Talk:Poppers/Archive 1

This article was made by combining the old Nitrite inhalants article with this one. This was done because "Alkyl nitrites" fits the Wikipedia on Drugs requirements a heck of a lot better. Alkyl nitrites are a class of drugs, and thus deserve all the basic encyclopedic attention that the other classes require. For this reason, Alkyl nitrites suits all of this much better.

By the way, if anyone has information on other Alkyl nitrites (just a name for one will work), then create an article for it, add the name for it to this article in the "See Also" section, and add it to the Alkyl nitrites template. That way the ring can be kept complete.

--Ddhix 2002 23:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

Is this article neutral ? I must say I do not know a lot about poppers, but this article looks really "poppers-friendly". Who said they improved orgasms so much ? The only source given for that is www.allaboutpoppers.com and it looks biased. Do we have other sources out there ?

---

I believe this article is neutral, though it may contain some very minor gaps. There really is no information showing that alkyl nitrites improve orgasms. I left that one line there only because it is possible that they do, but then again it is possible that they don't. I'm just waiting for someone with real data to say something about it.

I don't see how this article is 'poppers-friendly,' honestly. There is a health hazzards section in the article.

Don't get me wrong; I created the article (and the ring) with the best intentions. I used the information that was already on Wikipedia, and added some more. It really needs some editing, nonetheless.

--Ddhix 2002 20:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

take it from one who has used poppers for years. they absolutely improve orgasm -- except in cases where too much is inhaled.

I consider this a general illusion caused by long-term usage of drugs: Amphetamines, Heroin, Cocaine and other drugs are said to improve orgasm as well. What really happens is that the drug user is psychologically and physically so dependent of the drug that he is no longer able to feel joy without it. This psychological dependence is particularly strong in sexuality. --DenisDiderot 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (formerly 85.216.17.152)

It's important to remember that the alkyl nitrites are not even similar to drugs such as Amphetamines, Heroin, Cocaine -- in any way. Too, human beings do not appear to delvelop a dependence on alkyl nitrites, or feel that they are "no longer able to feel joy without them". It is not an "illusion" that inhalation of alkyl nitrites produces a essentially safe physiological effect which many people find enhances strength and duration of their orgasm, among other pleasureable sensations. To deny this, is to deny the decades of such reports from hundreds of thousands of people, and to deny the vast number of media reports and scientific reports that have pointed out the same thing. 68.251.158.126 23:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

WTF does this part mean: "The drugs are less common today than before 9/11". WTF has 9/11 got to do with Alkyl nitrites?

WTF does this part mean: "The drugs are less common today than before 9/11". WTF has 9/11 got to do with Alkyl nitrites?

I removed that a while back. I don't see how 9/11 would affect popper use. And if it somehow did, I'd like to see a cite.

-- Who added this? Obviously the idiot needs to be edited and corrected at every turn if he is cognitively incapabale of following the more than simple logic required to think such a benign thought through on a thorough level.

Glad it was removed, it is just absolutely ignorant to the practicality of any encyclopedia.

--Ddhix 2002 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Whew! I've read all the discussion on this page/subject. The emotions are running high. I hope people get it together so accurate information can find its way onto these pages. I've added my own knowledge with edits made to the main page. Gotta tell ya all that I, too (as a long time user), agree that they can and do improve orgasm!

"POPPERS", alkyl nitrites, etc

I was directed to this subject in Wikipedia by someone who had noticed a number of inaccuracies in what has been posted here under "alkyl nitrites", which appears to be a re-directed from the subject of "poppers".

With all due respect, I'd like to help correct the inaccuracies if I may be allowed to.

How do I go about it?

Kind regards,

Respectfully Allabout2006

You are actually welcome to make the changes yourself, as long as you stay within the style that has been used for the rest of the article. I'll drop the official welcome message off at your user talk page: that gives lots of great links for how to get started. -- Francs2000 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The misinformation was on the other part: For decades, gay magazines have been glorifying Poppers and suppressing information on its deathly long-term effects, because they depended on Poppers manufacturers to place ads in their papers. For details, please read The Poppers story.

It's big business and there is a lot of money in it, just like in other drug industries, see Ecstasy (drug), which is also commonly belittled.

With all due respect, would whomever posted the comments claiming the gay press has been "glorifying Poppers", etc, please identify themselves and their connection to this subject? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to also contain accurate and timely information for the use of others. I believe we fail to adhere to those requirements when we make biased comments, which are not supported by fact.

