Talk:Poppers/Archive 2

This talk page has not been structured according to guidelines, so I am adding these comments at the top of the page.

I have copyedited the article, consolidating multiple iterations of identical information and arranging paragraphs more coherently. I have also changed POV and MPOV to WP:NPOV to the maximum degree presently practicable. I have removed the "analyses" of referent studies, for they are a direct and serious violation of WP:NOR. There is apparently enough emotional investment on this issue that maintaining a factual, NPOV tone as required in Wikipedia is proving challenging, so I have also tagged this article for extra NPOV scrutiny and assistance. It is particularly problematic that many of the references are taken from a single pro-poppers website with an anonymous owner. --Scheinwerfermann 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is based on text that was originally at amyl nitrite, and the public domain document http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/708/ (a work of the U.S. Federal Government with no copyright notice can be assumed to be in the public domain).

Update: The DOJ ain't too hot at maintaining their site, but the source text is now at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/708/.

Given the source of most of this text, there's probably a lot more NPOV problems than just using the word "abuse" to refer to any recreational use. An obvious example is that we detail all of the possible health problems but go into no detail about the beneficial effects (the kind of euphoria produced, how it helps with sex, etc). Unfortunately, I can't provide that, since I'd never use such a drug as this! -- Toby Bartels 12:27 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. NPOV is a problem on this page. It appears like those opposed to poppers spend a lot of time here. None the less, you're right. Poppers appear to have benifical effects for people, as well. Someone should list them here. Whatever, no one seems to be getting hurt from their use. At least I don't see anything serious in any of the literature or press for decades. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In which countries, if any, is the recreational use of poppers legal? AxelBoldt 21:29 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Beats me. -- Toby Bartels 21:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Use is legal in the USA. Sale or importation is illegal, not under the controlled substances law (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971) but under the consumer product safety law (15 U.S.C. §§ 2057a-2057b). Apparently, alkyl nitrites have commercial or industrial uses, such that listing them as a controlled substance would create problems for some industries. Don't know about other countries. -- Cjmnyc 05:46 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following

Death from inhalant use can occur after a single use or after prolonged use. Sudden sniffing death (SSD) may result within minutes of inhalant use from irregular heart rhythm leading to heart failure. Other causes of death include asphyxiation, aspiration, or suffocation. A user who is suffering from impaired judgment may also experience fatal injuries from motor vehicle accidents or sudden falls. Nitrites, however, have caused no known deaths and appear to be safer than most other inhalants.

Whoever wrote that poppers cause SSD isn't reading the literature. Poppers are essentially very safe, and there is no indication, anywhere, that they've ever caused a death by inhalation.

According to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Medical Examiner data, inhalants were a factor in over 500 deaths in the United States from 1996 to 1999. Medical examiner data provided by DAWN cover only 40 metropolitan areas in the United States; thus, many inhalant-related deaths across the country are not reflected in DAWN data.

But, 'inhalant deaths' are always inhalants like glue, gasoline, type writer correction fluid, and so forth. There's never been a recorded instance of death from sniffing poppers. Anywhere in the world. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This part of the government document seems to talk about general inhalants rather than poppers. AxelBoldt 21:42 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I put it back in; I guess I was misguided by the part Nitrites, however, have caused no known deaths and appear to be safer than most other inhalants. which is not part of the government document but was added by 63.214.217.46. AxelBoldt 21:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But, poppers have never caused a death by inhalation. But if anyone has support for such a thing, please post it here. 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "a carry-over from the 1960s, an era where drug use and experimentation were common", on NPOV grounds. I suspect this article may have other NPOV problems as well. -- Cjmnyc 05:31 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article on poppers has lots of NPOV issues. :0) It seems the people who are opposed to poppers, and therefore anyone using them for pleasure, spend a lot of time posting anti-popper propoganda in this article. Hank WIlson is a classic example. If you google for his name, you'll find he's a major anti-poppers agitator. Hardly an unbiased and neutral source of information. I think most people understand that, and take what he and the orthers say with a grain of salt (as they say in the USA). 82.13.21.187 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference section of the poppers article lists published articles in scientific journals,most peer reviewed, and the PMID number is listed for ready reference. The articles speak for themselves with most being cautionary and focusing on hazards of poppers use. The intent of such a listing is to make consumers aware of these scientific publications, limitations often acknowledged. There is no claim that the list is definitive. Other published articles can be added, including any that include positive benefits of using poppers. Hankwilson 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

HankwilsonHankwilson's claim that anyone can post articles or studies that poppers have positive benfits is false. Read the entire discussion page history and you see that when people have tried to do just that, they are harrassed by the likes of Hankwilson and several others. These anti-popper zealots have had people banned whenever they've posted anything posititive about poppers. As for the PMID postings, in the discussion history you can find that someone had gone through some of them and found many to be unrelated, or unsupportive of the anti-popper posters' description of what they were intended to say. Sometimes the poster actually lied about what the PMID listing was about, claiming that it showed negative findings when in fact it did not. Pretty shameful if you ask me. 194.48.136.227 08:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Two big problems. One, the opening line of the article says that poppers are used by the avant-garde heterosexual community. Is this at least anecdotally supported? I'm straight and fairly progressive and I've *never* seen a popper or heard them talked about by anyone but gays. Two, the entire "controversy" section consists of the popper /AIDS industry defending itself successfully from controversy. So how is that a "controversy" section? The controversy section is for dissenting view, that poppers are a huge health risk, but you haven't let the dissenters make their case. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Alkyl nitrites

This seems a good idea to me.

But, there was a guy here a few months ago, a doctor or a scientist (I can't remember which), who suggested keeping them separate. I think his concern was that he wanted to the chemical article to steer clear of the chaos that had been going on in the 'poppers' article.

Now that the clamour has calmed down, maybe the articles could be linked.

I tried to find his postings in the discussion page, but for some reason the page has been removed or at least all the history has dissapeared.

