![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would a synthesis section be useful? I found an article from Chemistry Quarterly that has a few synthesis for Bufotenin and I believe that would be something that should be included into the article. A picture of the synthesis can be created in ChemDraw and all the necessary information can be labeled.
Would it be possible to change the Effects of Humans section into a table? I feel like it would be a better way to organize the information. The table could be organized in a way where we have different columns, one for who performed the experiment, when it was performed, the dosage of bufotenin used and then finally the effects of that dosage.
I'm having a very difficult time deciding exactly what should go where. Bufotenin, Bufo Alvarius, Bufo toads, the Anadenanthera genus, and their history all seem very interconnected, and I'd like to make sure all the information falls on the right page. I'll spend some time in the future overhauling these pages and citing sources. If anyone has any suggestions on the organization of these articles, let me know.— Old american century 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I added information and citations for bufotenin levels in humans (schizophrenics, violent offenders, etc). Much thanks to the anonymous contributor who initially raised concern over the fact that these studies are often inconclusive, which got me to finally compile all these texts into the article.-- 'oac' (old american century) | Talk 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Noticed a few things that could be improved with regard to sources used for this article.
First, it relies far too heavily on a single reference (Ott #20 - cited 12 times). This reference is also used as a primary source regarding effects of bufotenin, which raises several concerns; namely the author of the study in question self-administered the drug and reported its effects. This in my eyes does not qualify as a scientific study, but at best, an anecdotal single-case report of questionable reliability. It also seems that the author who conducted the self-administration study does not have any scientific credentials that would qualify him to conduct a reliable scientific study.
Secondly, Ott's article (#20) is cited as a source for statements made about toxicity (i.e. LD50s) of various drugs; however, Ott's article did not perform the LD50 experiments. Surely there must be better sources to cite for this data. Arguably, the data in question may best be omitted since it doesn't really provide much of a perspective on relative LD50s.
Third, several of the other sources are of questionable reliability, such as Erowid Vault (references #24, #26, and linked under statement about Albert Most), and/or cannot be readily verified, such as Entheobotanica (#21 and #22) and Eleusis (#25) neither of which came up on a Google search. Smoky Mountain News (#17) also seems borderline.
Fourth, Ott's study (#20) was cited for the data on effects of bufotenin in humans (not an ideal source) but this section did not cite the two most noteworthy studies conducted to date; namely, Turner and Merlis (Effect of some indolealkylamines on man. AMA Arch Neurol Psych. 1959;81:121-29) and Fabing and Hawkins (Intravenous bufotenine injection in the human being. Science 1956;123:886-87). Interestingly, the landmark study by Fabing and Hawkins was conducted in prison inmates at Ohio State Penitentiary.
Lastly, the section on Anadenanthera Beans doesn't mention P.G.A. de Smet, an pioneer in ethnopharmacology who contributed almost all of the definitive research on the subject.
I'll be happy to help dig up additional references. Rhode Island Red 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The tests performed by Ott were both self tests and were also administered to other individuals (except the rectal ones) who had identical results. Please read the source completely. Similar test results showing clear hallucinogenic activity for free base bufotenin were also confirmed separately and presented in Visionary Plant Of Ancient South America By Constantino by Torres and Repke. Also, keep in mind that we have thousands of years of confirmed hallucinogenic activity from shamans using bufotenin. People seem to want to discard this fact concerning bufotenin in favor of test results from injections of forms of bufotenin never used by the shamans. We cannot argue with thousands of years of use by shamans just because some tests of injected forms show different effects. To do so is to put our heads in the sand and ignore an important part of human history in South America. - FV 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
FlowingVisions, I noticed you removed the citation tags I added without commenting on the edit summary or here on the talk page. I also had made substantial revisions to the text, which I explained clearly in my edit summaries, and the revisions were reverted without explanation. If you have objections, let's talk about them here before reverting good-faith edits. Rhode Island Red 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hallucinogenic Plants by Richard E. Shultes is not a sufficiently high-quality source, since none of the statements in the book are supported by references. Please refer to WP:RS. The sentence in question already has 3 other references to support it, so this isn't needed anyway. Rhode Island Red 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
A few observations and opinions towards further improving the quality of this article:
As I stated before, I see far too much reliance on the one reference by Torres & Rapke (reference #16:Anadenanthera: Visionary Plant Of Ancient South America. ISBN0789026422 ), and the problem has now been exacerbated by the recent addition of several more citations to this book (it is now quoted 19 times -- nearly half of the article’s 41 references). Please refer to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and consider the section on Weight as well as WP:EL, which states.