Respectfully, Allabout2006 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection of user Allabout2006 "to the subject" is all too obvious: He tries to abuse Wikipedia for advertising this dangerous drug. The long-term effects of Poppers are well described on the following pages:

• http://www.duesberg.com/articles/iypoppers.html
• http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

Dear sir or madam,

I'm unclear on what you mean by "The connection of user Allabout2006 "to the subject" is all too obvious: He tries to abuse Wikipedia for advertising this dangerous drug. ". My intention is to set the record straight. The information that is contained in your "Alkyl nitrites" section is riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation. It is one-sided and biased toward the unfortunate campaign that has been part of the culture of denial and misinformation around HIV/AIDS. This misrepresentation of an alledged association with Poppers to HIV/AIDS is part of an ongoing battle between those few whom most researchers liken to the 'Flat Earth Society', and the rest of the AIDS research community as a whole.

The Wikipedia community calls for accuracey, fair play and neutrality. My attempt to set the record straight is not an attempt to advertise any product or any "drug" (Your use of the term "dangerous drug" would seem to imply a definate bias on your part). Wikipedia's own policy calls for a truthful presentation of the known facts. Some of the information contained in your section on "alkyl nitrites" simply fails that test. It is my responsibility, and right, to try to set the facts straight. And, although their position on HIV/AIDS has long ago been dismissed as uncredible, you clearly have the right to, and should, include the links to the Duesberg group that reference "Poppers" and nitrites. However, it is your responsibility to also include links to other sites that are credible, and which contain important information about this subject, regardless of your bias against them. Allabout2006 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

- Citation from allaboutpoppers (the page, you tried to advertise in Wikipedia for months): "Reach for power. Click here for poppers brands!", "Click here to find out about fake poppers products!", "Click here to view our wealth of classic poppers advertising." (here you have the gay magazines' Poppers glorification yourself, on your own page) - each with a direct link to the product ordering page: "PWD brands, you can feel the pleasure!".
Do you take your drug yourself, DEALER? - If yes, you can easily see one of its many destructive effects by simple pulsoxymetry: methemoglobinemia. Try it!

Merge

I suggest that the information missing from this artcile, but present in POPPERS/NITRITES be moved here, then POPPERS/NITRITES should be deleted. N.B. there is already a redir for Poppers to this article. xaosflux ^T/_C 03:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir or madam,

With all due respect, I do not agree that the information presented in POPPERS/NITRITES should be moved here, or merged with this page. Nor do I believe the page POPPERS/NITRITES should be deleted. With respect to the redirect for "Poppers" , I feel that the existing redirect should be redirected to POPPERS/NITRITES , which will ultimately contain a far more comprehensive compilation of information and data on the subject compounds, written by experts in that field.

209.248.254.66 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a 'newbie' to Wikipedia, I am at the mercy of those of you who are more experienced here, and I am open to a merge of POPPERS/NITRITES if it is being suggested in the spirit of a genuine desire to adhere to the Wikipedia policy and stated goals of presenting credible information in a neutral manner. If, however, it is being suggested in the spirit of attempting to stifle and censure, I will oppose it strongly.

Would you kindly advise as to your intentions?

Respectfully, 209.248.254.66 05:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Allabout2006

honestly, i'm not sure what would be stifled if that page just disapeared. it has five paragraphs about research conducted, but doesn't say what the research was or what the research concluded. the point of the POPPERS/NITRITES article seems to be: "The project took nearly two years to accomplish, and substantial resources were utilized. The result was a consolidation, clarification, and expansion of the pharmacological, toxicological and sociological data regarding these nitrites." thats it. I was going to merge it earlier after i saw the tag, as there obviously is already an article (articles) on poppers/nitrites. but i couldn't figure out what to keep out of that article, since it fails to describe a single conclusion reached by the study. What could even be merged from this article? if you're wishing to present scientific evidence to show that poppers are safe, you're going to need to cite it, and above all, you're going to have to provide the evidence!! as it stands, the POPPERS/NITRITES article seems worthy of an afd nomination rather than a merge.--Heah (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Heah,

You are obviously a far more experienced blogger, and apparent Wikipedia expert. I am neither.

I was only at the point of actually trying to set up the POPPERS/NITRITES page when I got your message that it should be shut down and/or merged with another. I haven't even had the opportunity or time to complete it. As a result, what you see is not the final product.

I appreciate your comments "scientific evidence to show that poppers are safe, you're going to need to cite it, and above all, you're going to have to provide the evidence!!" And am fully prepared to do exactly that.

However, I'm unclear on how you are the authority on this issue, and on what "must" be posted here. Are you the person who has set up this page on alkly nitrites? If so, where is your proof for the various statements you've made?

I am happy to play by the rules, but I need to know what they are. And, I expect to play on a level playing field.

At this point, simply based on the attitude you've exhibited during this discussion, it appears you may have a personal agenda regarding "Poppers".

Again, what is your interest in this subject?

