Talk:Salvinorin A/Archives/2020

Salvinorin A Effects and Kappa Agonism

In response to: "Hi Bk0, do you have any special information (personal or published) why Salvinorin A should be different from kappa opioid agonists. Thanks, Cacycle 21:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

Kappa agonist drugs in humans are well studied and have predictable opioid effects. That is to say: generalized sedation, mild/moderate analgesia, respiratory depression, etc. Some notable drugs include butorphanol, nalbuphine and buprenorphine. Most of those have mixed action across kappa, delta and (to some extent) mu, but all have kappa activity that is significant enough to be relevant here. Contrast this with the novel and rather dramatic hallucinogenic/entheogenic effects of salvinorin A.

My point is that it is not possible yet to conclude a causal relationship between salvinorin A receptor activity and its subjective psychoactive effects. Furthurmore there has never been a direct causal relationship established between any classic hallucinogen's receptor activity and the corresponding subjective effects (I'm thinking of the tryptamine/ergoloid/phenethylamine family here). It is pure speculation to assume that salvinorin's kappa activity is solely responsible for its psychoactive effects. More research is needed. -- Bk0 22:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are at least wrong about psychedelics whose effects are clearly mediated by the 5-HT2A receptor. There is compelling scientific evidence and nobody seriously questions this. See PMID 14761703. Cacycle 22:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PMID 12192085 says:

"It is now well established that the activation of KORs induces a large number of behavioral effects that include analgesia, sedation, and perceptual distortions. In the past, studies on the precise role of KORs in humans were hampered by the lack of selective agonists, although studies with compounds such as cyclazocine and ketocyclazocine suggested that KOR agonists were psychotomimetic (28). More recently, human studies with the highly selective KOR agonist enadoline (42) indicated that KOR activation induced visual distortions, feelings of unreality, and depersonalization. These effects of enadoline are reminiscent of those previously reported for Salvinorin A (2, 3). Taken together, these results suggest that the KOR/dynorphinergic system functions to modulate human perception and cognition, as might be inferred from detailed anatomical studies of dynorphin peptide distribution studies (43-45)."

(28) PMID 10841791

(42) PMID 11594439

The correct citation for the statement that salvinorin A is a kappa agonist is Roth et al, PNAS 2002 as this was the paper which discovered this not the REVIEW Article cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.191.33 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Therefore it would be a big scientific surprise if salvinorin's hallucinogenic actions would not be caused by kappa activation. Cacycle 16:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should find a way, using NPOV, to be more specific about the effects. Because this is a legal substance, easily available, many potential explorers of it may not be aware that it hits hard and fast. Both sides of the effect (for or against) should be presented. I saw mostly a biochemical account of the substance here. Adamrotmil 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A Dissociative?

I have yet to read anything suggesting that Salvinorin be classified as a Dissociative, and there's no mention of this in the article, but there's still the dissociative drug template used... what gives? --Overand 10:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Based upon subjective comparisons with other hallucinogens, the reported effects are more typical of dissociatives than of psychedelics (or deliriants). As for references, please see [1] [2] --Thoric 23:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