216.54.197.236 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake and posted here instead on the page where I should have. I apologize. I agree with Dr. Zak, that these articles should be kept separate. See his explanaiton here Talk:Alkyl nitrites 216.54.197.236 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dalmation55, others may comment on your other edits/removals, but I've added back the inclusion of the link to All About Poppers which you deleted. It seems an appropriate one. It is not spam. It provides genuine and important background information. Lt. Dan 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Allaboutpoppers is a manufacturer sponsored website and this calls into question the integrity of the information. This website has been cited in the press did you read:

http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=873?

Whether you take Hank Wilsons line or not, I do not, the evidence is quite clear. This is a commercial website, masquerading an an authority, with a hidden agenda. From past reading I also understand that this site has been spamming wikipedia for many years.

Wikipedia's policy is that it desires to accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue, and that instead of simply stating one perspective, articles should try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Its policy does not mean that Wikipedia articles are expected to be 100% objective, since in any dispute all sides believe their view to be "true."

The poppers article is an example of how the Wikipedia community has worked hard to create a credible source of valid information from as many viewpoints as possible -- rather then an article that was written from a single perspective. If you look back through the discussion page, going back to earlier this year especially, you'll find that the current version of the article was established through general consensus.

With regard to the various links in the poppers article, WIkipedia suggests that when deciding whether to add a link, it's important to ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" The website All About Poppers was useful to me, and I would imagine that it's equally useful to others.

Wikipedia also points out that if any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section. All About Poppers is such a website, and it has appropriately been listed and linked to in the "External links" section of this article.

Per wikipedia an appropriate link is, in general, any site that provides "a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." All About Poppers seems to be a genuinely unique resource which presents important additional insight about poppers, beyond what the poppers article gives us.

Wherever All About Poppers comes from, there is no proof that it is a "manufacturer sponsored website". But, even if it were, that should not disqualify it if the information it contains is important and relevant to the discussion, especially under the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above. There are many websites in the poppers article that are 'sponsored' by people with vested interests in their side of the discussion.

When reading the information found on All About Poppers, it's pretty clear that the site is not "a commercial website". And, it does not appear to be "masquerading an an authority"; it presents authoritative information about poppers not found in this article itself. I could find no evidence that the site has been "spamming wikipedia for many years".

I've added All About Poppers back to the "External Links" section and ask that if you still disagree, rather than removing it again, that you discuss it here, first. Lt. Dan 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, it's quite clear you work in the poppers industry, probably for PWD since you added locker room and rush to the article. you have nearly a hundred edits, ALL related to poppers. --Lehk 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan: Anyone who follows the poppers article knows that efforts to stifle information not negative about poppers is usually the handiwork of the anti-popper 'minions of darkness', who prowl the poppers article watching for anyone who dares to contribute anything neutral about poppers. If you try to post anything that points out that poppers aren't a boogie-man, you're in for threats and shouts, along with admonishments to stop. Just go back and read the history on the discussion pages. The arrogance of these guys is astonishing.

The attempt to smear All About Poppers, and diminish its integrity by pointing out that it was "cited in the press", is way out of line.

First of all, the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco is nothing more than a gay rag; it's no where near a reputable news organization. Although, even if it was, and it "cited" All About Poppers, what's that supposed to mean? In general, the media in this county is well known for its sensationalism and yellow journalism. The BAR is no exception, and worse in many instances. (I know, I lived in San Francisco for several years.)

Secondly, Hank Wilson, who they apparently relied upon for most, if not all, of the information in their article, is hardly an unbiased person. For god's sake, he's so biased against poppers it's scary. His cozy relationship with the writer of the article is no secret. Having a fear-mongering, anti-popper zealot as your source for a sensationalist anti-popper article is hardly good journalism.

The All About Poppers site is no more a commercial website than the man-in-the-moon. All the stuff you point out about Wikipedia makes sense. The link should stay. It's been in the article for a long time, and vandals should not be allowed to remove it. It's a great way to get additional insight from another perspective. That's how Wikipedia works. Get used to it. HoneyBot29 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The All About Poppers site has often been linked from popper selling sites.Interestingly, the content of All About Poppers has changed in the last year. The current focus of that site is to dismiss hazards of poppers use and to debunk the published research to date. Many of those articles predate published research, or ignore it. That site includes opinion pieces dismissing the hazards demonstrated by published research. The opinion pieces are not neutral. There inclusion in "External Links" could be helpful to illustrate the diverse views about poppers and the history of the debate as the research evolves. Also, the reference section until recently was arranged with the most recent articles published first so that there can be a historical review of the research.

These articles should be removed from the reference section because they are not scientific research. If allowed to remain in the reference section, then they should be rearranged according to chronilogical order.    Some of the opinion articles in All About Poppers carry no publication dates, Paul Varnell's article for example, making it difficult to put in a historical framework. 

Ad hominem attacks fail to deal with the results and conclusions of the published research.

Recently, Google and Yahoo have both stopped carrying sponsored popper selling sites under search: "poppers". Hankwilson 06:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Honeypot, is the allaboutpoppers website sponsored and connected with Pac West / Great Lakes Products of Indiana or not? Please can someone clarify this issue? This has nothing to do with Hank Wilson or his campaign, it is a matter of a the integrity of the information. The commercial entities mentioned produce "aroma products" and sell them as such, do they not? If it might be established that they also promote the misuse of the product then that would be a grave matter indeed. I would welcome insight on the connection between Pac West / Great Lakes, Joseph F. Miller, and the allaboutpoppers webiste. Perhaps there is none? Let us clear this matter up shall we? If the allaboutpoppers is connected to Pac West we should be told and vice versa. Thanks. Dalmation55

It seems I may have answered my own question. Hidden in the code on Pac West Distributing Inc's corporate website is this little trick (see below). The links are HIDDEN and can only be seen using special software. Why would Pac West link to allaboutpoppers.com and www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org in such a secretive way? Why not be open about it? This whiffs of something fishy, what do others think?

www.pwdbrands.com/never_fake_it.php hides the following CODING from the naked eye:

(this portion of text deleted for blatent, obvious, and rediculous copyright violation) 75.73.41.56 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pac West Inc's interest in promoting these websites requires an explanation I think.

Okay. The two guys who are opposed to poppers say that All About Poppers shouldn't any longer be included in "External Links" because:

1) "Recently, Google and Yahoo have both stopped carrying sponsored popper selling sites under search: "poppers".