The undue weight in this case makes the article convey that the Torres & Rapke book is the single most important source to ever comment on bufotenin, which is misleading.
Bear in mind that Torres & Rapke’s’ book is essentially a review of the subject, and while this may have been a useful review, Torres & Rapke are only one of many groups to have written about bufotenine. Many other very credible sources have written excellent reviews and published primary research on the topic, and their contributions in the field should be given a more balanced representation in the article.
With respect to credibility, Torres is a Professor of Art & Art History at Florida International University, and co-author David Repke holds only a BSc. in medicinal chemistry. I would not suggest that they should be dismissed completely as credible sources when it comes to the science of bufotenin, but it can easily be argued that their book and credentials are not notable enough to warrant 19 citations, especially when other well-credentialed authorities (PhD.’s and MD’s) who have written on the subject are not cited at all.
Lastly, for most of the Torres & Rapke citations (references #16 a-q), page numbers have not been included, which makes it exceedingly difficult to verify statements. This is inconsistent with WP:CIT and the references may be challenged and/or removed. Because this book is not readily accessible online, it might help if someone could quote a few relevant passages here on the talk page so that others can assess the validity and interpretation. Also, if the book is being used to cite other primary/secondary references, it would be helpful to list those references so that they too can be verified and/or mentioned.
We should be careful to restrict this article mainly to what is known about bufotenine itself, rather than the effects of extracts of toad venom or anadenanthera seeds, which contain mixtures of compounds, making it impossible to attribute effects directly to bufotenin. Bear in mind that there are already articles on psychoactive toad, Anadenanthera peregrina and Anadenanthera colubrina, so information that relates to these subjects, but not directly to bufotenine, should be moved/merged into those other articles. For example, the description of the methods of snuff preparation; other than perhaps a very, very brief synopsis, this really doesn’t merit mention in this article, although it is relevant to the articles on Anadenanthera.
First, while Ott’s self-authored self-administration [5] study is interesting, I have several concerns about the study itself and some of the statements made about the research in our WP article. First, he used a study population consisting of one person (himself) and it is difficult to reach firm conclusions on that basis. The study also seems to have been conducted without coauthors, academic affiliations, or oversight of any kind. Ott seems to be a well-educated and highly motivated ethnobotany enthusiast who undertook some interesting experiments on himself, but his scientific authority and credibility seems lacking.
Second, according to Ott's article, he synthesized the bufotenin analogs himself, and although he described the methodology, he presented no evidence to confirm that his syntheses were successful (i.e. that he obtained pure salts, free base etc.). He did not show any purity testing results nor did he indicate that he had submitted his samples for independent analysis and confirmation of purity. Who knows what Ott might have been taking?
Third, I have not seen any other reliable sources who have echoed the quote attributed to Ott that bufotenin “is the primary active component” of Anadenanthera snuff and that it alone is responsible for the snuff’s alleged hallucinogenic effects. As such, this assertion represents a minority opinion and should therefore not be given undue weight (see WP:REDFLAG) or presented as fact. Instead, this should be qualified as Ott’s opinion, if it is to be mentioned at all. Several other sources have identified other psychoactive components in Anadenanthera snuffs and/or have suggested that these components also contribute to the snuff’s psychoactive effects. [e.g. see (a) Torres et al. Snuff powders from Pre-Hispanic San Pedro de Atacama: chemical and contextual analysis. Current Anthropology. 1991;32(5):640-649; and (b) Chamakura 1994). Others have stated that bufotenin is not the active ingredient in Cohoba snuffs (see Turner and Merlis, 1956).
Furthermore, other studies have shown that the alkaloids in the snuffs are not stable over time, so it is difficult when analyzing archeological snuff samples, to determine exactly which alkaloids they contained when fresh. Chamkura (1994) highlighted a study by world-renowned authority Richard Schultes indicating that DMT and 5-MeO-DMT were not stable in Anadenanthera seed samples; the concentrations in freshly prepared samples declined to zero over a two-year span while bufotenin remained stable. This explains why bufotenine is the only alkaloid detectable in archaelogical samples of snuff and seeds.
