This page is not a forum for general discussion about the benefits and risks of poppers. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the benefits and risks of poppers at the Reference desk. |
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article was nominated for merging with Alkyl nitrites on 1 October 2006. The result of the discussion was No merge. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktashkulov. Peer reviewers: Jweaver8, Milest303, Hasan Swain.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnunciationOfTruth.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
(Sorry for my english) It is write : Today, reformulated poppers containing isobutyl nitrite are sold under brand names such as RUSH,[1][4] Locker Room,[1][4] Snappers,[1][48] and Liquid Gold.[1] So on the webstite of Liquid Gold, it is write that Isobutyl is cancerous, and prohibited since 2007. http://www.liquidgoldaromas.co.uk/contact.php This is the directive Eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2006%3A033%3A0028%3A0081%3Aen%3APDF I have read a mail on a forum from RAM (Jungle juice brand), it was write that new formula is only ISOPROPYL, no ISOBUTYL. http://www.junglejuice.org/Aromas/aromas/JUNGLE-JUICE-25ml--57/ But on this website from RUSH it is write ISOBUTYL : http://www.rush-poppers.org/ If I understand it is a resellers, the makers is PWD, I think is it a error because law, and on the forum it is write ISOPROPYL too : http://www.rush-poppers.org/rush-forum/10130.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This article tell that ISOPROPYL is less strenght than ISOBUTYL : http://www.poppershop.eu/fr/faq.html#VIII.1 -- Anarkia777 ( talk) 22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
RAM product answer me this mail about new formula : Hi, the "new" formula (since 2008) is isopropyl nitrite; the old one was isobutyl but that is now banned in the EU. Order at: www.junglejuice.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have continued my research for have poppers in EU, and I have find Isobutyl, and Amyl, Rush make poppers with 3 molecule, and sell it dependly of country, for EU Rush sell Isopropyl, because other is prohibited, and for other country they sell ISOBUTYL and AMYL. A other brand Canadian JUNGKE JUICE make poppers with ISOBUTYL. FOr conclusions in EU seller sell only ISOPROPYL (prohibited since 2007), and other country can sell 2 other molecule (ISOBUTYL ans AMYL), and 2 other molecule but I don't know it.... -- Anarkia777 ( talk) 12:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has two sections titled Legality which contain nearly identical information. I attempted to rectify this by removing one of the sections, but the entry was restored and I was given a (presumably automated) warning about removing information. My suggestion is that someone with the ability to edit this and make it stick do so, unless it is Wikipedia's policy to include multiple sections with the same information and title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.9.128 ( talk) 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
An editor who may have a COI with this subject has twice removed well sourced content noting the risks associated with this type of drug. [1] As the article stands now, it misrepresents a single study categorizing drug safety as the only source on the health risks noted in the opening paragraphs. This is outrageous. Freakshownerd ( talk) 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a better name for the "AIDS" section? The current one implies there is a direct relationship, when it's correlational. Perhaps "correlation with HIV infection"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
LiteratureGeek may have the best answer here, should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS? Is it already? I've got an official source for the poppers/viagra indication ( PMID 11365402), shouldn't it go in a separate contraindications section?
I might be jumping the gun, lazily I haven't reviewed MEDMOS to see if it's already lined up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Given this page's propensity to long, outdated conversations, does anyone have any objection to me setting up an auto-archive? -- me_and ( talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Initially poppers were considered as a hypothesis for the then-burgeoning AIDS epidemic, and the idea has persisted in large part due to the activities of AIDS denialists as a pseudoscientific rationalization for the presence of AIDS in homosexual males.[39]"
The cited page links to the following article: Does drug use cause AIDS?, published in Nature in 1993. But in fact shows that every incidence of AIDS occurred among the cohort of popper users which were all homosexuals (no heterosexual popper users were in the cohort). This entire wiki article should a) cite better, non-secondary sources and b) not rely on dubious secondary sources especially when the articles THEY cite do NOT refute (nor confirm) the idea that poppers may in fact cause AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 03:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one, number 42: "In the analyses using lagged exposures, KS risk was associated with use of poppers 3–5 years prior [hazard ratio (HR)3 years prior=1.27, 95% CI (0.97–1.67), HR5 years prior=1.46 (1.01–2.13)]."
