Talk:25I-NBOMe

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about 25I-NBOMe. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Given the "Citation Needed" note <ref name=undefined /> 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 64.142.74.180 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Agreed, erowid is perfectly acceptable as a reference. Testem (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 199.87.130.129 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I have removed this one from the AFD I made for 2C-TFM. flaming () 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've disambiguated 25I and NBOMe (drug). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is no law preventing this from rat's so the further possibility remains that there is no lethal dose. --Johnubis (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's not forget WP:Verify. Mnation2 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Exercisephys (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25I-NBOME is, without question, a neurotoxic hallucinogen. The tone of the article is far too inviting. I don't mean to be alarmist but quoting erowid's doses and saying nothing more about the LD50 (even speculation) is bad policy. I recommend listing 15-20 micrograms per kilogram as an approximate LD50 and listing this substance as a neurotoxin in the opening paragraph, for the sake of harm reduction. It would also be pertinant to discuss in more depth the misrepresentation of this compound as LSD, as this almost certainly leads to overdose or other injury.RotogenRay (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning it so your claim is demonstrably false. I agree that these compounds carry fair risk but this is wikipedia and we cannot use your hunches as citations. Testem (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I came to this page to find out if 25I-NBOMe deaths are from being poisoned by the drug itself (overdose) or from fatal behavior due to being high while on the drug. I still don't know, but would love to, if someone can clear that up. 116.90.80.201 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3AlarmLampscooter:I think the "66 times" comparison could be misleading as it only concerns one receptor. What made you want to phrase it like this? Do you think it would be better to simply state LSD's affinity? This would also not be OR :p Testem (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the direct reference, says in Hebrew, that only 25I-NBOME became illegal. that's it. not the whole series where do they get it? for dummies who won't bother going to the reference page, here it is, focus on page 4 of the pdf. http://www.health.gov.il/LegislationLibrary/25574413.pdf hope you change the facts as it's dishonest and unprofessional to leave it like that for so long without verifying. tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.37.236 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unclear. The article makes no mention of drugs other than 25I-NBOMe. I have not changed anything in the article as a result. Testem (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, there's a lot of news recently about 25I-NBOMe being sold as LSD and people having very bad trips. Should fake LSD be mentioned in the lede? Fake LSD is a popular search term, therefor I created a redirect "Fake LSD" to this article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake [x] is everything else than [x] that is sold as [x], not just 25I-NBOMe. Aethyta (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, from the article on LSD: Since 2005, law enforcement in the United States and elsewhere has seized several chemicals and combinations of chemicals in blotter paper which were sold as LSD mimics, including DOB, a mixture of DOC and DOI, 25I-NBOMe, and a mixture of DOC and DOB. The article also mentions 2C-C. Of course someone could sell a Sweet Tart or Gummy Bear as LSD too. We could add, "DOB, DOC and DOI, mimic (fake) LSD" to the "See also" section. But Googling "Fake LSD" brought me to this article because most of the top stories were about NBOMe. Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added those to "See also" even though one of them is linked in this article. I also noted a spike in views of this article (14k) in 22 February 2016, when there must have been a news article about this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Fake LSD should redirect to this article because there is more than one type of fake LSD besides 25I-NBOMe. Instead, it should redirect to LSD where a discussion of which other drugs have been deceptively sold as LSD can be added. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sub-section (#38) at the LSD article about mimics but I don't know how to redirect to a sub-section. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fixed redirect of Fake LSD from this article to: Lysergic acid diethylamide#N-Bomb Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the Ki values over 500nM is a little bit deceptive to the average reader. Lower Ki = higher affinity (Ki is the concentration of molecule needed to "fill up" half of the receptors, so if it takes fewer molecules, then it has a higher affinity). I believe the intention was to list receptors with a high affinity, therefore, Ki's lower than 500nM are more relevant and should have been listed. From source: "Ki values (nM) for receptors where it had significant affinity: 5-HT2C (2); 5HT6 (73 ± 12); μ opiate (82 ± 14); H1 (189 ± 35); 5-HT2B (231 ± 73); kappa opiate (288 ± 50)." should be listed instead (or at least along with).

2ndly I noticed the source article is about a demethylated form of the molecule. I would sure hope this is the known product after biological breakdown if it's being used as a source of info for this article. Otherwise, why reference it at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticorganics (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that it is rumored to be orally inactive. This is plain and simply not true. In fact, it seems to me that it is best to keep it in the mouth for quite a while, or else it will not be as active. I have no sources for this, except my own experimentation. Therefore I will just type it here, in the talk-section, and hope that people that need this knowledge might find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.213.154.253 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inconsistency between the article and what you are asserting. In the sense that it is written in the article, "orally inactive" means that it is ineffective if consumed by mouth (swallowed). What you are describing is the equivalent of sublingual administration, which the article says is an effective method. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I have changed the name "wizard" to "wizard medication". There are no identifiable instances of this compound being referred to simply as Wizard. Clearly, "Wizard Medication" is a noun phrase, with "Wizard" acting as an adjectival lexeme altering the noun "Medication". The implication, thus, is that 25i-nbome is used as a cure for not being enough of a wizard. The term is a "play on words"; insinuating that 25i-nBome qualifies legitimate medication prescribed by ones primary health provider. It's what's known in common circles as a "joke" comparing what is effectively a purely recreational drug with an important, perhaps even life-saving medication. Thanks. Please stop referring to the term Wizard Medication as a slang term when the other "street names" provided are just little-known and flimsily cited. A drug's "street name" isn't exactly a matter for peer review - if one has heard the term on the street perhaps it is then a given that it counts as a "Street Name". Given that perhaps fewer than half of the people editing this page have even been in the same room as the drug, perhaps don't presume to know everything about the parlance surrounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.144.3 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"25I-NBOMe acts as a highly potent full agonist for the human 5-HT2A receptor,[30][32] with a dissociation constant (Kd) of 0.044 nM, making it some sixteen times the potency of 2C-I itself at this receptor."

Why "itself"? 2C-I is not the endogenous ligand of the 5-HT2A receptor. --46.91.52.88 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interesting to have more info on the research side of this substance and not just recreational drug use and basic chemistry info. Gives the impression that the main intent of the article is to talk about use/abuse and not broad info, when the drug was invented to map the 5-HT2A receptor in the first place. 2605:B100:B2A:F6:F0D3:561B:42BB:392B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]