Respectfully, 209.248.254.66 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

anonymous user: the quality of 'your article', present or future, is not at issue. I think you misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. The only relevant fact is that this article already exists, and the other is on the same topic. If you think this article is lacking, the thing to do is to add what you think is missing, not to create a competing article. Wikipedia does not maintain parallel articles on the same subject in competition with each other; rather, people work together on a single page, which is not owned or run by any of them. -- Ncsaint 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article posted for Alkyl nitrites, IMHO if this article contains information not in that article including it in the existing would make for a better encylopedia. We also already have a redirect to that article for Poppers to make people searching for subject matter on it easy to find. A merge suggestions is not a personal attack on the editor, it is just a suggestion, certainly open for comment on the Talk page listed. Also, please LOG IN if you want to make comments as a username, that is the only way to authenticate that the comments are really yours, and not just somone claiming to be you. All comments are welcome, even from anonymous editors, but speaking authoritatively for someone else is generally not warranted. -- xaosflux ^T/_C 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto the above. the point here is that we don't have two articles on the same thing; this is not me being authoritative, its just how an encyclopedia works. i, personally, am unsure what could be merged from the currently existing poppers/nitrites article. far from having some personal agenda linked to poppers, i just have no idea what yours might be- again, you failed to mention what the studies found, or even if the results were positive or negative! This page happens to be on my watchlist and i do have a vested interest in making wikipedia the best it can be. (and ok, i do know what your what your personal interest in poppers is . . . ) --Heah (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, ncsaint, for the additional information. I'm clearly a newbie to Wikipedia, but I fully understand and appreciate the underlying reason for it working this way. I share your interest in helping to make wikipedia the best it can be.

I'll be happy to agree to your merging my page about POPPERS/NITRITES to this already-existing page on "alkyl nitrites".

I would expect not to be threatened by the owner of this page again (is that you, heah?), and that my links will not be termed as spam or vandalism.

Finally, I wonder what you mean by your comment, Heah, that "...and ok, i do know what your personal interest in poppers is...). I don't know you, and you don't know me. Would you care to elaborate?

Kind regards, 209.248.254.66 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would expect not to be threatened by the owner of this page again (is that you, heah?) nope. closest thing there is to an owner here at wikipedia is a man named Jimmy Wales.

Would you care to elaborate? nope.

happy editing! --Heah (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to the POPPERS/NITRITES page and agree it may be a duplicate of sorts. But it might make sense to move forward with it since this page Alkyl nitrites is not working properly. I made some edits to it tonight and they have all disappeared almost as quickly as I saved them. I'm not sure if it's a glitch or a problem with high traffic tonight.

allaboutpoppers.com

ok, one last time, allaboutpoppers.com is clearly a commercial link, advertising both poppers and companies selling poppers. this has nothing to do with me or ownership of this page- notice its been deleted numerous times. This is an encyclopedia, and commercial links have no place here. please stop adding it. --Heah (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

as a matter of fact, it has been removed at least 10 times, and if you add it again, i will report you for vandalism. --Heah (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the link "Everything you ever wanted to know about poppers, but were afraid to ask! - A fact-filled UK site, with a huge knowlegebase and links" introduced by the user Allabout(Poppers?)2006 is just a copy of the above-mentioned allaboutpoppers.com. The spamming efforts of this drug dealer are pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.17.152 (talk • contribs)

After reading the POPPERS/NITRITES article, I am of the opinion that the articles should be merged - somewhat. I say somewhat because I don't see any linked reference, and I am not willing at the moment to check the 'references' myself. The POPPERS/NITRITES article names some good names, has a few good pieces of data (I think), and thus should be merged in with the Alkyl nitrites article. It's a bad idea to keep such things outside of the ring. I created the entire ring of Alkyl nitrites because this series of chemical deserve attention along with the rest (say phenethylamines and tryptamines.

I don't have the time right now, so could someone please merge, with an editorial eye, the two articles? The history in Allabout2006's article is worth it, I think. I could be wrong, though.

Just as long as this ring stays alive - and people quit making similar articles that fall outside the ring - everything will work out fine, I'm sure.

Allabout2006, thanks for your contribution, but next time could you just add data to the article, instead of creating a new one in vein? We want people to have all the data in front of them, instead of having to jump around and get confused. Hell, even going through this talk page - trying to figure out what happened - confused me to no end.

The problem seems minor to me, nonetheless. But I could be missing something

POPPERS/NITRITES needs to be picked for it's data, and deleted.

Comments?--Ddhix 2002 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

both allaboutpoppers and the mirror contain a quote purported to be from wikipedia, saying ".... despite their wide use, serious complications from inhalation of nitrites remain extremely rare. Accordingly ... it would appear that only the most reckless disregard of available information could lead to any serious harm." this is not in this article. which further suggests the commercial nature of the site, as well as making the credibility question fairly clear. --Heah ^talk 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heah,

In the interest of moving forward, I have removed the non-commercial link you are so concerned with. I hope this solves your problem and we can move forward. Allabout2006 06:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the person being referenced here (Allabout2006) associated with the website called www.allaboutpoppers.com? I would be interested in contacting you if so. Can you leave a message here?