The article states: though a study of the use of poppers by HIV positive men found no association between the two.[42] NOT TRUE!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The 1993 Lancet study "HIV-1 AND THE AETIOLOGY OF AIDS" (citation 44) - now that is a good one!
Given that Chao et al. is not an experiment at all, whereas the animal studies are direct experiments, it would by much more logical to state the the animal studies demonstrate a biological link (rather than merely "suggest an association") while the statistical study cannot, at all, confirm or deny a biological link between anything. Instead, it can only "not support a biological association." 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This from the article - "A study that followed 715 gay men for eight and a half years published in the Lancet in 1993 rejected any causal relationship between AIDS and poppers.[45] Although the study did conclude an association between the use of poppers in the gay culture and contracting the HIV virus, it also concluded an association between anal sex and contracting the HIV virus." This can't be worded right?? Poppers may cause you to get an HIV infection but it doesn't cause AIDS - I am sorry but I thought HIV caused AIDS. I would think anything that caused you to get HIV would - ah who cares - Can someone explain if this is okay? or is the science tooo deep for us regular folks. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To be specific, the prevalence of popper use was apparently 88% in the HIV-positive group and 56% in the HIV-negative group. So popper use is statistically associated (perhaps - no p value is given) with HIV seropositivity, which makes sense since it's a marker of other high-risk behaviors. But 56% of the HIV-seronegative group used poppers, and none of them developed any opportunistic infections, which is evidence against any potent immunosuppressive effect of poppers. On the other hand, opportunistic infections developed only in the HIV-positive patients, which (combined with the extensive body of knowledge of the biology of HIV infection) is convincing evidence in support of the fact that HIV causes AIDS. MastCell Talk 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the statistics argument can go both ways - have to see the data for the whole study and that would probably be inconclusive. ( ie poppers may be a marker for high risk ... or high risk may be a marker for poppers.) Still have to wait to see if the 56% are just tougher. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In and of itself, it doesn't "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, or that poppers don't. Causality generally isn't proven by a single study - that's a canard fabricated (or promoted out of ignorance) by AIDS denialists. Incorporating this one epidemiologic study with the thousands of other pieces of published science on HIV, from the level of basic virology to population-level epidemiology, proves the case. A general tactic of AIDS denialists is to attack individual studies (usually on ignorant or scientifically illiterate grounds) rather than address the sum of available evidence. But I digress. MastCell Talk 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Is the data for the study published anywhere? Frequency of use, etc, lenght of use, etc.... For any and/or all studies pertaining to this. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is almost impossible to find any of the "studies" anywhere. Here is the conclusion from footnote 40 however: Conclusion "We have shown in this brief review that although the systemic clearance of inhalant nitrites is rapid, its toxicological effects are not transient. Significant alterations in the expression of several cancer- and angiogenesis-related genes were observed in mouse liver after both acute and repeated in vivo exposure. In particular, VEGF mRNA and protein expression were significantly up-regulated. The tumor weight and volume of a VEGF-responsive tumor were significantly increased with repeated nitrite exposure. These results, summarized in Fig. 2, showed that the toxicity of inhalant nitrites might in part be mediated through alteration in the angiogenesis cascades" - it appears footnote 40 seems to think that poppers ain't good for mice's livers. Genetic problems in an animal study. Most of the footnotes reference the article - what's that supposed to give us for info? Like the footnotes that go somwhere other than wiki though - thanks for them. My suggestion for a better article would be to stop self-referencing the article as a reliable source, a link to the real "study" or its location would be more helpful. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
http://poppers.cfsites.org/custom.php?pageid=8068 - this link summarizes several studies done relevant to poppers/AIDS/HIV/cancer. On their own poppers appear to be stimulators of cancer growth. More frequent use - what I wanted to know - multiples anything bad happening to you( per one study - ie if you want increase your chance of getting HIV, try a popper - if you want to encourage cancer, try a popper). This research has been available for some tin=me and appears to be continuing to this day, by real labs putting out real reports. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) The reason for the association between the use of poppers and HIV infection is that poppers relax smooth muscle which includes the cells lining the rectum. This means that poppers facilitate receptive anal intercourse which is a high-risk behavior. A mediational model would show the association between popper use and HIV infection mediated by receptive anal intercourse. I hope this helps the discussion.Citations include Mirvish & Haverkos, 1987; Ostrow, 1986; Fisher, DeLapp, Roggenbuck, & Brause 1992 Afdgf ( talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)afdgf
