|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about 25I-NBOMe.
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Given the "Citation Needed" note  regarding dose and a recent delve into the pharmacological effects of this psychoactive chemical I wish to ask: is Erowid's report on a quite similar chemical enough? Their claims could easily be substantiated by a layman but at this time you will not find a true pharmacological report from any "Reputable" source. I say it gets dropped, the citation needed note removed given that the molecules are so similar (Merely a switched Chloride group for a iodine.) Dosage between the 2C-? series doesn't shift significantly (With modification of the 4'th location of the benzene ring, not the addition of an advanced group at the 1st) because they are all relatively the same, as is the DO? series. The 25?-NBOMe series will take a few months, even years to undergo reputable research but there are many people who have experimented with this chemical and have reported the dosage within this range. I don't think it's justifiable to state citation needed when you'll find no better source for quite some time as Erowid.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/nbome/nbome_effects.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This compound reported in Virginia as cause for at least 5 overdoses. Our poison control center issued a warning on this drug. Suggest not delete as many may be looking for more info on this drug if overdoses continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Noted, I have removed this one from the AFD I made for 2C-TFM. flaming () 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
In “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe“ there is given a Ki = 0.044 nM for 25I-NBOMe. This Ki is obtained from (h5-HT2A)-experiments, making 25I-NBOMe some sixteen times the potency of 2C-I (Ki = 0.73 nM) itself.(see ref.)
In “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOH” a Ki = 0.12 nM is given for 25I-NBOH. But this Ki is derived from (r5-HT2A)-experiments and therefore can not directly be compared with the Ki given for 25I-NBOMe. The Ki for 25I-NBOH derived from (h5-HT2A)-experiments is 0.061 nM, making 25I-NBOH some twelve times the potency of 2C-I (Ki = 0.73 nM) itself.(see ref.)
Other Ki-values within the phenyethylamine-N-benzy-series reported in en.wikipedia.org may derived also from different experiments and could therefore not compared directly. I was not able to control this.
ref.: Molecular Pharmacology Fast Forward. Published on September 25, 2006 as doi:10.1124/mol.106.028720 Copyright 2006 Molecular interaction of serotonin 5-HT2A receptor residues Phe339(6.51) and Phe340(6.52) with super-potent N-benzyl phenethylamine agonists. Michael R. Braden, Jason C. Parrish, John C. Naylor, David E. Nichols Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 Anna Bolaine (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The title is seriously messed up. At least add redirects (I would but I don't know how to) for "25-I" and "N-Bomb" I was looking for this article but came up empty with those two phrases (after reading this article: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/21-year-old_dies_after_one_dro.html#incart_m-rpt-2), but lucked onto it by doing a Google search for "25-I" which brought me back to Wikipedia. Br77rino (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- We don't have Cannabis (drug) at Weed, Lysergic acid diethylamide at Acid, 2C-B at Bees, or Methamphetamine at Meth. 25-I and N-Bomb aren't accurate terms because this is neither the only 25I- drug out there, nor the only NBOMe out there. I'll disambiguate them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've disambiguated 25I and NBOMe (drug). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Only one thing suspicious about deaths
It is suspicious that there are no other sources for a story of such a pertinent ill about a drug that is legal in most places in a culture that wants to ban drugs. I have strong suspicions the stories are invented. When there is no consistency across sources with such a culturally powerful story it usually means nobody else could verify it, and the source we have thus probably invented it or not done fact checking themselves for evidence of the reports being true.
Further, I find it unlikely this drug has killed anyone, there is no lethality with the 2C drugs it is derivative from. It would take extremely high non-recreational doses. There is the possibility that someone effected by the drug thought it was a good idea to ingest a legal amount. I still don't think this is encyclopedia story without consistency across sources, details to such a story as my theory, or details about what the dosage was, along with details about the MLD50.
- People have died from overdoses on 2C chemicals, and it's far easier to do so with NBOMes because of their potency. This is especially true for people who attempt to eyeball doses of the pure crystal form, and especially especially true for those who snort eyeballed doses of the pure crystalline form. The one potential overlooked complication I can think of is that these overdoses may have been poly-drug overdoses. However, the concept that someone could overdose on an NBOMe is a totally reasonable one. Exercisephys (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your first paragraph. The Toxicity and harm potential section is the result of various users drive-by pasting the latest frightful tales and scandalous tabloid reports on to the end of the section, all with no regard for factual accuracy, reliability of sources, or even the structure of the section — some of the links are absent any mention of an NBOMe compound, instead referring to a 'lethal new designer drug' or 'synthetic LSD', a term that demonstrates considerable ignorance of the nature of both LSD and substituted phenethylamines. Some of these stories do indeed seem to be invented in a way similar to the mephedrone scares of 2010. I'll try to filter out the unverifiable reports and clean the section up. Catclock (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Right now, as I see it, the lead paragraph consists largely of information contained no where else in the article, rather than as a stand-alone summary. (See WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.") No where else in the article is the origin or research value of 25I explicated, and I worry that their current prominence in the lead gives them undue weight.
Does anyone else share this view? I'll start to reform the lead (and incorporate some of the synthesis information into the body of the article) in the mean time. Mnation2 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Great chemistry source
Here's a great source on the chemistry of the compound, with a little bit of general overview, if anyone is familiar enough with the subject material to incorporate it: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/microgram-journals/2012/mj9_84-109.pdf