Protection

I've protected the article because of the 3RR violations/edit war. Please, everybody calm down. Allabout2006, your behavior has been much less than acceptable, but I'm willing to assume good faith and let everyone talk this out. Everybody else, please assume good faith as well and talk this over. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What is it you need to know? Allabout2006 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Futher, my behaviour, in responsed to the unwarraned and relentless attacks by heah, can hardly be classified as "less than acceptable". Would you mind telling me what is not acceptable? Allabout2006 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a judge in what's right or wrong; just talk out and explain why your additions are proper -- what the merits are, for example.

However, I am inclined to, for the interim, remove (comment out) all of the external site links. Any opposition to doing that? --Nlu (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: let's say that this is a coding project at work/school. You have a proposal of how the code should be modified. Why do you want to modify it in this way? Talk it out. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to any actions you take, as long as they are fair. If you are going to remove the external site links, I assume you'll remove all of them, not just the ones I'd posted.

I am not a computer expert, or software writer. However, I think I understand your analogy to code modification, and it may be a good one. Why do I want to modify the poppers/nitrite page? Because when I first came across it a few nights ago, I realized that it was full of misinformation -- even falsehoods. I recognized that I have access to substantial information which is accurate, timely and significant, and which would make an important contribution to the body of knowledge already posted on the page. To that end, I began to edit the page. However, almost immediately, I noticed what I had been adding was being deleted, almost as fast as I could add it. I was stunned. This was my 'trial by fire'; someone began waging a relentless edit war against me.

I wonder, in Wikipedia, do you automatically assume that whatever the person who sets up a page initially posts is accurate? You have told me that I am obligated to rationalize why any information I might post on this page should be allowed. What about the person who set up the page, and included inaccurate information and/or falsehoods?

209.248.254.66 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Explain why they are falsehoods -- with links to actual, confirmable information, not advocacy sites. Advocacy sites may contain correct information, but their credibility is suspect to most people in the Wikipedia community.

You've damaged your own credibility by violating 3RR and also by using a sock puppet (and then denying it). However, credibility can be repaired, but it will take time. If you want people to assume that you had good faith, it might be time for you to assume that people are acting in good faith as well. Try to persuade, rather than to militate. --Nlu (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All I tried to do two nights ago, was to post accurate data in a page that contained misinformation, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about.

I am not a sock puppet, I barely know how to post in here, let alone try to scam you somehow with puppetry or otherwise.

I first heard about "3RR" tonight, when I was accused of violating it. I don't even know what it is. I had no malice in my heart, nor attempted to break the rules (unlike the person who has waged this war against me).

I have not tried to "militate"; rather, I've tried to defend against a relentless edit war that someone waged against me. I notice that he is not engaging in this dialog, rather he is watching others challenge me. If he ever wants to come out of hiding and engage in civil debate over this subject, I'm fully prepared to engage him.

Indeed, I did try to pursuade. It was demonstrated in the content I posted, which has now been removed.

Wikipedia seems less than the neutral vehicle of credible information that I assumed it was. That's a shame.

I don't know what you want out of me. When you unprotect the page, perhaps I'll be able to continue making a contribution. I have substantial information that would improve the page.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia's content relative to these compounds does not show up in Google or other searches, so it's of little relevance in the universe of the Internet. However, my concern was that on the outside chance that someone might stumble upon it, as it stands now, they will read inaccurate information. That's sad, but inevitable it would seem.

Allabout2006 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Posting spam, which explicitly includes personal sites as well as commercial sites, is not acceptable. The websites in question at the moment- www.allaboutpoppers.com and a quasi-mirror, stone2005.typepad.com/, are almost certainly personal sites, given the similarity between the names of the websites and the name "allabout2006" and the fact that allabout2006 has edited this article exclusively. they are also commercial sites; while it is true that they do not sell poppers, they are clearly giant ads for poppers, full of links to sites that do sell them and articles detailing how safe and fun poppers are. the quasi-mirror purports to quote the wikipedia article, but nowhere in this article does it say "despite their wide use, serious complications from inhalation of nitrites remain extremely rare. Accordingly ... it would appear that only the most reckless disregard of available information could lead to any serious harm," rendering any other content on those sites suspect.

otherwise, my recent edits that allabout2006 has been reverting are mostly minor rewrites trying to make the article npov and verifiable- for instance, the article claimed that nitrites are carcinogenic but that hasn't been shown, ditto for crossing the placental barrier, and i cited information that i did find to be true; i've also removed the link to allaboutpoppers several times and edited the intro, which, as it stands, talks about "intense euphoria" and "considered by researchers to be the closest thing to a true aphrodisiac", and is clearly sensationalist. when such edits were reverted (mostly not by me) allabout2006 created another article, POPPERS/NITRITES, about how safe they are.

i am more than happy to have allabout2006 contributing to this article, but advertisements for the product he sells and sensationalist language are completely, entirely unnacceptable. as to his continued claims that he has no vested interest in this article- many of which can be found above, on this talk page- maybe he really is just some guy that loves poppers so much that he wants everyone to take them and even builds slick websites full of articles about how great poppers are with lots of ads for different brands and links to dealers just to be a good guy. but i find that highly unlikely, and regardless, personal websites aren't to be linked to either.