I just took out the phrase "the head rush and euphoria are the result of increased heart rate" from the "aphrodisiac" section, which I think may have been an innocent error by a non-medical contributor. This isn't true (all three are caused by other effects of the drug such as vasodilation), and furthermore the reference to the Merck manual did not include any such claim. Finally the sentence itself is sort of out of place and doesn't contribute to the section (even if true, which it isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.17.185 ( talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) As it is clearly an hypothesis article, and has been cited only 34 times in 25 years, and appears to be associated with Duesberg (see
[3]), I judge it unsuitable for WP. Le Prof
50.129.227.141 (
talk)
18:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)This edit looks suspicious to me, as it completely reverses the messaging in the health effects section without any change to the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poppers&diff=588078169&oldid=588077608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.170.2 ( talk) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://forum.xumuk.ru/index.php?showtopic=152660 http://sakrutov-grisha.livejournal.com/619.html 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:36 ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I did some major editing of the article, to address a tendency toward adding statements without citations, and a propensity to make the page an erowid-type article of use for potential experimenters (rather than an encyclopedic article).
Important changes are fully cataloged in the Edit summaries, and include:
As well, I found a source in the LGBT online literature that was up-to-date, and made clear that formulations of the title subject change, and that these changes have impact on health aspects of their use.
Finally, I added content to the lede (summarizing the health material in the main body), and moved/removed material in the lede that was unsourced and not in the main body. (This was conservative, but bold.)
In doing these things, I addressed some concerns appearing above in Talk, as noted.
Please discuss here any concerns, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The following unsourced statements that appeared in a prior version of the article are moved here, as they lack any sourcing whatsoever. Please add them back to the article, only with high quality secondary sourcing, appropriate to the encyclopedia:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please do not return either statement without sourcing, and checking that source as to the accuracy of the content. (In my experience, editors choosing not to source, are also apt to misstate source content.) Any concerns, please discuss here, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Do any poppers even have this in them any more? Is there any data on whats actually in each brand? -- Simon19801 ( talk) 10:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying to correct the article as its wrong (as alot of articles are) AmyleNitrite is NOT IN ANY OF THEM and has not been for years! I thought it would better if the article was correct and didnt list WRONG contents, and would be better if it listed the actual contents!-- Simon19801 ( talk) 11:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is so full of speculation, opinion and devoid of references, that it would be better served by being completely nuked than continuing to spread (potentially dangerous) unsourced or mis- information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.73.43 ( talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't find statistics in the article about the use of "poppers" in sexual assaults, like the one that Bette Midler relates happened to her. She has said repeatedly since about 1991-ish that she was forced into the bathroom of her home by two men who then snapped a couple of poppers under her nose and assaulted her. If these things can be used in this manner, then I'm sure that Midler isn't the only one to have been subjected to such a violation. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 06:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states "The French chemist Antoine Jérôme Balard synthesized amyl nitrite in 1844." yet Balard died in 1876. See: /info/en/?search=Antoine_J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Balard, also http://www.nndb.com/people/586/000114244/.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.151.128 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, November 30, 2018 (UTC)
"In the US, amyl nitrite was originally marketed as a prescription drug in 1937 and remained so until 1960, when the Food and Drug Administration removed the prescription requirement due to its safety record. This requirement was reinstated in 1969, after observation of an increase in recreational use.
"Other alkyl nitrites were outlawed in the US by Congress through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The law includes an exception for commercial purpose, defined as any use other than for the production of consumer products containing volatile alkyl nitrites meant for inhaling or otherwise introducing volatile alkyl nitrites into the human body for euphoric or physical effects.[53] The law came into effect in 1990.
"Substances containing alkyl nitrites other than amyl nitrite are available at many retailers[citation needed] – typically sex shops and stores that sell recreational-drug paraphernalia – and may be purchased legally."