2) The All About Poppers site "has often been linked from popper selling sites.", and is linked from a poppers manufacturer's site.

3) "The content of All About Poppers has changed in the last year."

What's the point? Google or Yahoo may have stopped carrying sponsored "popper selling sites" under the search "poppers", but what's that got to do with All About Poppers? It doesn't sell poppers.

I'm not a computer person, but I think it's true that links to a site are out of the control of the site being linked to, and I don't think there is any way for a site to stop any other site from adding a link to them. So it's not All About Poppers' fault other sites link to them. But who cares anyway? Where's the harm?

And also, most websites change over time and site redesign is common practice. That doesn't make them unworthy or discredit what they have to say.

The All About Poppers site is full of lots of background information that's not in the article. If you take the time to read it, like I have (and it takes some time, there's a lot there, and some of it is heavy reading), whether you agree with it or not, you'll see it's valuable information. It should be included and has been added back to the "External Links" section. HoneyBot29 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We've hashed this all out a million times, though with the random page moves i have no idea where the conversations might be. allaboutpoppers and mirrors of it were removed dozens of times, and as a matter of fact, the person who added it was blocked numerous times for continually adding it. The site is definitely owned by pacwest, as is virusmyth and all the rest; the research has been done by various people. it absolutely does not fall under the WP:EL standards, and that has absolutely nothing to do with logical fallacy, but wikipedia policy. This link, and links to any mirrors or other pacwest fronts, have absolutely no place here. --heah 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "hidden code" cited earlier, then subsequently deleted by myself, was an example of search engine "optimization". Essentially, it is a practice some webmasters engage in to fool search engines (such as Google and Yahoo!) into generating a better position for the websites linked to. To some extent, it calls into question the moral standards of the webmaster. However, noticing that it looks like an included script, rather than explicitly part of the source code, I would wager it may have been a misunderstanding or a mistake by the webmaster. In either event, the code is irrelevant and undoubtedly common. This type of technique is even sometimes used on Wikipedia itself to boost the search engine position of some malicious websites.

Please, for the love of God, learn to recognize what is immediately below the window you edit in. The text "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." applies even to talk spaces, and you have blatently violated copyright in this instance. People that do what you did, by directly copying and pasting the contents of an external website, violate United States law. Knock it off. 75.73.41.56 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalmation, have you read any of the All About Poppers site? If so, what parts of it lack integrity?

I've read a lot of it, and, yes, I realize it's not an anti-popper site. But to me it seems a treasure-trove of background and analysis.

If you haven't read it, then you really don't have a valid reason to be criticizing it, because you don't know what you're talking about.

It's like the abortion argument, or the argument over Islam vs Christianity, or even about gay marriage where fringes of the disagreeing parties can't even agree on fundamental issues of fairness. You should read All About Poppers before you criticize it. Condom Man 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Honeybot, I agree with much of what you had to say, but I don't agree with you that just because someone removes a link, that they are automatically a vandal. It really depends on the context in which the link is removed. Just sayin. Condom Man 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference Analysis Inaccuracies: The reference section "analysis" of the Dax , 1991 human study of poppers claims that the 30% reduction in natural killer cell activity was only found in the long term study, but the Dax publication states:" in both the short and long term studies NK activity decreased approximately 30% during drug administration and returned to pre-drug levels after cessation of drug exposure." " Single inhalations at 3-4 day intervals result in sustained depression of natural killer cell activity." "The doses of nitrites administered to volunteers in this study are moderate compared with those reported by individuals abusing isobutyl nitrite."

The analyses of the published research articles needs analysis with errors removed; prehaps multiple analyses of each analysis.

The research on poppers is accumulating and this is the achilles heal of the poppers industry. There is no claim that the research to date is definitive. More research is needed...and the poppers industry should be paying for it.To date the poppers industry has circumvented consumer protection laws which mandate pre sale drug safety testing. There was a boast on one website that 25,000 bottles of RUSH were being sold DAILY! Consumer demand will decrease when the research is publicized to consumers.

Distortions of the research should not be allowed on Wikipedia. (Hankwilson 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)).

The analyses are thought provoking.

The reviewer's comment that: "These results are not compelling evidence for a major effect of nitrite inhalation on the immune system" makes sense. The study didn't find a 'major effect'. Instead what it showed was a 'modest' immunosuppression, followed by a gradual recovery once inhalation ended.

Another important observation is that the study protocol did not simulate what the average nitrite user would do, and that the method of drug administration used is truly very complicated. Anyone who has ever used poppers knows that it does not represent the actual exposure that occurs when the drug is inhaled from a bottle.

One wonders why the study didn't have the subjects just inhale directly from a bottle or popper, as in real-life situations? Unless, of course, when they did that, they discovered that there were no significant issues.

And it's true that good science requires a higher sample number than this small study used, and the experiments should have been repeated at least twice.

Poppers are illegal worldwide: Why is that?

I am sure that you know that allaboutpoppers.com consists of ancient articles published, following poppers industry machinations, in gay periodicals at the time poppers were outlawed. The same periodicals carried adverts for these chemicals. What is Bruce Voeller's relationship with Pac West? Does anyone know? I see a photograph of this individual at the following website:

http://jfmillerfoundation.org/gallery.html

Joseph F Miller is the gentleman behind Pac West as I understand. This all looks most irregular. The authorities BAN a dangerous inhalant that lowers blood pressure, the industry conspires to circumvent this law, and further distributes information pertaining to the abuse of the product as inhalant.

This is a no brainer: a chemical which dramtically lowers a human beings blood pressure is DANGEROUS. I am not a PhD like Voeller, but anyone can understand this - the potential danger to sight through damage to the retina is obvious. Ask your optican! No fancy foundations or "research" required!

The authorities of most nations have outlawed this product. Why do you think that is? An anti gay conspiracy led by the Vatican? No, I think not, perhaps commonsense! Does anyone know where poppers are legal? Zimbabwe perhaps?

Commonsense is the enemy of these industry spin doctors who are engaged in what one publication called the "Poppers War". These individuals, their publicty, and their methods should be seen as part of a wider industry effort to negate the influence of enforcement on their business interests. This is about dollars and the exploitation of the consumer. Dalmation55

Dalmation, but you shouldn't delete a link just because you don't like it. All About Poppers should be included in the poppers article.