Heah ^talk 07:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

References for health hazards

Alkyl nitrites were shown to be both mutagenic and carcinogenic in animals and humans:

• Hersh EM, Reuben JM, Bogerd H. Rosenblum M, Bielski M, Mansell PWA, Rios A, Newell GR, Sonnenfeld G (1983) Effect of the recreational agent isobutyl nitrite on human peripheral blood leukocyte and on in vitro interferon production. Cancer Res 43, 1365
• Jorgensen KA, Lawesson SO (1982) Amyl nitrite and Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 307, 893
• Mirvish SS, Ramm MD, Bobcock DM (1988) Indications from animal and chemical experiments of a carcinogenic role for isobutyl nitrite. In: Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants (Haverkos HW Dougherty JA, eds) NIDA Res Monogr 83, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington DC, P 39
• Newell GR, Mansell PW, Spitz MR, Reuben JM, Hersh EM. Volatile Nitrites Use and Adverse Effects Related to the Current Epidemic of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Am J Med 78:811,1985.
• Harry Haverkos et al., "Disease manifestation among homosexual men with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: A possible role of nitrites in Kaposi's sarcoma, *Sexually Transmitted Diseases*, October-December 1985. Harry Haverkos and John Dougherty, editors; *Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants*, NIDA Research Monograph 83, 1988
• I. Quinto, "The Mutagenicity of Alkylnitrites in the Salmonella Test" (translation from the Italian), Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale*, 56:816-820, 1980.
• Sidney Mirvish et al., "Mutagenicity of Iso-Butyl Nitrite Vapor in Ames Test and Some Relevant Chemical Properties, Including the Reaction of Iso-Butyl Nitrite with Phosphate", *Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993;21:247-252.

The sentence "and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor despite the lack of evidence" in the article thus isn't true. Kaposi's Sarcoma are a form of cancer and there is evidence for the carcinogenic nature of Nitrites. --85.216.17.152 09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be reworded, but unless it has actually been shown to be the cofactor, other than being a possibility, we shouldn't state that it "is" the cofactor. what of this supposed research disproving the link between ks and poppers mentioned in the article? --Heah ^talk 00:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The research that is always cited against this connection is a brief non-double-blind mice study conducted by the Center of Disease Control (CDC) in 1982-1983 wich claims to find "no evidence of immunotoxicity". These results are contradicted by several other studies, which did find that the inhalation of nitrite fumes causes immune suppression and are mutagenic and carcinogenic in mice (see above, especially the results of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)).

In the CDC mice study, the doses were extremely low, approximating levels to be encountered as background exposure (used as "room odorizer", workers in a poppers factory) rather than those encountered when using poppers as a drug (i.e., inhaling directly from the bottle).

Daniel Lewis of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health explained that, in determining the dose, they had to adjust it below the level where they were "losing" the mice- however, the supplier of the mice later disclosed that the mice were suffering from a low-grade infection. This means that the deaths of the exposed mice may well have been due to immunotoxicity-exactly what the study conclusions claimed not to find-rather than to the acute toxicity of the nitrite fumes. The end result was that the dose was far too low to be meaningful.

The study was not blinded, as the mice inhaling isobutyl nitrite vapors developed a "yellowish tinge". Although there were no significant changes in body weight, there were reduced liver and thymus weights, and an increase in spleen weights. 100% of the exposed mice developed methemoglobinemia. The white cell count went down sharply. --85.216.17.152 09:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This should all go in the article. --Heah ^talk 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Something also to consider, is that the references someone posted here – which are part of a larger list -- are very old and are based on work done in the early years of AIDS; also, that subsequent research has not supported the same results.

The primary issue when reviewing the studies most often referenced by someone trying to link nitrites to AIDS, or more specifically to Kaposi’s sarcaoma, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, within the list of referenced studies, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers.

The general consensus in the research community, and in the HIV/AIDS community, is that although the much vaunted list of references claiming to link nitrites to HIV/AIDS may look impressive to the untrained eye, they do not support a case for a claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma (KS). Allabout2006 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite some research if you have problems with all of this. you can't just say "this stuff isn't true". the research cited above sought to show the carcenogenic and mutagenic properties of poppers- ie, that they can cause cancer- and does not conclusively show that poppers cause ks, which the text should reflect. --Heah ^talk 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you. However, neither can you "just say 'this stuff is true'", by your regurgitation of a reference list about which you have no understanding, expertise, and/or knowledge. For example, the references you blindly posted in support of dangers associated with nitrites, and which you have no idea are accurate or not, are part of a larger list of similar articles referenced in the same old tired and worn out bibliography of ‘research’, which the anti-popper zealots toss around and disseminate wherever they can. (I am not going to post the entire list here, because I will not further the use of junk science.)

