concern. Merck fails to incorporate the published research about HIV acquisiton in gay men. The placement change gives better balance to the article.Hankwilson (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

HIVInsite of UCSF Center of AIDS Prevention has posted a bibliography of research about poppers done subsequent to the obsolete 1983 CPSC report.

I question the inclusion of the 1983 CPSC report. It is 25 years old, obsolete in the context of the subsequent published research about poppers. The article could have a historical developments section or a "Poppers Industry Position" section, and perhaps a "Public Health Position" section.

www.HIVinsite.com go to Knowledge base article about malignancies, then to the resource section box to find the bibliography of published and unpublished research(abstracts,presentations,unaccepted submission -Watson 1982).

www.poppers.cfsites.org also references of published research about poppers, public health and community responses to poppers use by gays and men who sex with men.

www.virusmythpoppersmyth.com has a critique of the published research. Alert that the website is a poppers industry promotion site.

The 1983 CPSC report has historical value but is unresponsive to the subsequent research published about poppers.

The Merck Manual may have general credibility, but its information about poppers is incomplete failing to reference the hazards demonstrated in the accumulating published research.(immunosuppressive, HIV transmission risk factor, HHV8 and KS risk factor).

Hankwilson (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Hank,

The article is fine as it stands. Please do not begin your past practice of popping up (no pun intended) every few months to begin the same arguments over and over again and start tearing the article apart.

Please do not alter the article unless you have substantial new news to report. You've been asked to behave on a number of occasions in the past; please adhere to those requests to avoid the possibility of being labeled a vandal.

As the article stands, it fairly represents both sides of the controversy and is the closest it's ever been to being a neutral article (NPOV). This has been a lot of work on the part of a lot of people, including your own valuable input, to get here -- so please do not upset it.

Munatobe7 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Merck is just the sort of secondary source that Wikipedia policy favours. A systematic review would be more academically respectable, but I don't think I've seen one.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Response of the poppers industry to 1990 US law banning sales and distribution:continuing violations with some enforcement by CPSC

I plan on removing the following sentence in the current article: "Manufacturers reformulated their products to abide by the law, and today nitrite based products are sold as video head cleaner, polish remover or room odorants.[1]" The citation for this characture of the poppers industry's response is dated prior to the ban, and does not accurately reflect popper industry behavior post ban.

The law enforcement section needs to include that the 1990 law has been enforced on individual sellers and that the industry has been fined for violations of CPSC regulations. A section on The CPSC record to date needs to be included. There are also local and state regulations of poppers which need to be included to accurately reflect what is happening in the United States today.


Hankwilson (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hank,

Please do not remove the subject sentence. Also, kindly do not alter the article based on your comments above.

The current status of the sale of these products clearly reflects that the industry has obviously reformulated to circumvent the ban on specific nitrites, irrespective of the date of the citation you mention. It's still valid.

There is no need to go into the minutia contained in a listing of items around CPSC enforcement actions. This is not the place for that level of detail. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the past, remember?

Munatobe7 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration expressed here - my heart sank when I saw Hank's name as the latest contributor - but he does have a point when he says that the reference pre-dates the ban. I'm going to replace the reference with a fact tag. If no one can preoduce evidence of it as a continuing practice, then the sentence should be removed. However, I am reluctant to expand the material. The US already has the most in depth coverage. Oen fo the references is actually to a notice of CPSC action.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Searching for information on Hank Wilson, according to published reports, he came up with the psudo-important sounding name, Committee to Monitor Poppers, to correspond with researchers and public officials about poppers while claiming to be an expert on the subject. He wrote a book, which you can find listed on Amazon.com, called "Death Rush", and claims to "have played a leading role in sounding the tocsin on the dangers of poppers."

The book is a very short but damming commentary on poppers which appears to lack much credible information (see the reviews by AIDS experts on Amazon.com). Much of the book comprises a list of research projects that had some connection to or mention of poppers -- but which have almost all been reviewed and tossed out as invalid for various reasons.

The book is found here: http://paganpressbooks.com/, and a review of it's research is found here: http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/hank_wilson_references/

Wilson's vested interest in the subject of poppers, along with his toxic attitude towards poppers, explains his never-ending attempts to sabotage this article or slant it toward his anti-popper viewpoint, rather than work toward a NPOV. He would find it impossible to be a neutral voice in any discussion about poppers, either on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. A quick look back through the discussion pages on poppers proves that.71.106.17.188 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag for history section expansion and expanded section

Peter: I spent a bit of time expanding the 'History' section per the tag you'd placed there earlier. I hope it was ok to include the photo of Sir Lauder Brunton. He perhaps could rightfully be called the 'grandfather' of poppers -- or at least amyl nitrite.