Lastly, Ott's article, originally published in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, is hyperlinked in the WP bufotenin article. Journal articles are typically copyrighted works belonging to the journal published, and there is no indication that copyright permission was obtained to re-post the article online. As such, we may have a copyright issue about linking to an unauthorized online copy, according to WP:EL, which states;
Please consider that much of the newly added information under Toxicity about effects in humans is duplicative of exisiting material in the sections Bufotenin Salts vs. Free Base and Effects in Humans. The section also strikes me as obscure and difficult to follow for most readers, and it seems out of sequence with respect to the broader discussion of Effects in Humans that follows. We really should try to make the article as informative and detailed, but also as concise and easy to read, as possible. Rhode Island Red 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the reference to morphine's LD50 in rats seems rather high. Whether or not the figure is accurate, a dose well below 200-300mg/kg in an opioid-tolerant human would still be fatal. I believe this gives the impression that this substance is much more toxic than test would indicate. Perhaps the level can be compared to a substance that is known to reflect the equivalent in humans.
Stabwestrhcp (
talk)
08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)stabwestrhcp
There is a reason this article makes heavy use of this book as a reference. Much of the book is available on-line to view for free at http://books.google.com and http://www.amazon.com
The vast majority of the studies sited by Torres and Rapke appear in dozens of other publications and they are not the work of Torres and Rapke. A large portion of the book is a collection of work by other highly qualified people. Torres and Rapke basically took tons of studies published by others and crammed it into their book making it conveniently available to us all. From this single book you get references to work done by tons of other people. It's a great book and it is the single most important book on the subject because it draws from nearly every study ever done on the subject up until 2006. There is no other book as complete as this one. Check the back and you'll see an amazing amount of references to studies cited in the book. The references cited span centuries of work. Ron Delipski 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone has time to make the references more clear by citing the actual individuals responsible for the studies shown in this book, rather than simply this book, please do so.
Thanks. Ron Delipski 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea//programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v4_num14/pg1.html
This graphic in particular: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea//programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v4_num14/image_007.gif
-- 88.1.38.80 ( talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bufotenin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I did a bit of editing from an unfamiliar platform, then got concerned that i needed to switch back to finish my task. Perhaps edit conflict with myself reflects just race condition between platforms. I'll review intentions and results after taking time out for personal mental maintenance.
--
Jerzy•
t
09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would a synthesis section be useful? I found an article from Chemistry Quarterly that has a few synthesis for Bufotenin and I believe that would be something that should be included into the article. A picture of the synthesis can be created in ChemDraw and all the necessary information can be labeled.
Would it be possible to change the Effects of Humans section into a table? I feel like it would be a better way to organize the information. The table could be organized in a way where we have different columns, one for who performed the experiment, when it was performed, the dosage of bufotenin used and then finally the effects of that dosage.
I'm having a very difficult time deciding exactly what should go where. Bufotenin, Bufo Alvarius, Bufo toads, the Anadenanthera genus, and their history all seem very interconnected, and I'd like to make sure all the information falls on the right page. I'll spend some time in the future overhauling these pages and citing sources. If anyone has any suggestions on the organization of these articles, let me know.— Old american century 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I added information and citations for bufotenin levels in humans (schizophrenics, violent offenders, etc). Much thanks to the anonymous contributor who initially raised concern over the fact that these studies are often inconclusive, which got me to finally compile all these texts into the article.-- 'oac' (old american century) | Talk 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Noticed a few things that could be improved with regard to sources used for this article.
First, it relies far too heavily on a single reference (Ott #20 - cited 12 times). This reference is also used as a primary source regarding effects of bufotenin, which raises several concerns; namely the author of the study in question self-administered the drug and reported its effects. This in my eyes does not qualify as a scientific study, but at best, an anecdotal single-case report of questionable reliability. It also seems that the author who conducted the self-administration study does not have any scientific credentials that would qualify him to conduct a reliable scientific study.
Secondly, Ott's article (#20) is cited as a source for statements made about toxicity (i.e. LD50s) of various drugs; however, Ott's article did not perform the LD50 experiments. Surely there must be better sources to cite for this data. Arguably, the data in question may best be omitted since it doesn't really provide much of a perspective on relative LD50s.
Third, several of the other sources are of questionable reliability, such as Erowid Vault (references #24, #26, and linked under statement about Albert Most), and/or cannot be readily verified, such as Entheobotanica (#21 and #22) and Eleusis (#25) neither of which came up on a Google search. Smoky Mountain News (#17) also seems borderline.