These referenced ‘studies’ do not support the claim that nitrite use causes risky sexual behavior and a decrease in immune function that may lead to HIV infection or Kaposi's sarcoma. One of many significant problems is that out of 90+ references, 13 are listed twice and one is listed three times. This is an obvious attempt to make the body of evidence appear larger. The list contains typographical errors, an indication of a lack of attention to detail, which is an essential component of scientific evaluation. Some of them are data presented at meetings as posters or informal talks, which are preliminary data that has not been confirmed or published. Finally, one of the references was submitted, but not accepted for publication. Articles that were rejected for publication are never cited in credible reference lists.

The primary issue concerning the articles referenced by this highly-vocal handful of anti-popper zealots, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers. A major weakness of the their references regarding the immune function research (an important part of their claims), nearly every reference is work performed by Soderberg. When one investigator is primarily the only one cited, it indicates that his work has not been replicated by others. This is extremely important to establish validity of claims. The fact that other researchers are not cited is very suspect. If experimental results have not been replicated and thus confirmed by another researcher, the results are most likely not valid.

A limitation of Soderberg's work is that minimal data is presented in each of his papers and the same work is presented in more than one publication. Occasionally researchers will do this to increase their publication volume -- and it does not reflect that a large amount of data has been generated. In many of Soderberg’s articles, actually anti-popper zealots have been acknowledged for providing the nitrites, which indicates bias. It appears that the anti-popper zealots and Soderberg are associates and, considering their zeal against nitrites, the research by Soderberg is very suspect. It’s reasonable to assume that these zealots most likely have a personal vendetta against nitrites.

Another very important discrepancy is that Soderberg does not obtain consistent results between research summarized in his own papers. The fact that he publishes conflicting data without explanations for doing so, illustrates his inability to establish a connection between nitrite use and AIDS and KS. Furthermore, Soderberg’s results are not consistent with other researchers’ results. This makes it impossible to draw any conclusions from the research that is presented. The anti-popper zealots who throw these studies around as part of a “list of references”, have not carefully read the references they are using to support their claims, or else they would not use them.

In addition to these issues, an extremely serious problem in the articles is that the mice or rats used in the experiments are given massive doses that are not relative to a typical human exposure. In fact, in some of the studies, the doses used are lethal. Adjusting a drug dose for a particular body weight is a fundamental pharmacological paradigm for treating experimental animals, and it is impossible to determine the effects of nitrites when a toxic dose is used. Therefore, the animal studies are meaningless when comparing them to humans. It is not clear how the few articles which were actually published, were even published with this blatant oversight. Furthermore, the excessive doses could explain the discrepancies in the results.

Yet another criticism of the immune function research is that the alterations in immune function were reversible. Therefore, it is likely that there are no long-term effects of nitrites, particularly considering the exceedingly high doses used. Lower doses may not have any effect on immune function – which has been the general consensus of the research community for over twenty five years.

Finally, the references cited by the anti-popper zealots have a scarcity of studies utilizing human subjects. More human studies would dramatically enhance their argument, and they could easily be performed. Perhaps these types of studies have been done, and showed that nitrites have little potential for harm (a position by the way, that most credible researchers have arrived at about nitrites), and thus have not been published.

The most serious problem with the behavioral studies is that they simply cannot establish a causal relationship between nitrite use and HIV infection. Only associations between the two can be shown, and because two behaviors occur together, this does not mean that one causes the other. The most logical explanation for the association between nitrite use and unsafe sex, is that it results from an underlying personality characteristic that predisposes some men to risky behaviors, and that sexual risk-taking and substance use are just two such behaviors observed in men with risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, nitrites are readily available in places of higher risk behavior, such as pornographic theaters and bookstores.

It is also likely that the immune status of those who use drugs may already be compromised as a result of an unhealthy lifestyle or other psychological factors. To further complicate the issue most of the men who abuse nitrites also use other substances. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the effect of each substance separately. It is of particular consequence if injected drugs are used in conjunction with nitrites. The sharing of needles is a well-established route of HIV infection.

Finally, the behavioral studies are derived from self-reports, which is subject to recall bias. The validity of the research relies on the accuracy of the reporter and if they are using drugs or alcohol, they may not remember specific drug use or have an altered perception of their actions.

Although the anti-popper zealots propose that nitrite use can facilitate HIV infection and Kaposis sarcoma, one of their references listed three articles for -- and three against -- association of nitrite use with HIV seropositivity and KS. When conflicting data is presented, one cannot conclude that nitrite use is involved in these illnesses.