I don't know about the other names in the "Street Names" section, but Locker Room should be there. I think it was the first popper, back in the 1960's, along with Rush. There's more information about this in the Wall Street Journal story. The link to it is in the "Usage" section.HoneyBot29

Mr Wilson: kindly do not alter or edit my study analyses. To add your own comments about any of the studies, please use Wikipedia formatting, and do so outside of my analyses of the study. That way it is clear who said what.

Thank you. New Orleans Jazz 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

NOJ: Your study analyses do not belong in this article, for they constitute original research not permitted in Wikipedia articles. The proper place to discuss the veracity of references is here on the talk page. --Scheinwerfermann 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Wilson: I read your comments earlier that you indicated that you'd originally posted your reference list of studies in chronological order, and you thought they should be kept that way. I agree, the studies you posted had been moved around and were out of chronological order. I spent a lot of time over the past few days reordering the list so that it's again in chronological order. But, tonight, when you edited my first analysis, you changed the date, along with altering the analysis itself.

I believe the analysis you wanted to challenge was a 1999 Solderberg study, but you instead completely altered a 2004 Soderberg study. You should have gone to the 1999 study to make your analysis. (But, don't forget, do not alter my analysis; instead add your own comments/analysis in proper Wikipedia formatting)

It can be confusing sometimes. I've had to really did into Wikipedia to understand how to format and such. New Orleans Jazz 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans Jazz: Thanks for agreeing to chronilogical ordering of published references. Concerns: 1. The current Soderberg et al(2004) Increased tumor growth in mice exposed to inhaled isobutyl nitrite.Toxicology Letters, 152.35 was published in 1999,not 2004. I will correct the chronilogical placement.OK? Also, the author was solely Lee Soderberg. 2. Your analysis omits Soderberg's stated rationale for using the PYB6 tumor model: "However, the PYB6 tumor model was developed as a measure of immunotoxicity(Dean et al.,1982) and it is well established that KS is most virulent in immunosuppressed individuals(Ganem, 1997)."from page 39. 3. You failed to include the final ending sentence: "Thus, any role of inhalant-induced immunosuppression would be expected to occur prior to the onset of debilitating HIV-induced immunosuppression, perhaps allowing KS/HHV-8 or HIV to become established in its early stages."from page 40. This statement supports the nitrite inhalants causing immunosuppression resulting in increased susceptibility to infections(HHV-8,HIV,and others like HPV and anal cancer??). 4.The concern with immunosuppression increasing susceptibility to infections encompasses more than HHV-8 and HIV. Whether this study measured specifically the effect on KS is irrelevant, the study found that tumors, admittedly not KS, were increased in both quantity and growth rate. 5. Popper users vary in quantity of nitrites inhaled....ranging from a few sniffs to dozens. This makes dose extrapolation to human usage challenging. 6.Finally, I am on a learning curve on the wikipedia protocols. I will annotating the reference citations with a direct quote(s). 7.Most published research includes a discussion section with limitations stated. These limitations guide future efforts and acknowledge that findings are not definitive. Hankwilson 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 15:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A thorough review of most of the studies cited and listed in the 'References' section of the 'poppers' article, reveals that these researchers lend little or no support for claims that 'poppers' pose a significant health hazard.

In summary, it is not logical to cite references that vaguely mention nitrite use as a risk factor for Kaposi’s sarcoma as evidence that there is a causal connection. Doing so appears to be an attempt to make the body of scientific publications supporting claims of hazard to be more substantial than it actually is.

The articles/studies that have been listed and cited as evidence for linking nitrite use and HIV and/or Kaposi’s sarcoma infection, do not support such claims. Moreover, many of them are not even valid studies.

The most serious problem is that behavioral studies cannot establish a causal relationship between nitrite use and HIV infection. Only associations between the two can be shown, and because two behaviors occur concurrently, it does not necessitate a relationship between them. A potential mechanism is that both substance use and sexual behavior may occur within the context of long-standing social networks.

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. The risk for KS is highest among those who lead a particular kind of sexual lifestyle, characterized not only by nitrite use, but also by multiple, anonymous sexual partners.

The relationship of nitrite use (or any other drug) with unsafe sex reflects the use of these substances specifically for the purpose of sexual enhancement among those who are already having unsafe sex. Another possibility is that the substance is used as an excuse, not the real reason, for risky behavior. Furthermore, nitrites are readily available in places of higher risk behavior, such as pornographic theaters and bookstores.

To further complicate the issue, there are confounding factors, especially the fact that most of the men who abuse nitrites also use other substances. Therefore, it is impossible to elucidate the impact 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.

A limitation of the behavioral studies is that a restricted number of potential risk factors for unsafe sex are studied, and many others (e.g., additional immune parameters, anxiety, nutritional status, specific types of social support) remain to be investigated. Some of these other parameters may be underlying causes of both risky behavior and drug abuse or induce a decrease in immune function, subsequently enabling HIV infection to occur more readily. It is 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.

There are several methodological weaknesses of the behavioral studies. The first is that drug exposure and sexual information 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.

Another experimental design flaw is that important controls are not performed. An example of this is that rectal bleeding during sex with nitrite use is not taken into account, and the bleeding could be the causative factor in HIV infection. In addition, since the detection of HIV seroconversion is not always accurate, infection may have occurred before the questionnaire began in the seroconversion studies. This could potentially alter the results of the study.

Furthermore, the populations in most of the studies are homogenous and do not represent the entire population of gay or bisexual men. Perhaps this is an explanation for the disparity in results in some of the research.

Although it is proposed that nitrite use can facilitate HIV infection and KS, one of the 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.

The "Health Hazards" section of the 'poppers' article has been slightly modified to reflect these facts. New Orleans Jazz 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The most common name for these products is "Poppers". Also common are the names "Rush", "Locker Room", "Brown Bottle", and in the UK "Liquid gold". Rocky Mountain Stream 00:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section, and replaced it with a single external link to the site concerned. The section was longer than the article itself, and had several paragraphs of analysis, which didn't belong there. HawkerTyphoon 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been several media reports of relatively young gay males dying after using poppers and viagra. Three deaths were reported in Los Angeles/West Hollywood shortly after Viagra became available. And there has been a death in Boston. Hankwilson 02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson

The reference section needs reinstatement. The Oct 29 replacement by HawkerTyphoon linked to a pro poppers site which fails to list many scientific publications.