Fourth, Ott's study (#20) was cited for the data on effects of bufotenin in humans (not an ideal source) but this section did not cite the two most noteworthy studies conducted to date; namely, Turner and Merlis (Effect of some indolealkylamines on man. AMA Arch Neurol Psych. 1959;81:121-29) and Fabing and Hawkins (Intravenous bufotenine injection in the human being. Science 1956;123:886-87). Interestingly, the landmark study by Fabing and Hawkins was conducted in prison inmates at Ohio State Penitentiary.
Lastly, the section on Anadenanthera Beans doesn't mention P.G.A. de Smet, an pioneer in ethnopharmacology who contributed almost all of the definitive research on the subject.
I'll be happy to help dig up additional references. Rhode Island Red 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The tests performed by Ott were both self tests and were also administered to other individuals (except the rectal ones) who had identical results. Please read the source completely. Similar test results showing clear hallucinogenic activity for free base bufotenin were also confirmed separately and presented in Visionary Plant Of Ancient South America By Constantino by Torres and Repke. Also, keep in mind that we have thousands of years of confirmed hallucinogenic activity from shamans using bufotenin. People seem to want to discard this fact concerning bufotenin in favor of test results from injections of forms of bufotenin never used by the shamans. We cannot argue with thousands of years of use by shamans just because some tests of injected forms show different effects. To do so is to put our heads in the sand and ignore an important part of human history in South America. - FV 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
FlowingVisions, I noticed you removed the citation tags I added without commenting on the edit summary or here on the talk page. I also had made substantial revisions to the text, which I explained clearly in my edit summaries, and the revisions were reverted without explanation. If you have objections, let's talk about them here before reverting good-faith edits. Rhode Island Red 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hallucinogenic Plants by Richard E. Shultes is not a sufficiently high-quality source, since none of the statements in the book are supported by references. Please refer to WP:RS. The sentence in question already has 3 other references to support it, so this isn't needed anyway. Rhode Island Red 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
A few observations and opinions towards further improving the quality of this article:
As I stated before, I see far too much reliance on the one reference by Torres & Rapke (reference #16:Anadenanthera: Visionary Plant Of Ancient South America. ISBN0789026422 ), and the problem has now been exacerbated by the recent addition of several more citations to this book (it is now quoted 19 times -- nearly half of the article’s 41 references). Please refer to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy and consider the section on Weight as well as WP:EL, which states.
The undue weight in this case makes the article convey that the Torres & Rapke book is the single most important source to ever comment on bufotenin, which is misleading.
Bear in mind that Torres & Rapke’s’ book is essentially a review of the subject, and while this may have been a useful review, Torres & Rapke are only one of many groups to have written about bufotenine. Many other very credible sources have written excellent reviews and published primary research on the topic, and their contributions in the field should be given a more balanced representation in the article.
With respect to credibility, Torres is a Professor of Art & Art History at Florida International University, and co-author David Repke holds only a BSc. in medicinal chemistry. I would not suggest that they should be dismissed completely as credible sources when it comes to the science of bufotenin, but it can easily be argued that their book and credentials are not notable enough to warrant 19 citations, especially when other well-credentialed authorities (PhD.’s and MD’s) who have written on the subject are not cited at all.
Lastly, for most of the Torres & Rapke citations (references #16 a-q), page numbers have not been included, which makes it exceedingly difficult to verify statements. This is inconsistent with WP:CIT and the references may be challenged and/or removed. Because this book is not readily accessible online, it might help if someone could quote a few relevant passages here on the talk page so that others can assess the validity and interpretation. Also, if the book is being used to cite other primary/secondary references, it would be helpful to list those references so that they too can be verified and/or mentioned.
We should be careful to restrict this article mainly to what is known about bufotenine itself, rather than the effects of extracts of toad venom or anadenanthera seeds, which contain mixtures of compounds, making it impossible to attribute effects directly to bufotenin. Bear in mind that there are already articles on psychoactive toad, Anadenanthera peregrina and Anadenanthera colubrina, so information that relates to these subjects, but not directly to bufotenine, should be moved/merged into those other articles. For example, the description of the methods of snuff preparation; other than perhaps a very, very brief synopsis, this really doesn’t merit mention in this article, although it is relevant to the articles on Anadenanthera.