The second and third paragraphs seem to contradict each other.... 71.235.184.247 ( talk) 05:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that Australia's TGA board has rendered a final decision on the legality of Poppers in Australia. As I am insufficiently equipped to make edits myself, I have simply posted this direct link to the TGA's decision for any editor that wishes to peruse and edit as they please.
Final decision(s) for matter(s) referred to the March 2019 Joint ACMS-ACCS meeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.133.142 ( talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ PalmSpringsCub: @ Tony Inman: Let's all keep in mind that we need to build consensus here. This is the place for that discussion. Personally, I think undue weight is placed on these popperbating videos. Sure, they exist, but are they singlehandedly responsible for the resurgence of popper use in the 21st century? Ehhhh. There being no surveys I can find relating to why and where people use poppers, I don't see how we can delete the mention of this practice either. But we shouldn't give it undue weight. Poppers have a utilitarian aspect: that they help some people relax to facilitate anal sex. That utility has never gone away, and to say that it's primary market is being supplanted by those that use poppers while masturbating is a bit of a big claim. Thoughts? The Savage Norwegian 22:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't seem much to discuss. Contentious material added repeatedly by a single purpose account? Consensus should be reached before adding contentious material - not to decide whether to revert it. The source being relied upon, 1) isn't RS (and if you think it is, by all means, take it to RS forum for debate.) and 2) doesn't actually back up the claims being made. That's why I removed it and will continue to do so provided there's no improvement in the source validity or citation evidence for the claims. To effect consensus, by all means, explain why you think adding this material improves the article, and explain how the source is RS and explain how the source backs up the claims you are making. Tonyinman ( talk) 10:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, reading through the entire talk page - I draw your attention to this coment from 2010 by WLU "should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS?" - which I agree with. The article should be facutal - it's about a chemical originally designed for angina. It shouldn't be a repository for uncited cultural opinion. Tonyinman ( talk) 11:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
References
in Canada BC, I'm unaware of it's used in other areas, a popper refers to a combination of marijuana and tobacco, usually packed Into a bowl to smoke through a Bong/other smoking devices 199.247.240.114 ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the benefits and risks of poppers. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the benefits and risks of poppers at the Reference desk. |
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article was nominated for merging with Alkyl nitrites on 1 October 2006. The result of the discussion was No merge. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktashkulov. Peer reviewers: Jweaver8, Milest303, Hasan Swain.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnunciationOfTruth.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
(Sorry for my english) It is write : Today, reformulated poppers containing isobutyl nitrite are sold under brand names such as RUSH,[1][4] Locker Room,[1][4] Snappers,[1][48] and Liquid Gold.[1] So on the webstite of Liquid Gold, it is write that Isobutyl is cancerous, and prohibited since 2007. http://www.liquidgoldaromas.co.uk/contact.php This is the directive Eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2006%3A033%3A0028%3A0081%3Aen%3APDF I have read a mail on a forum from RAM (Jungle juice brand), it was write that new formula is only ISOPROPYL, no ISOBUTYL. http://www.junglejuice.org/Aromas/aromas/JUNGLE-JUICE-25ml--57/ But on this website from RUSH it is write ISOBUTYL : http://www.rush-poppers.org/ If I understand it is a resellers, the makers is PWD, I think is it a error because law, and on the forum it is write ISOPROPYL too : http://www.rush-poppers.org/rush-forum/10130.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This article tell that ISOPROPYL is less strenght than ISOBUTYL : http://www.poppershop.eu/fr/faq.html#VIII.1 -- Anarkia777 ( talk) 22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
RAM product answer me this mail about new formula : Hi, the "new" formula (since 2008) is isopropyl nitrite; the old one was isobutyl but that is now banned in the EU. Order at: www.junglejuice.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarkia777 ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have continued my research for have poppers in EU, and I have find Isobutyl, and Amyl, Rush make poppers with 3 molecule, and sell it dependly of country, for EU Rush sell Isopropyl, because other is prohibited, and for other country they sell ISOBUTYL and AMYL. A other brand Canadian JUNGKE JUICE make poppers with ISOBUTYL. FOr conclusions in EU seller sell only ISOPROPYL (prohibited since 2007), and other country can sell 2 other molecule (ISOBUTYL ans AMYL), and 2 other molecule but I don't know it.... -- Anarkia777 ( talk) 12:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has two sections titled Legality which contain nearly identical information. I attempted to rectify this by removing one of the sections, but the entry was restored and I was given a (presumably automated) warning about removing information. My suggestion is that someone with the ability to edit this and make it stick do so, unless it is Wikipedia's policy to include multiple sections with the same information and title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.9.128 ( talk) 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
An editor who may have a COI with this subject has twice removed well sourced content noting the risks associated with this type of drug. [1] As the article stands now, it misrepresents a single study categorizing drug safety as the only source on the health risks noted in the opening paragraphs. This is outrageous. Freakshownerd ( talk) 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a better name for the "AIDS" section? The current one implies there is a direct relationship, when it's correlational. Perhaps "correlation with HIV infection"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
LiteratureGeek may have the best answer here, should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS? Is it already? I've got an official source for the poppers/viagra indication ( PMID 11365402), shouldn't it go in a separate contraindications section?