The analyses of the published studies should be limited to the discussion/talk section of Wikipedia.

I've reverted the poppers article to the last version before yesterday's mass deletion of the entire References section. The stated reason for deleting the References section was that it "had several paragraphs of analysis, which didn't belong there". The study analyses are revealing, and it seems reasonable for them to accompany the studies listed in the References section. Any decision to remove entire sections from an article should be discussed on the Talk page, and agreed upon under a consensus before the deletion occurs.

A long-standing statement about Viagra® and poppers was also deleted yesterday. The reason, as described in the Discussion section, was: "There have been several media reports of relatively young gay males dying after using poppers and Viagra®. Three deaths were reported in Los Angeles/West Hollywood shortly after Viagra® became available. And there has been a death in Boston". If these deaths occurred, it's important information that should be included the Health Hazards section, along with information about any subsequent deaths since that time. But, it's also important that the articles being used to support such a statement are cited, so as to avoid the potential of making inaccurate statements based on rumors or gossip. Until there is proper support for a statement that mixing poppers and Viagra® actually causes death -- rather than it "may cause death" -- then, one cannot say it has actually happened.

Yesterday's edits also included an inappropriate effort to insert various popper brand names into the Street Names section, and those have been removed now.

Wikipedia points out that, while edits made in a collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought then reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. I hope we can keep the poppers article contributions and discussions on the high road, so that the article can be both objective and accurate. Mass deletions of entire sections in an article are not appropriate without first having a thorough discussion and then arriving at a genuine consensus about such deletions.

It's important to consider that over the past year, the poppers page has become more and more accurate, making it a more sophisticated article, worthy of Wikepedia inclusion. The goal should be that it becomes one of the most well-researched and factually-supported articles on Wikipedia. Lt. Dan 17:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to HawkerTyphoon, who requested an "automatic peer review" for the poppers article, the review was done today, and there are some good ideas for improving the poppers article in the review.

The automated peer review's most notable suggestion, is about the Lead. Per Wikipedia, they state that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

Anyone care to dig in and give it a try? Lt. Dan 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is significant discussion around the Automated Peer Review process at - Automated Peer Review for poppers article. A new Lead has been drafted and proposed, along with a request for input on summarizing the 'health hazards' section.Lt. Dan 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see you there Dan! I have been faffing around with arbitration commitees and things. All of which I seem to be winning happily, so that's OK. If you can just write in the header, and the rest of us will mash it into weird shapes as best we can... your lead at the peer review section looks rather good, so let's start with that, and work down section by section. HawkerTyphoon 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hawker, but I'm not sure what you mean. Should someone edit/replace the existing lead, with the one I've proposed?Lt. Dan 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In a word: yes. HawkerTyphoon 20:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post it. I forgot to mention that FAC usually have photos in them. I'd like to add approprite photos, but am not sure how to do it, or where to get photos. I assume one cannot simply copy them from another website.Lt. Dan 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hawker, after discussion, and per your suggestion, I inserted the new Lead I'd written. However, within only a few minutes, you began editing it, removing important information, as well as inserting unsubstantiated statements, without first allowing for any discussion here or on the - Automated Peer Review for poppers article. Would you be willing to kindly not make deletions or substantially edit the work until discussion has ocurred first? Too, please provide citation for any statements you insert. Your comment that poppers are commonly used by minors appears to have no basis in fact. I am attempting to stablalize the poppers article and work with others to hopefully arrive at consensous on content and design, for possible nomination as a FAC. Thank you. Lt. Dan 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hawker,

Would you be kind enough to discuss , on the poppers article Talk/Discussion page, any changes before you make them? This gives other interested parties an opportunity to comment.

In the edit summary, you gave as the reason for your deletion of the mention about RUSH being the most common brand: "removed reference to Rush - is it the most popular? we can't prove it, as people are hardly going to keep records of buying the stuff!"

The reason I noted that RUSH appears to be the most common of the bottled alkyl nitrites was because when you Google poppers, or rush poppers, etc, it becomes readily apparent that it's the brand that seems to be the one most talked about. There are numerous mentions on web sites where poppers are sold that RUSH is the most popular brand. Also, the Wall Street Journal printed the claim in it's front page story on poppers (In the piece, they claimed that both RUSH and Locker Room were the most common brands). And, it's common knowledge that "Rush" is one of only a few street names for poppers; it's actually synonymous with the word poppers. When a brand name becomes synonymous with the category of product, then it's one of the more common brands, if not the most popular. This would hold true for any category of product.

IMHO the Lead should give, as a point of reference to what these products are, at least one brand name so the reader is better informed.

That's why I think the sentence should be reinserted in the Lead. 200.91.90.34 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The lead section of an article is for an overview of the entire article. It is not the place where discussion takes place (discussion should take place on this TALK page), or where content that should be in another of the article's sections is added.

Information and content in the lead section is supposed to be well sourced and cited; everything I've added has been thoroughly fact-checked, cited and is fully supported.

I reverted to the previous version because Hank Wilson essentially destroyed the section with his edit, including deleting much of the section, and inserting unsupported statements and comments which should be in the TALK page, or in other sections of the article.

Replacing 'avant guard heterosexuals' with the phrase 'men who have sex with men' is inappropriate and misrepresents what avant guard heterosexuals are. It is also redundant, since the first part of the sentence had already stated poppers are popular "among homosexuals". MDwife 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My earlier edit of the lead section was an attempt to make the section referring to controversy neutral. It is not neutral. It states the controversy, i.e. whether poppers are connected to AIDS, but is one sided. It renders a verdict citing as evidence a 1977 news article and a 1983 Consumer Products Safety Commission Study. Although it acknowledges dozens of studies have been conducted, it fails to summarize the findings and concerns which support a connection with AIDS.It acknowledges that research continues but fails to state that is because research to date has found a connection to AIDS. The connection to AIDS is two fold, either of which warrants inclusion and explanation.First, poppers are immunosuppressive and might increase the susceptibility to infections, including HIV and KS.Second,poppers effect sexual behavior increasing the risk of getting infected with HIV.There are dozens of published epidemiological studies citing this association.It is fine to include that association is not proof of causation. I have not included them to date in the reference section because it seems that most people acknowledge the disinhibiting effect of poppers. I have focused on the research showing that poppers are immunosuppressive because most people, including AIDS researchers and service providers are unfamiliar with the accumulating findings.