'Subjective' meaning anecodotal, neither of your references are particularly convincing. It would be more accurate (and NPOV) to say that the effects of salvinorin A have been described as being similar to dissociatives. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I disagree. First, of course "subjective" means anecdotal! How else would you be able to describe the effects of drugs? No one who has ever taken a hallucinogen has ever provided "objective" video proof of the hallucinations they say they saw. We just have to take their word for it. Further, nobody really disputes that the effects of salvinorin are dissociative. A dissociative is a type of drug that consistently meets a particular subjective description that includes Salvinorin, just as the word "blue" can refer to thousands of unique shades of color, all of which are different, but still blue. It's not clear cut as, say, whether or not the Salvinorin molecule contains a nitrogen atom, in which case it either does or it does not. Until someone prominently espouses a point of view that Salvinorin is not a dissociative, then let's not be so picky. It's a dissociative. Reswobslc 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dissociative" has a specific, empirical definition in the same way that 'opioid' has a specific pharmacological meaning. Medical science defines dissociative anesthetics as drugs with specific and demonstrable NMDA/sigma-1 activity. There is no evidence (to my knowledge) that Salvinorin A has such activity. --Bk0 (Talk) 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A dissociative drug is not limited to the dissociative anesthetics. A dissociative drug is simply a psychoactive substance whereby the primary effect is one of dissociation. I'm not certain your line of expertise, but one of the references I provided were that of a researcher who has been working with Salvia for over 20 years (Daniel Siebert). Do you claim to be better informed than him? --Thoric 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide references for your definition of 'dissociative' that do not come from drug user enthusiast sources? (not a moral judgment, just a simple fact) Wikipedia is not about name games so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this discussion about verifiable, referenced facts and not personal attacks. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you just say "dissociative" has a specific, empirical definition? If "dissociative" has a specific "empirical" definition we don't know about, let's hear it, instead of asking us for "ours". The National Institute of Drug Abuse defines a dissociative anaesthetic as a compound that produces an anaesthetic effect characterized by a feeling of being detached from the physical self. Judging by the presence of the word "abuse" in their name, I wouldn't consider them drug "enthusiasts". And he did provide the references you demand - they're the part you called personal attacks. At least Wikipedia, personal attacks are defined in policy (see WP:NPA). Implying that (heaven forbid) somebody else might know something you don't, is not a personal attack. Reswobslc 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Bk0 is suggesting "it would be more accurate (and NPOV) to say that the effects of salvinorin A have been described as being similar to dissociatives" - which seems like a fair enough point. I'm not necessarily decided one way or the other at the moment, but I think Bk0's point about the references given not being particularly convincing is quite valid. Siebert talks of "dissociative effect" [my emphasis] in the context of what should the sitter know, and "dissociative anesthetic" in terms of other areas for possible exploration. The HR5607 paper mentions "a brief dissociative effect" [my emphasis]. Saying that Salvinorin shows some dissociative effects is not the same thing as technically defining as Salvinorin as a dissociative compound. It doesn't necessarily follow.

It's possible then that the Salvinorin A article is using the term "dissociative" less cautiously then it maybe could, or should. The article's statement "Salvinorin A is a dissociative hallucinogenic compound." seems to convey some categorisation of perhaps an empirical kind, not something just subjective, and also risks confusion with dissociative anesthetic - a term which does seem to have a particular scientific meaning.

--SallyScot 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in the matter of stating "dissociative" as a matter of fact with an unclear basis - except that just as Bk0 wishes to see an authoritative source including Salvinorin as a dissociative, I wish to see an authoritative source "empirically" defining dissociative in a way that excludes Salvinorin. For such a definition to exist either way is plausible - but, should one exist, it's not top secret either. Until either one comes forth, it appears that the definition of dissociative, as well as Salvia's inclusion, are products of general consensus, supported by bona fide researchers, with no significant opposition. In my opinion, it's certainly not a NPOV-related issue either. Reswobslc 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I suggest that the article's statement "Salvinorin A is a dissociative hallucinogenic compound" could be reworded to something like "Salvinorin A is a hallucinogenic compound with dissociative effects." - since we can safely infer this from the references we have. I think to push the definition further, namely to suggest so categorically that Salvinorin A is a dissociative, should first require appropriate reference to support. As I see it, asking for an authoritative source that specifically excludes Salvinorin as a dissociative (before changing the wording) is the wrong way round with regard to burden of proof.

--SallyScot 19:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Entheogenic

The intro of the article refers to salvinorin-A as an "entheogenic" substance. Is this actually a property of the substance, or of the purposes for which people use it? -- Pakaran 06:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

purpose, not a property. i've correced this a lot in many of the phenethylamine articles- it should be there, sure, but should be along the lines of "often used as an entheogen" or something similar, rather than "is an an entheogen", with the possible exceptions of peyote or ayahuasca or other similar plants/compounds with long traditions of entheogenic use. --Heah ^talk 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, arguably, salvia, if not salvinorin, has such a long tradition (and is perhaps used as an entheogen at present more often than, say, marijuana and LSD, which tend to be used for other purposes). My main concern is that saying "entheogenic" in the intro makes it sound like that's an objective category of drugs in the same way that, say, "stimulent" is. -- Pakaran 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree completely. As it is about purposes/traditions and not properties, it certainly isn't any sort of objective category of drug- which is why imo if it's there, it should say "often used as" or something like that, rather than saying "salvinorin is an entheogen". Salvia very well may be called an "entheogen", but that's due to tradition and whatnot, as you say. I'm actually going to go check out the "entheogens" category and see what's in there . . . --Heah ^talk 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, "entheogen" tends to be used as an alternative term to "hallucinogen" or "psychotomimetic", which are seen (by the writer) as undesirable due to either their inaccuracy (hallucinogens tend not to produce true hallucinations) or negative connotation. Arguably, entheogen offends just as much in the opposite direction, as having positive connotation. I don't know of any correct, truly neutral term to use so we're probably stuck with one of them. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Most Potent Naturally occuring drug

I've added "hallucinogenic" to this claim, as saying that Salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occuring drug is not correct, as there are other, more potent naturally occuring drugs out there. For example: Botulin Toxin in more potent as a drug than Salvinorin A. There are other examples.