As I pointed out earlier, even though the anti-popper zealots' reference list might look impressive, this small handful of what many have termed members of the "Flat-Earth Society", simply do not have a case for their claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma.

There is much more to the subject, but before I waste any time trying to edit the page, I want you to agree to get past your personal attacks, and to agree to either contribute something of value relative to the research, or allow me to do so, without your deleting my edited information and/or trying to get me blocked, as you did earlier this week.

Can we move forward on the merits of the subject matter now?

Respecfully, Allabout2006 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the link I put on the page. It was not to a commercial site, very clearly. Too, my other edits were removed. I'm unclear on whether I should do any furhter editing in this same 24 hour period, for fear of being accused of RS32 or whatever it was, or some other violation. (Just realized I didn't sign in before I began typing this. Sorry. I'm not puppeting. It's me, Allabout2006) 209.248.254.66 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation from the site removed: "Stock up on 'em while you can! In the US, nitrites have been banned since 1988." - Is this to be considered non-commercial, neutral information on the drug? --85.216.17.152 10:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be neutral per se, but it can't be commercial, and I still think it is. --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You should consider signing up for the Censorship Board in China or Vietnam; here in the USA, the Bush Administration's FCC board would be proud of you.

You conveniently avoided answering my other question; namely, what about the removal of the edits I'd inserted in the body? What was your problem with those?

Allabout2006 15:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I didn't revert those (other than the occasion when you violated 3RR, and therefore could most definitely be blocked, but I chose not to block you), why do I have to answer them? And your comment is unacceptable. Do it again and you'll be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about this: why have you allowed the following statements on the page: " As Kaposi's sarcoma occur in homosexual AIDS-patients 20 times more often than in non-homosexual AIDS-patients, some cofactor must be involved beyond the virus HIV itself, and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor especially in view of the fact that they are carcinogenic (Kaposi's sarcoma being a form of cancer)."

Where is the proof these statements are true?

And, please, don't ask the rest of us to have to prove a negative. It's incompent upon you to defend and explain why you would allow such a statement on Wikiepedia.

Allabout2006 15:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to block me. Your dictatorship serves no one and significantly diminishes the integrity of Wikipedia, but may make you feel good -- or perhaps giddy for a day.

Have a happy holiday.

Allabout2006 15:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. You have been blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. Continue this behavior after the block expires, and you will be referred to the Arbitration Committee. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience on Wikipedia for only a few days, I would agree with the individual who is quoted in the following Associated Press article, that Wikipedia can indeed be considered "some sort of 'gag' encyclopedia." I've read other edits/posts on other subjects in Wikipedia, many of which are well done. But when it comes to the edits/posts on this page, the treatment given folks who want to contribute to the body of knowlege, is not only inappropriate, but despictable. As the public begins to realize how suspect anything that's posted on Wikipedia is/can be, it's reputation will continue to decay. Wikipedia seems, in theory, to be a great idea. But in reality, parts of it, at least, appear to be run by dictators who seem intent on using their considerable computer skills and knowledge of how to "use" Wikipedia, to stifle others -- especially those with whom they do not agree. I suspect my post will be either edited out, or deleted altogether.

Wikipedia falsehoods submitted as a 'joke' Tennessee man admits altering biography of journalist in popular online reference site.

By Susan Page USA Today

The mystery of who posted false and scandalous entries about a prominent journalist in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia -- including suggestions that he was involved in assassinations -- has been solved. "I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Brian Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean. Chase, 38, operations manager at a small delivery service in Nashville, presented a letter of apology Friday explaining his role to the journalist, John Seigenthaler, a former editor of Nashville's Tennessean and a founder of the First Amendment Center there. He is a former editorial page editor of USA Today. Chase said the additions he made to Seigenthaler's biography were intended to be "a joke" on a co-worker on what he thought was "some sort of 'gag' encyclopedia." They had been discussing the Seigenthalers, a prominent local family. "I didn't think twice about just leaving it there because I didn't think anyone would ever take it seriously," he wrote. But the case has reverberated beyond the offices of Chase's employer, Rush Delivery. It has raised questions about the credibility of Wikipedia -- a reference site used by 16.3 million people in October -- and fueled a debate about freedom and accountability on the Internet. One more effect: It prompted Chase to resign. "I'm glad this aspect of it is over," Seigenthaler, 78, said. But he expressed concern that "every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff -- think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result." Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss, James White, not to accept his resignation. Seigenthaler also said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase. The ersatz biographical information said Seigenthaler, a top adviser and close friend to Robert Kennedy, "was thought to have been directly involved in" the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy. Wikipedia, which brags it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," changed its rules last week so only registered users can post or revise an article.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I just noted your threat to turn me over to "the Arbitration Committee". I have no idea who they are, or how serious they would look into the matter, but it would be interesting to see if they are actually impartial, and give disputing parties a fair 'trial'. If they would actually read all the posts and edits, and analyze the posting times/dates, as well as evaluate the threats and false alligations made against me, I'd welcome such a move. Allbout2006

Wow! I just saw tonight's news article on Wikipedia that played on FOX News. (Earlier, I'd posted here the AP article on Wikipedia from Dec 12, 2005.)