Seems reasonable to state both sides. One side says poppers have been used safely for a long time and that the concern about them being connected to AIDS is unwarranted. The other side says accumulating research finds popper use is immunosuppressive and might increase susceptibility to infections, including HIV and KS. Epidemiological research finds using poppers is associated with increasing risky sexual behavior increasing the likelihood of HIV infection.Its neutral to refer to research limitations citing conflicting results, but important to add that there have been variations in protocols(dose quantity,dose frequency,mice, rat, human subjects)which might explain those variations.

There are credentialed scientists and activists on both sides of the controversy. The research continues precisely because of the findings to date,limitations acknowledged. A great example is the 1999 Soderberg study .... finding that tumor growth was promoted when mice were exposed to nitrite vapors. I think folks trying to navigate safely through the AIDS epidemic should benefit from the research to date. There is no claim that the research to date is definitive.

Its important to note that the publicized 1983 CDC mice study heralded by the poppers industry as vindicating their product did find that mice exposed to the highest dose,those that did not die, showed signs of thymus atrophy....the thymus is source of t cells....you do not want it to atrophy. That was a big clue that it was effecting the immune system.

The cigarette industry has its "experts" and denied for decades that nicotine was harmful. I see a replay with the poppers industry denying that there product is hazardous.That www.allaboutpoppers.com failed to cite any researchwith cautionary findings until recently belies their goal. That they are now debunking and dismissing ALL the research to date as flawed also belies their goal. They understand that thinking consumers will self correct. Some will stop using poppers. Others will use less and use less often. Their profits will be impacted as people are informed. Granted, about a third of gay guys will use poppers independent of research results. And a third already hate poppers. Its the middle third which could go either way which is the focus of efforts to educate consumers.

Bruce Voeller's archives include material which shows how the poppers industry lobbied and campaigned to defeat any consumer education and protection efforts.  Yet, Congress, prodded by gay activists passed the 1991 ban on sales and distribution.  In San Francisco, in 1982, the gay doctors group, Bay Area Physician for Human Rights,worked with the Committee to Monitor Poppers to get the SF Board of Supervisors to pass a point of sale warning...if you sold poppers, you had to post a warning to consumers that poppers might be immunosuppressive... To date the poppers industry has circumvented consumer protection laws by self labeling its products as room odorizers and video head cleaners. They have failed to do the safety testing required if they marketed an acknowledged drug.   And as for the long history of amyl nitrite being used as a prescription drug, there was no safety testing to see its impact on the immune system...back in the 1800s when it was originally developed. And not so sure that cornonary users were taking 30 hits at a session. 128.218.39.163 00:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson128.218.39.163 00:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hank: A review of the literature makes clear that poppers have been studied over and over by untold researchers and government agencies around the world, since they were developed in the 1970's. Going even further, in 1977 Burroughs Wellcome Co told The Wall Street Journal that they were astonished at the fuss over amyl nitrite and poppers, because after fifty years of clinical experience with amyl nitrite, they found that the product doesn't have any harmful effects.

In my review of all the information provided to us in the poppers article, including all of the studies that you've posted here, and of external information I found via Google, I didn't find any valid studies supporting your statement that poppers are immunosupressive enough to increase someone's susceptibility to infection with HIV and KS, or that they effect sexual behavior so as to increase the risk of becoming infected with HIV.

Confronted with this, you're now claiming to have 'dozens of published epidemiological studies' citing an association with poppers and increased risk of infection with HIV, which you haven't posted in the references section "...because it seems that most people acknowledge the disinhibiting effect of poppers." If you have additional studies please post them for review. They could make a difference in the summary for the lead section.

You said you "...have focused on the research showing that poppers are immunosuppressive because most people, including AIDS researchers and service providers are unfamiliar with the accumulating findings." Have you considered that maybe the AIDS research community and service providers actually are familiar with the research results, and understand that the studies you claim prove a link between AIDS and poppers don't demonstrate such a link, or that none can be demonstrated with certainty? One reviewer stated that you, yourself, must not have even read the studies you're using to try to prove your point, or otherwise you would not be citing them, because they do not support your position.

To be fair, I tried to establish a neutral tone of presenting both sides of the debate. You'll notice I placed a prominent link to your numerous websites that have the anti-popper articles and positions on them. (www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm)

You've posted a huge list of studies in the References section, but they just don't support your claims. You have to be careful not to abuse the literature to suit your own personal agenda, and you have to be careful about demeaning the AIDS research community and the hard working volunteers who provide needed care and other services by claiming that the reason they don't agree with you, is that they haven't read the studies - or that they're 'unfamiliar' with the 'accumulated findings'. If there were any validity to your claims of substantial danger, don't you think everyone else would know about it, besides just you?

I don't agree with your analogy to the cigarette industry. The cigarette industry hired researchers to perform studies and then it both lied about and manipulated the data to show cigarettes weren't harmful. But, to the contrary, in the case of poppers, all the studies you've posted in an effort to demonstrate harm, were done by researchers who had no apparent connection to any popper makers. What's more interesting is that, just as the cigarette industry had its own researchers, in some cases the researchers you posted seemed to have direct connections with you.