Even saying that salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occuring hallucinogen to date could be considered dicey, but it is generally accepted as true.

-FD June 29th, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.162.78.130 (talk • contribs) .

The sentence "most potent natural hallucinogen" can be found with citations in the introduction sections of all cited publications. I have replaced "hallucinogen" by "psychoactive" because Salvinorin A is not a classical hallucinogen in the scientific sense. Cacycle 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we add to the A-F chart section.

After a brief overview it occured to me that R1 being an O and R2 being the OCOCH3 group might have some sort of activity.

After looking it up, that molecule is Salvinorin G, and it has inconsequential activity compared to A, so...was just wondering if someone would be able to add Salvinorin G to the A-F list. I have no idea how its done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.23.248 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Article criticized

I found the recent article about salvia ("Maine bill seeks regulation of legal hallucinogenic drug," Dec. 29) both interesting and timely. However, I found the statements that the compound Salvinorin A is "similar to LSD" and "the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drug known to date" to be dubious. I was also alarmed to see Wikipedia cited as the source of this information. Wikipedia is, by its own description, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Because literally anyone can edit Wikipedia entries, it is not a reliable source of information and frequently contains factual errors.The Wikipedia entry on "Salvinorin A" footnotes the quotation above, referencing a journal article by Bryan L. Roth and colleagues (Roth BL, etal, Salvinorin A: A potent naturally occurring nonnitrogenous kappa opioid selective agonist, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 3 Sept. 2002, 99:11934-11939).However, consulting this scholarly paper reveals that Salvinorin A is not chemically similar to LSD, nor does it have the same mechanism of action. In other words, it is not at all "similar to LSD." Furthermore, the paper by Roth and colleagues does not support the assertion that Salvinorin A is "the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drug."Anthony Miller, M.D.Bangor

Apparently this article actually fully contradicts the article. -- Zanimum 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The Maine article's quote "the psychoactive ingredient Salvinorin A, similar to LSD and "the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drug known to date," according to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia". [3] is misleading in that it does rather twist Wikipedia's version. The original referenced paper "Salvinorin A: A potent naturally occurring nonnitrogenous kappa opioid selective agonist" [4] states that "Salvinorin A is structurally distinct from the naturally occurring hallucinogens N,N-dimethyltryptamine, psilocybin, and mescaline and synthetic hallucinogens such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenylisopropylamine (DOB), and ketamine." [my emphasis]. It does also go on to say that it is reported as the most potent naturally occurring drug and makes a comparison of potency with LSD. So I've taken the liberty editing the article again and quoting more fully from the source (with newly updated reference link) to give better context.

--SallyScot 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Total synthesis

I put in a short reference to the recently accomplished total synthesis of salvinorin A. The paper has not yet been assigned final page numbers in the journal (web release, "as soon as publishable"). I didn't describe the synthesis at all, and I think my reference landed in the wrong section or format. Someone more skilled at this activity and with more patience is welcome to fix it up... But i do believe we should have a reference, somewhere in the article, to the first total synthesis. Bog 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Added under the extraction category...

I added under what forms it is sold and what types are sold. I will probably edit and add an extraction procedure a little later. Shaft Master Flex 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your initial contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is important to remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source - see WP:V --SallyScot 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

References section

User Panoramix303 changed the article's reference style with the edit comment "merged references and citations, it was a mess before...". Note however that the pre-existing style was (pretty much) the recognised short citations method. Everyone is of course entitled to their view as to which is the best inline citation method, but in any case, strictly speaking, and as a matter of courtesy, consensus should really be sought before changing an article's style like this. Thanks, --SallyScot (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it was kind of a direct approach but just adding a single reference was a major hassle. Some of the reference either linked to copyrighted material hosted on other servers or contained dead links. Therefore the all the references were renewed according to Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines. In my opinion these guidelines are more appropriate because they are all scientific articles.-- 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I appreciate the renewal work on dead links etc, but there's nothing in Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines that favors particular in-line citation methods differently to Wikipedia:Citing sources as far as I can see, so the concern about changing styles still applies really. --SallyScot (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3D-Structure