I might be jumping the gun, lazily I haven't reviewed MEDMOS to see if it's already lined up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Given this page's propensity to long, outdated conversations, does anyone have any objection to me setting up an auto-archive? -- me_and ( talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Initially poppers were considered as a hypothesis for the then-burgeoning AIDS epidemic, and the idea has persisted in large part due to the activities of AIDS denialists as a pseudoscientific rationalization for the presence of AIDS in homosexual males.[39]"
The cited page links to the following article: Does drug use cause AIDS?, published in Nature in 1993. But in fact shows that every incidence of AIDS occurred among the cohort of popper users which were all homosexuals (no heterosexual popper users were in the cohort). This entire wiki article should a) cite better, non-secondary sources and b) not rely on dubious secondary sources especially when the articles THEY cite do NOT refute (nor confirm) the idea that poppers may in fact cause AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 03:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Another one, number 42: "In the analyses using lagged exposures, KS risk was associated with use of poppers 3–5 years prior [hazard ratio (HR)3 years prior=1.27, 95% CI (0.97–1.67), HR5 years prior=1.46 (1.01–2.13)]."
The article states: though a study of the use of poppers by HIV positive men found no association between the two.[42] NOT TRUE!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The 1993 Lancet study "HIV-1 AND THE AETIOLOGY OF AIDS" (citation 44) - now that is a good one!
Given that Chao et al. is not an experiment at all, whereas the animal studies are direct experiments, it would by much more logical to state the the animal studies demonstrate a biological link (rather than merely "suggest an association") while the statistical study cannot, at all, confirm or deny a biological link between anything. Instead, it can only "not support a biological association." 96.253.119.205 ( talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This from the article - "A study that followed 715 gay men for eight and a half years published in the Lancet in 1993 rejected any causal relationship between AIDS and poppers.[45] Although the study did conclude an association between the use of poppers in the gay culture and contracting the HIV virus, it also concluded an association between anal sex and contracting the HIV virus." This can't be worded right?? Poppers may cause you to get an HIV infection but it doesn't cause AIDS - I am sorry but I thought HIV caused AIDS. I would think anything that caused you to get HIV would - ah who cares - Can someone explain if this is okay? or is the science tooo deep for us regular folks. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To be specific, the prevalence of popper use was apparently 88% in the HIV-positive group and 56% in the HIV-negative group. So popper use is statistically associated (perhaps - no p value is given) with HIV seropositivity, which makes sense since it's a marker of other high-risk behaviors. But 56% of the HIV-seronegative group used poppers, and none of them developed any opportunistic infections, which is evidence against any potent immunosuppressive effect of poppers. On the other hand, opportunistic infections developed only in the HIV-positive patients, which (combined with the extensive body of knowledge of the biology of HIV infection) is convincing evidence in support of the fact that HIV causes AIDS. MastCell Talk 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the statistics argument can go both ways - have to see the data for the whole study and that would probably be inconclusive. ( ie poppers may be a marker for high risk ... or high risk may be a marker for poppers.) Still have to wait to see if the 56% are just tougher. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In and of itself, it doesn't "prove" that HIV causes AIDS, or that poppers don't. Causality generally isn't proven by a single study - that's a canard fabricated (or promoted out of ignorance) by AIDS denialists. Incorporating this one epidemiologic study with the thousands of other pieces of published science on HIV, from the level of basic virology to population-level epidemiology, proves the case. A general tactic of AIDS denialists is to attack individual studies (usually on ignorant or scientifically illiterate grounds) rather than address the sum of available evidence. But I digress. MastCell Talk 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Is the data for the study published anywhere? Frequency of use, etc, lenght of use, etc.... For any and/or all studies pertaining to this. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is almost impossible to find any of the "studies" anywhere. Here is the conclusion from footnote 40 however: Conclusion "We have shown in this brief review that although the systemic clearance of inhalant nitrites is rapid, its toxicological effects are not transient. Significant alterations in the expression of several cancer- and angiogenesis-related genes were observed in mouse liver after both acute and repeated in vivo exposure. In particular, VEGF mRNA and protein expression were significantly up-regulated. The tumor weight and volume of a VEGF-responsive tumor were significantly increased with repeated nitrite exposure. These results, summarized in Fig. 2, showed that the toxicity of inhalant nitrites might in part be mediated through alteration in the angiogenesis cascades" - it appears footnote 40 seems to think that poppers ain't good for mice's livers. Genetic problems in an animal study. Most of the footnotes reference the article - what's that supposed to give us for info? Like the footnotes that go somwhere other than wiki though - thanks for them. My suggestion for a better article would be to stop self-referencing the article as a reliable source, a link to the real "study" or its location would be more helpful. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 14:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
http://poppers.cfsites.org/custom.php?pageid=8068 - this link summarizes several studies done relevant to poppers/AIDS/HIV/cancer. On their own poppers appear to be stimulators of cancer growth. More frequent use - what I wanted to know - multiples anything bad happening to you( per one study - ie if you want increase your chance of getting HIV, try a popper - if you want to encourage cancer, try a popper). This research has been available for some tin=me and appears to be continuing to this day, by real labs putting out real reports. 159.105.81.31 ( talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) The reason for the association between the use of poppers and HIV infection is that poppers relax smooth muscle which includes the cells lining the rectum. This means that poppers facilitate receptive anal intercourse which is a high-risk behavior. A mediational model would show the association between popper use and HIV infection mediated by receptive anal intercourse. I hope this helps the discussion.Citations include Mirvish & Haverkos, 1987; Ostrow, 1986; Fisher, DeLapp, Roggenbuck, & Brause 1992 Afdgf ( talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)afdgf
I just took out the phrase "the head rush and euphoria are the result of increased heart rate" from the "aphrodisiac" section, which I think may have been an innocent error by a non-medical contributor. This isn't true (all three are caused by other effects of the drug such as vasodilation), and furthermore the reference to the Merck manual did not include any such claim. Finally the sentence itself is sort of out of place and doesn't contribute to the section (even if true, which it isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.17.185 ( talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) As it is clearly an hypothesis article, and has been cited only 34 times in 25 years, and appears to be associated with Duesberg (see
[3]), I judge it unsuitable for WP. Le Prof
50.129.227.141 (
talk)
18:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)This edit looks suspicious to me, as it completely reverses the messaging in the health effects section without any change to the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poppers&diff=588078169&oldid=588077608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.170.2 ( talk) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://forum.xumuk.ru/index.php?showtopic=152660 http://sakrutov-grisha.livejournal.com/619.html 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:36 ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I did some major editing of the article, to address a tendency toward adding statements without citations, and a propensity to make the page an erowid-type article of use for potential experimenters (rather than an encyclopedic article).
Important changes are fully cataloged in the Edit summaries, and include:
As well, I found a source in the LGBT online literature that was up-to-date, and made clear that formulations of the title subject change, and that these changes have impact on health aspects of their use.
Finally, I added content to the lede (summarizing the health material in the main body), and moved/removed material in the lede that was unsourced and not in the main body. (This was conservative, but bold.)
In doing these things, I addressed some concerns appearing above in Talk, as noted.