However, I found no connection between the poppers industry and any of these experts, scientists, researchers or government agency heads, all of whom commented about the apparent safety and lack of any significant danger with poppers. [1] MDwife 20:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference section erroneously cites a 2004 Soderberg study..."Tumor growth promoted..." That study was done in 1999 and already cited. there two analyses for this study...one under the correct chronological date - 1999, and a second under the erroneous date 2004...I would like to delete the erroneous cite. Posting this as a courtesy and also to point out that there exists an second analysis...to this one study ...both by New Orleans Jazz.

one study, one author, but two analyses??I assume any reference analysis can be wiki modified just like any other article ...an alternative to modifying and expanding the analyses is to have multiple analysis..."Analysis 1"..."Analysis 2"... or finally and probably the best option is to cite more from the original publication.128.218.39.163 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson128.218.39.163 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hank: Any duplicate listing of the same study is likely due to your efforts to make the body of evidence appear larger than it is. On the various versions of your bibliography of references you have sometimes listed some references more than once (on one version you listed 13 references twice, and one was listed three different times).

Some of your references in the various bibliographies are merely data presented at meetings as posters or informal talks, which are preliminary data that has not been confirmed or published. Also, one of the references was submitted, but not accepted for publication. Articles that have been rejected for publication are never cited in credible reference lists.

Even-though they may be duplicates you should not, after the fact, try to alter the record of what you've posted. Readers should have the right to see the entire body of evidence.MDwife 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merck Manual's omission of the research about poppers being immunosuppressive is unfortunate, but not surprising. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be cutting edge by noting the accumulating immunosuppression research about poppers.Wikipedia's "poppers" article is now listed prior to www.allaboutpoppers.com which has been number 1 or 2 for over 4 years. Google and Yahoo used to accept sponsored ads from the poppers industry. Then both responsibly reviewed information they became aware of and changed their practice. Merck will be informed of the immunosuppression research and its implications for increasing susceptibility to HIV infection.

Poppers have gone off the radar screen several times....when HIV was discovered, when the KS virus HHV-8 was discovered, when Congress banned sales and distribution of poppers, when the poppers industry misinforms people with www.allaboutpoppers.com propaganda site. Unfortunately many HIV researchers and service providers are unfamiliar with the published research about poppers. You wouldn't find any reference to the immunosuppression research if you relied on www.allaboutpoppers.com . Prior to its recent content change it made NO reference to any of the immunosuppression research. 
Hankwilson 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to mainly be concerned about the third paragraph in the lead section, which I wrote, that tries to summarize the controversy over potential health hazards, which you feel is not neutral.

In trying to be neutral I included as part of my research reviewing news articles, study reviews, Googled numerous items on the subject, even read some of the studies themselves, and then summarized what I found.

I didn't find any valid studies supporting your statement that poppers are immunosupressive enough to increase someone's susceptibility to infection with HIV and KS, or that they effect sexual behavior so as to increase the risk of becoming infected with HIV.

I did not run across any information in support of your analogy to the cigarette industry. The cigarette industry hired researchers to perform studies and then it both lied about and manipulated the data to show cigarettes weren't harmful. But, to the contrary, in the case of poppers, all the studies you've posted were done by researchers who had no apparent connection to popper makers. What's more interesting is that, just as the cigarette industry had its own researchers, in some cases the researchers you posted seemed to have direct connections with you.

I can't address your concerns about the Merck Manual or Wikipedia except to say that Wikipedia is actually already cutting edge; which makes it possible to have a discussion like this with input from all sides.MDwife 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are currently two listings of the Soderberg publication titled "Increased tumor growth in mice exposed to inhaled isobutyl nitrite." Toxicology Letters,152:35. The correct publication date is 1999. The 2004 date is an error and this listing should be deleted. Currently a different analysis accompanies each date, the correct 1999 date and the erroneous 2004 date. The PMID is 10048747. The 2004 listing should be deleted as an error and the analysis transfered to the 1999 listing. I moved the analysis there yesterday when I deleted the 2004 erroneous listing. The two analyses could be combined or left.

some bibliographies were organized into different sections: poppers and immunosuppression; poppers and seroconversion; poppers and unsafe sex; for easier utilization by readers.Some studies could be listed in more than one category. Hankwilson 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that once this poppers article was finally being improved significantly, Hank Wilson and his side kick, Dalmation55, came in and vandalized it to the point that it no longer even has a Lead section?

The last time I visited the site a week ago, it had been dramatically improved. Now it's been trashed by these two nutterballs.

You guys should take your beef against poppers elsewhere. Or, if they have any legitamasy at all, then you should prove it. So far you've proven nothing except that you're narrow minded zealots who seem to live only to shove your opinions down the throats of others. Toejam34 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Toejam!

Wikipedia is not here for the conspiratorial promotion of Pac West products or websites. The constant commercial promotion of Pac West products, and linking to Pac West websites, has been a feature of the sabotage performed by one media identified indvidual (probably based in Florida). This individual has been responsible for a campaign across the internet which recommends inhaling Pac West "room odoriser" products. This is not only a danger to public health - it is an attempt to outwit enforcement.

Your silly insults "nutterballs" and so forth indicate that you are unaware of the serious nature of this issue. I am sure that you will change your mind in the coming months.

Wikipedia is not here for your mischief and vandalism, which could get you banned.

Rather than a nutterball your obsession with Pac West Products might mean you're an angry former employee who was fired.

The only conspiracy that is taking place is yours and Hank Wilson's efforts to vandalize the article. Look at the history.

Someone in Florida who recommends inhaling poppers has nothing to do with the accuracy of this article. They aren't vandalizing this article. You are.

You want to remove everything from this article that you don't like. It appears poppers are essentially harmless yet you claim there is a 'danger to public health'. What do you know that the experts do not? Post it now, not in the 'coming months'.

It's frustrating to watch you vandalize this article. Toejam34 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Toejam34, .I support inclusion of the proposed lead for the poppers article.It is an excellent start.

I think this article is valuable to both consumers and historians to include both pro citations and con citations and a spectrum of points of view.

:: As for the credibility of the www.allaboutpoppers.com website...Google has pulled this website from its search results for "poppers"...and that website had been listed number one or two for over 4 years. Several months ago the content of www.allaboutpoppers.com was changed...totally...I believe in response to the realization that the accumulating research about poppers is the achilles heal of the poppers industry. Earlier commentary on this discussion indicated that the www.allaboutpoppers.com was linked to selling poppers/the poppers industry. www.allaboutpoppers.com self pro claimed characterization about being the most credible source of information about poppers is challengable when it fails to cite most of the published scientific research on poppers, limitations acknowledged. Most of the pro poppers commentary and testimonials have been made prior to most of the published scientific research. Note the dates of the articles cited, testimonial dates, etc. or the omission of such. 