What is the rational behind the structure? Crystal structure from some scientific article? Semi-empiric minimum energy calculation? Which program? If there is none please do not add pictures like this because they do not serve any informational purpose. Their only purpose is their are colourfull. -- Panoramix303 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2D and 3D structures don't seem to match. Isn't the stereochemistry wrong around both esters? -- 130.120.57.5 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry

Does anyone else agree that the Chemistry section should be renamed to Pharmacology? Sasata (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

done -- Panoramix303 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Study in mice

PLEASE EDIT: Study in mice original reference is this: "Effect of kappa-opioid receptor agonists U69593, U50488H, spiradoline and salvinorin A on cocaine-induced drug-seeking in rats" available in the web — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumpelstiltskinPiensa (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove original research? tag

Reference 7 of the previous sentence pertains to the following sentence. "This makes it unlikely that another mechanism contributes independently to the compound’s observed effects in mice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.172 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

Some text was copied from this site, verbatim: . In the edit that it was introduced, another passage was copied from κ-opioid receptor without appropriate attribution.Novangelis (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "Results from a small study by an assistant professor at the University of Iowa indicate that it may have potential as an analgesic and as a therapeutic tool for treating drug addictions." is the same in Salvinorin A, Salvia divinorum and in the salvia.info page. But how can we know which was copied? That article doesn't have references (both Wikipedia articles have) and the image in that page is from Wikimedia Commons.

You provided the edition in which the sentence "κ-opioid agonists have very marked effects on all types of addiction including alcohol, cocaine, and opiate abuse." was introduced in Salvinorin A, and it's also in κ-opioid receptor, but here we don't know in which edition it was introduced. So we can not know if that was copied from the κ-opioid receptor article. --KDesk (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

On a technical note, copying text from one article to another without attribution is a copyright violation. A record or authorship is required. Diffs and move logs are a major part of the tracking. Where text is copied a simple attribution is required. The simplest fix is to fill in the attribution. The problem, as you point out, is that figuring out the actual source. The sources may have been other articles that has been edited since (let's face it, "a small study by an assistant professor at" is a lousy construct that should have been changed, but wasn't). The good news is that I screwed up. I used archive.org to track the history of the off-Wikipedia site. The oldest record of the web page is April 8, 2011. I misread it as April 2008, which was why I had deleted it. The sentence reached its current form on February 17, 2010. This is a problem that needs fixing, but the urgency I applied was based on the misread date. For the one half, we have the source, and I suppose that with one half done, I can sort through diffs to locate the other half. Novangelis (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And we see the other one constructed here. I placed a dummy edit for attribution per WP:RIA. That should solve it.Novangelis (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is great, thanks for taking the time to fix this! :) --KDesk (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"has been described as dissociative, dysphoric, and diaphoretic."

I do not believe this sentence gives a balanced view point, specifically in regards to "dysphoric". While the effects of Salvinorin A *CAN* be dysphoric, they are not necessarily so, nor can they reliably be said to be mostly so.

Stating that Salvinorin A "has been described as X Y Z", with one of those variable adjectives being an extreme that is not ubiquitous, nor close, to the vast range of differing subjective effects of the substance, is in my view putting forth whether deliberately or not, an unbalanced point of view that does not give an accurate representation of the actual situation.

The statement could just as easily be described as "It also differs in subjective experience, compared to other hallucinogens, and has been described as dissociative, euphoric, and diaphoretic", and would still be true, since Salvinorin A has a very broad range of possible effects depending on the individual, including euphoria.

In fact, according to http://www.erowid.org/general/newsletter/erowid_newsletter6.pdf, which is cited source 85 in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum for lingering after effects of using Salvia Divinorum with the active component being Salvinorin A, almost 45% of people experiences IMPROVED mood, while only 4% experience worsened mood. Improved mood was the second most reported common effect, behind increased insight, and ahead of calmness.

The sentence is an unsupported attribution. A weasel wording of vague attribution. It also carries no citations. It misrepresents what is possible with Salvinorin A by putting forth examples of less common and uncommon effects, instead of giving examples of the most frequently experienced ones.

Any reason to keep this line in?

GingerBadger (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ive removed "dysphoric" since its misrepresentative of what commonly is experienced, as shown above, and Ive removed diaphoretic because thats not a subjective experience; either you are sweating, or youre not.

Dissociative is pretty accurate though.

GingerBadger (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)