Munatobe7 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wondering about another pop-culture amyl reference

In the movie, The Professional, does anyone know if the pills Stansfield (Gary Oldman) pops during the film are poppers? Judging by the way he cracks them in his teeth, then gets some sort of immediate reaction from them, I suspect that they may in fact be poppers. I've searched all over for some information to back this up, but all I can find is speculation, and not one mention of amyls.. Does a book or screenplay exist, perhaps? Weasel5i2 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They cannot possibly be poppers since poppers are a liquid packed in bottles. I don't recall seeing the actor cracking the pills with his teeth. Even so, poppers don't come in pills and they are not taken by mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to edit article

Hi, I just copyedited the article for style, wording, etc., and had a complete revert from Munatobe7. Wikipedia pages are not "owned" by the major current editors. The Wikipedia policy on reverting states that it is a serious measure that should only be used against vandalism (e.g., profanity/ nonsense). What I find frustrating with Munatobe7's complete revert is that it undoes EVERY change. Fine, disagree with some of the changes and change them. But to do a complete revert even undoes the edits that I imagine you would agree with, like joining orphan sentences into paragraphs. So you asked me to please discuss on talk page. So here is the request..............................The article has orphan sentences, grammar errors, and so on, and I would like to copyedit it for style. Now I suppose I wait for permission?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi OnBeyondZebrax. Thanks for your edits to the poppers article. The reason I'd reverted all of them last night was that I was too tired to go through so many, and the only time the article has seen that many edits at one time has been when vandals have attacked it. In the talk section you'll see that, in the past, when any of us who have spent untold hours trying to build the article into a credible repository of accurate information on poppers have seen such large edits, we've reverted most of them because they almost all were the work of vandals.

Having had time now to go over your many edits, it's refreshing to have such a high quality contributor make needed edits!

Thanks again for your meaningful contribution!

Respectfull, Munatobe7 (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Poppers article very good

I'm very impressed with how wonderful this poppers article has become. It's been a year or more since I last looked at it and back then it was a mess. Now it's full of relevant and credible information. This Kansas City resident is grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.161.130 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people worked very hard to try to make this article as good as it could be. It's come a long way. Thanks for your kind remarks. Munatobe7 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Un-sourced and unverifiable 'Availability and Legality' section

For over six months a notice has appeared in the "Availability and legality" section stating that "This section does not cite any references or sources.:, and further stating that 'unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."

I would agree that this section is full of un-sourced posts. Since it has been over half a year and no one has been able to verify the material, I propose to delete this section, unless a majority disagrees.

The article is very long and this will help streamline it.

Munatobe7 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • After a 48 hour waiting period, per the notice posted for six months that the "Availability and Legality" section was full of un-sourced and unverifiable material and could be challenged and removed, I first challenged and then removed the section and incorporated appropriate parts of it into the "History" section. The article is now more streamlined.

Munatobe7 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

possible change to Chemistry section

Isoamyl Nitrate (CH3)2CHCH2CH2ONO

Ive only done half a degree in chemistry, but im almost certain that the second one doesnt have the amyl group that would qualify it as an Isoamyl nitrate. Can someone verfy and possibly correct this?

dubious?

The above assertion in the lede seems wildly inaccurate and rather dubious for the lede. Do we really have comprehensive studies on the impact of poppers on societal harm? And which other drugs is this compared to? Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

Hello Banj, The drug rank of harm was calculated from a large number (I think 50) expert doctors and psychiatrists who work in addiction medicine, criminal justice including police and other experts in the field so it was a fairly comprehensive study. Here is a link to the picture of the results. I think poppers ranked low on the scale of harm because habituation/addiction is very rare with poppers, people don't become violent, commit property crime to fund their habit, death is also rare etc. Compare that with cannabis (cancer, habituation, possible increased risk of chronic psychosis), alcohol (harms too numerous to list), tobacco (high rate of addiction and early death), heroin (crime, addiction, overdose, blood bourne diseases), cocaine (addiction, crime etc), barbiturates (addiction, overdose high risk), GHB (overdose, date rape, withdrawal problems) and so forth. Poppers isn't as bad as these drugs but it certainly is not safe as this article states. I did add in about the potential for neurological damage and acute adverse effects and expanded the health effects section with this regard so I do feel that the adverse effects have been put into context. Perhaps though we could work out a compromise on the wording?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A New Cause for Concern - "Bathtub Brand" Poppers

As a result of legal measures to control the manufacture, import and distribution of Poppers in certain areas of the world a new problem with these products has appeared. They are what is referred to as "Bathtub Brands" named to imply that they are made in bathtubs by underground manufacturers. These versions can be more dangerous than the manufactured version of the chemicals that are often used as inhalants because the contents are unknown and the manufacturers are not reputable. Not only do these brands infringe on Trademark ownership but there is no consistent chemical makeup making these versions extra dangerous and what's really troubling is that the packaging looks almost identical to the real versions. Popperpedia contains an article on how to identify fake poppers of the most popular PWD Brand distributed chemicals. It includes important information on how to distinguish based on the tamper proof seal and packaging.

While the use of these chemicals as inhalants is under scrutiny a new problem requiring more education for those making the personal choice to use these substances has surfaced with new and unknown risks and consequences.

[1] [2]

nitrite not nitrate

I see that one section of the article repeatedly refers to alkyl nitrates rather than alkyl nitrites in connection with carcinogenicity. Is this intentional or a blooper? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ Popperpedia
  2. ^ Pac West Distributing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poppers/Archive_3&oldid=1079708726"