Please discuss here any concerns, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The following unsourced statements that appeared in a prior version of the article are moved here, as they lack any sourcing whatsoever. Please add them back to the article, only with high quality secondary sourcing, appropriate to the encyclopedia:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please do not return either statement without sourcing, and checking that source as to the accuracy of the content. (In my experience, editors choosing not to source, are also apt to misstate source content.) Any concerns, please discuss here, and I will respond. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Do any poppers even have this in them any more? Is there any data on whats actually in each brand? -- Simon19801 ( talk) 10:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying to correct the article as its wrong (as alot of articles are) AmyleNitrite is NOT IN ANY OF THEM and has not been for years! I thought it would better if the article was correct and didnt list WRONG contents, and would be better if it listed the actual contents!-- Simon19801 ( talk) 11:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is so full of speculation, opinion and devoid of references, that it would be better served by being completely nuked than continuing to spread (potentially dangerous) unsourced or mis- information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.73.43 ( talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't find statistics in the article about the use of "poppers" in sexual assaults, like the one that Bette Midler relates happened to her. She has said repeatedly since about 1991-ish that she was forced into the bathroom of her home by two men who then snapped a couple of poppers under her nose and assaulted her. If these things can be used in this manner, then I'm sure that Midler isn't the only one to have been subjected to such a violation. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 06:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The article states "The French chemist Antoine Jérôme Balard synthesized amyl nitrite in 1844." yet Balard died in 1876. See: /info/en/?search=Antoine_J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Balard, also http://www.nndb.com/people/586/000114244/.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.151.128 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, November 30, 2018 (UTC)
"In the US, amyl nitrite was originally marketed as a prescription drug in 1937 and remained so until 1960, when the Food and Drug Administration removed the prescription requirement due to its safety record. This requirement was reinstated in 1969, after observation of an increase in recreational use.
"Other alkyl nitrites were outlawed in the US by Congress through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The law includes an exception for commercial purpose, defined as any use other than for the production of consumer products containing volatile alkyl nitrites meant for inhaling or otherwise introducing volatile alkyl nitrites into the human body for euphoric or physical effects.[53] The law came into effect in 1990.
"Substances containing alkyl nitrites other than amyl nitrite are available at many retailers[citation needed] – typically sex shops and stores that sell recreational-drug paraphernalia – and may be purchased legally."
The second and third paragraphs seem to contradict each other.... 71.235.184.247 ( talk) 05:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that Australia's TGA board has rendered a final decision on the legality of Poppers in Australia. As I am insufficiently equipped to make edits myself, I have simply posted this direct link to the TGA's decision for any editor that wishes to peruse and edit as they please.
Final decision(s) for matter(s) referred to the March 2019 Joint ACMS-ACCS meeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.133.142 ( talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ PalmSpringsCub: @ Tony Inman: Let's all keep in mind that we need to build consensus here. This is the place for that discussion. Personally, I think undue weight is placed on these popperbating videos. Sure, they exist, but are they singlehandedly responsible for the resurgence of popper use in the 21st century? Ehhhh. There being no surveys I can find relating to why and where people use poppers, I don't see how we can delete the mention of this practice either. But we shouldn't give it undue weight. Poppers have a utilitarian aspect: that they help some people relax to facilitate anal sex. That utility has never gone away, and to say that it's primary market is being supplanted by those that use poppers while masturbating is a bit of a big claim. Thoughts? The Savage Norwegian 22:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't seem much to discuss. Contentious material added repeatedly by a single purpose account? Consensus should be reached before adding contentious material - not to decide whether to revert it. The source being relied upon, 1) isn't RS (and if you think it is, by all means, take it to RS forum for debate.) and 2) doesn't actually back up the claims being made. That's why I removed it and will continue to do so provided there's no improvement in the source validity or citation evidence for the claims. To effect consensus, by all means, explain why you think adding this material improves the article, and explain how the source is RS and explain how the source backs up the claims you are making. Tonyinman ( talk) 10:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, reading through the entire talk page - I draw your attention to this coment from 2010 by WLU "should this article, being medical-ish, be in line with MEDMOS?" - which I agree with. The article should be facutal - it's about a chemical originally designed for angina. It shouldn't be a repository for uncited cultural opinion. Tonyinman ( talk) 11:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
References
in Canada BC, I'm unaware of it's used in other areas, a popper refers to a combination of marijuana and tobacco, usually packed Into a bowl to smoke through a Bong/other smoking devices 199.247.240.114 ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)