First, while Ott’s self-authored self-administration [5] study is interesting, I have several concerns about the study itself and some of the statements made about the research in our WP article. First, he used a study population consisting of one person (himself) and it is difficult to reach firm conclusions on that basis. The study also seems to have been conducted without coauthors, academic affiliations, or oversight of any kind. Ott seems to be a well-educated and highly motivated ethnobotany enthusiast who undertook some interesting experiments on himself, but his scientific authority and credibility seems lacking.
Second, according to Ott's article, he synthesized the bufotenin analogs himself, and although he described the methodology, he presented no evidence to confirm that his syntheses were successful (i.e. that he obtained pure salts, free base etc.). He did not show any purity testing results nor did he indicate that he had submitted his samples for independent analysis and confirmation of purity. Who knows what Ott might have been taking?
Third, I have not seen any other reliable sources who have echoed the quote attributed to Ott that bufotenin “is the primary active component” of Anadenanthera snuff and that it alone is responsible for the snuff’s alleged hallucinogenic effects. As such, this assertion represents a minority opinion and should therefore not be given undue weight (see WP:REDFLAG) or presented as fact. Instead, this should be qualified as Ott’s opinion, if it is to be mentioned at all. Several other sources have identified other psychoactive components in Anadenanthera snuffs and/or have suggested that these components also contribute to the snuff’s psychoactive effects. [e.g. see (a) Torres et al. Snuff powders from Pre-Hispanic San Pedro de Atacama: chemical and contextual analysis. Current Anthropology. 1991;32(5):640-649; and (b) Chamakura 1994). Others have stated that bufotenin is not the active ingredient in Cohoba snuffs (see Turner and Merlis, 1956).
Furthermore, other studies have shown that the alkaloids in the snuffs are not stable over time, so it is difficult when analyzing archeological snuff samples, to determine exactly which alkaloids they contained when fresh. Chamkura (1994) highlighted a study by world-renowned authority Richard Schultes indicating that DMT and 5-MeO-DMT were not stable in Anadenanthera seed samples; the concentrations in freshly prepared samples declined to zero over a two-year span while bufotenin remained stable. This explains why bufotenine is the only alkaloid detectable in archaelogical samples of snuff and seeds.
Lastly, Ott's article, originally published in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, is hyperlinked in the WP bufotenin article. Journal articles are typically copyrighted works belonging to the journal published, and there is no indication that copyright permission was obtained to re-post the article online. As such, we may have a copyright issue about linking to an unauthorized online copy, according to WP:EL, which states;
Please consider that much of the newly added information under Toxicity about effects in humans is duplicative of exisiting material in the sections Bufotenin Salts vs. Free Base and Effects in Humans. The section also strikes me as obscure and difficult to follow for most readers, and it seems out of sequence with respect to the broader discussion of Effects in Humans that follows. We really should try to make the article as informative and detailed, but also as concise and easy to read, as possible. Rhode Island Red 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the reference to morphine's LD50 in rats seems rather high. Whether or not the figure is accurate, a dose well below 200-300mg/kg in an opioid-tolerant human would still be fatal. I believe this gives the impression that this substance is much more toxic than test would indicate. Perhaps the level can be compared to a substance that is known to reflect the equivalent in humans.
Stabwestrhcp (
talk)
08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)stabwestrhcp
There is a reason this article makes heavy use of this book as a reference. Much of the book is available on-line to view for free at http://books.google.com and http://www.amazon.com
The vast majority of the studies sited by Torres and Rapke appear in dozens of other publications and they are not the work of Torres and Rapke. A large portion of the book is a collection of work by other highly qualified people. Torres and Rapke basically took tons of studies published by others and crammed it into their book making it conveniently available to us all. From this single book you get references to work done by tons of other people. It's a great book and it is the single most important book on the subject because it draws from nearly every study ever done on the subject up until 2006. There is no other book as complete as this one. Check the back and you'll see an amazing amount of references to studies cited in the book. The references cited span centuries of work. Ron Delipski 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone has time to make the references more clear by citing the actual individuals responsible for the studies shown in this book, rather than simply this book, please do so.
Thanks. Ron Delipski 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea//programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v4_num14/pg1.html
This graphic in particular: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea//programs/forensicsci/microgram/journal_v4_num14/image_007.gif
-- 88.1.38.80 ( talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bufotenin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I did a bit of editing from an unfamiliar platform, then got concerned that i needed to switch back to finish my task. Perhaps edit conflict with myself reflects just race condition between platforms. I'll review intentions and results after taking time out for personal mental maintenance.
--
Jerzy•
t
09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)