In what has become a huge coincidence, the very day the media begins reporting on the dangers of Wikipedia, happens to be the day immediately after the very week I discovered misinformation and falsehoods being posted on this page about nitrites, and then tried to edit them by attempting to add more accurate information, but then was attacked and harassed by another person who disagrees with my edits -- and was ultimately blocked and threatened by a purported Wikipedia administrator.

As was reported in the news today, people can go to http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, and where the dangers exist.

The folks at wikipediawatch report that, what's happening in Wikipedia, is that any collection of citations that may APPEAR balanced is all that anybody expects. If the title or snippet in a link itself contributes to this impression, then the full text is not researched by anyone.

This is exactly what has been going on in this nitrite page. As a result, it truly is, as wikipediawatch reminds us, "garbage in, garbage out, garbage back in..." -- and after a few cycles of this, it all turns into " a big, stinking heap".

Truly, as the news media warned today: "Don't believe eveyrthing you read on the Web, especially on Wikipedia!"

The following two posts, found in a wikipediareview blog, sum up my experiences this past week, after having been harassed, threatened and finally blocked, after I attempted to add to the body of knowledge about nitrites/poppers. They demonstrate how dangerous Wikipedia -- based on its current model -- really is:

"Wikipedia's procedural faults, complete anarchy as regards contributions, and sometimes-bizzare social rules do not teach people to become good researchers or writers... it teaches them how to be good Wikipedians, or to get the hell out." - Jason Scott ". . . when it comes to history and politics, Wikipedia can claim whatever it wants by shutting out those who actually know something about a certain topic. In that way, Wikipedia can rewrite history as it sees fit - which may have nothing to do with reality or the actual facts." - SummerFR

Finally, this post on a board, discussing wikipedia, really sets it out well:

"Any moron can pretty well say anything they want on any topic, which is fine for a News Group or a Forum but not an Encyclopedia.

In my opinion a reference source should be authoritative enough to end arguments not start them.

I believe that Wikipedia could better serve the internet community if they checked their facts first before publishing the article.

Instead, we have a situation where the cart is placed before the horse and we end up with what is left by the horse."

Nuf said. Allabout2006

After all your bluster, threats and harrassment over the past several days, you now choose to hide in your shells rather than respond to me. Your behavior would seem to be consistent with what I've been reading about Wikipedia. At this point, after being exposed, and after the negative publicity Wikipedia is now getting all around the world, it seems useless to try to add anything meaningful to the body of data here. Allabout2006 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a 'bitch fight' going on here, and it's too bad. There is a lot of bad information on the Web about nitrites and poppers, and this should be a forum for setting the record straight, instead of everyone getting their panties in a bunch over procedural issues.

Unprotection

Hopefully things have cooled down. Unless there are objections, I'm going to unprotect in roughly 50 minutes (if I don't fall asleep). Please be aware that, now that everyone's been properly warned, 3RR will be in strict enforcement mode. A violation of 3RR will yield at least a 24 hour block. Any sock puppets will be considered the same as the "main" user and will be blocked accordingly as well -- and who/what is a sock puppet will be based on the judgment of mine or any other administrator. In this case, I've made a judgment call about one IP being a sock puppet, and I stand by that due to the overwhelming amount of evidence. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I fell asleep. I've just unprotected the article. Play nice, folks. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice rest. I feel like the little boy who was punished for something he didn't realize he'd done. I didn't have any idea of what a sock puppet was, and barely do now, even after reading about it (I'm not very technically inclined. I even use a Macintosh because I'm such a computer-dufus. :=) ).

At any rate, I promise not to sock puppet again (I think. I'm not sure how you do it, but if it was because I forgot to sign in each time I edited, I promise not to make that mistake again. Or at least I hope I don't -- or, it's off with my sock puppet head!).

I understand how you more experinced Wikipedia folks can find fault with, and have little patience with someone like me. But, I beg your indulgence as I try to learn how to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.

Kind regards, Allabout2006 01:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a vandal sabatoging this page!

I have taken considerable time and made a serious effort to add edits to this page today, as I also did yesterday. But, in both instances, within minutes of my edits being saved, someone began maliciously removing my edits.

I was then challeged by someone who said I was close to violating a reverting rule, which appears to most likely be a harrassmetn tactic used by the very person who does not want to see my edits saved to this page; I strongly suspect this vandalism and harrasemt is the work of the person who has been removing my edits as fast as I add them.

68.251.158.126 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)