I have produced what could be labeled a "cautionary bibliography" in response to the poppers industry claim that poppers are harmless. .."as safe as aspirin" formerly on the www.allaboutpoppers.com pro poppers propaganda site. A goal is to provide potential consumers, especially gay and bisexual men, information to make an informed choice. That effort continues since 1981 and seems to be appreciated by many folks who see the bibliography. No surprise the poppers industry debunks the research.. And the research is accumulating, however many limitations and flaws...

And what research has the poppers industry done...given its big profits? 209.244.188.83 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson209.244.188.83 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1981, in response to the initial reports of gay men dying of pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma(KS), the Committee to Monitor Poppers was formed by gay men in San Francisco. The goal was to educate the gay community about the known and potential hazards of using poppers. Doctors were involved from the beginning. Previously in 1977, Dr. Richard Hamilton cautioned gay men that poppers were hazardous and he unsuccessfully petitioned the California Health Department to stop sales of poppers. In 1982, the Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights, a gay and lesbian doctors organization, joined the Committee to Monitor poppers in successfully lobbying the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to mandate that warnings be posted where poppers were sold. The city of West Hollywood passed a similar poppers point of sale warning law. In 1986, The California AIDS Advisory Commission, recommended that California pass a similar state popppers point of sale warning mandate. Several doctors were on the commission and state law mandated that a warning be posted where poppers were sold.

Hank Wilson was a founder of the Committee to Monitor Poppers. He and John Lauritsen co authored DEATHRUSH, a book about the hazards of using poppers in 1985. Lauritsen subsequently became a leading AIDS denialist while Wilson continued gay rights and AIDS activism.In 1985 Wilson co founded Mobilization Against AIDS. In 1987, Wilson was diagnosed with AIDS and as of 2006 is a long term survivor, and continues his AIDS activism. It is a distortion of reality to characterize Wilson as an AIDS denialist. Popper proponents mischaracterize Wilson in an attempt to discredit his education efforts about poppers. Hankwilson 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest "poppers industry" attempt to push the inhalant Rush (see >captainrush.com/condom.php and pwdeuropa.com/hir_c.html) Condoms with Captain Rush on the label? No doubt this will be presented as a "safe sex" message. PWD and Great Lakes Products have a long history of promoting safe sex, don't they?

A little help with the history:

Actually, Hank, I was in San Francisco at the time this was happening. When writing history it can be helpful to consider other's memories, too.

As you'll recall, your 'committee to monitor poppers' was your own vehicle. It was originally a one-man committee you created and it consisted of only you. The only other 'gay man' originally involved was John Lauritsen from New York, and he didn't hook up with you until later. He's on record as saying as much.

You're right about the point-of-sale warning signs. They were a good idea, only not because there was any proof that poppers were harmful (because there was none) but precisely because it couldn't be proven 100% that they were not harmful. (It's impossible to prove a negative, so better safe than sorry). As it later turned out, scientists discovered that poppers were not the cause of AIDS or KS after-all. However, once you'd written that poppers caused AIDS and were dangerous, you and Lauritsen could never let go of, and decided to use it as a platform for an ongoing campaign against poppers.

The book that you and Lauritsen co-wrote, Deathrush, though a cute play on words, was actually panned as a poorly-written alarmist pamphlet, and disregarded by all but a handful of rabid anti-HIV radicals.

As you'll recall, when you first started pushing it in San Francisco, Deathrush was the the subject of ridicule. And, I'm not making this up, it has remained the subject of ridicule by readers the entire time it's been on Amazon.com, even today as evidenced by the following post which typifies the almost unanimous disdain for your book by readers:

September 20, 1998 Reviewer's post on Amazon.com:... This is junk science at its worse.

Lauritsen and Wilson sadly have it all wrong in a booklet that is nearly twenty years old. Their theories about "poppers" and AIDS are as outside the mainstream of responsible research as are their theories that AIDS is NOT caused by the HIV virus.

Such junk science, as exemplified in this small booklet, should indeed be "out of print", since it terribly misleads the reader and does a disservice to all those impacted and affected by HIV and AIDS....

It's not a distortion of reality to characterize you as an AIDS denialist. Go back and reread the articles in the New York Native and Christopher Street magazine, both published by your AIDS denialist colleagues. You and Lauritsen were joined at the hip in your zeal to keep shouting that AIDS was not caused by HIV, and that it was caused by among other things poppers. It's all there in black and white.

For a guy who prides himself on being a "gay rights and AIDS activist" it is inconsistent with all that that means for you to suggest that a company is less then a good corporate citizen when it promotes safer sex through the use of condoms. Unless you really have changed your earlier position that HIV does not cause AIDS, you should know and believe that condoms are one of the very best ways to help stop the spread of AIDS, and you should encourage their use at all times. Using that criteria the Captain RUSH Condom (http://www.captainrush.com/condom.php) is a welcome addition to the arsenal of weapons in the war on AIDS. If they get more people to wear condoms, that can only be a good thing.

I think your remark suggesting Great Lakes Products didn't have a history of promoting safe sex seemed a bit inappropriate. You'll remember that they actually did have a long history. I can remember that even before anyone knew what caused AIDS, Great Lakes Products was running full page ads in most of the important gay magazines and newspapers encouraging people to be careful and take care of themselves. I think they ran them for over a year. You can see the ads in the major gay archives in Los Angeles and New York City. They deservedly got a lot of positive publicity for their efforts.

You'd have to ask others in the community, but I'm certain that since the 1970's the makers of the PWD brands have donated a lot of their profits toward the support of important causes and issues, including promoting safe sex. Daddlylonglegs 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the anti popper Hank Wilson and his alter ego Dalmation have taken over the page on poppers.

Too bad. Wilson has run off any credible sources of information in his attempts to stiffle debate on the issue of poppers, like he's been doing here in San Francisco for years. A one sided debate is hardly a debate. But anyone who lives here and has ever followed the poppers debate probably knows who Hank Wilson is; it's common knowledge here that he's pretty much a nutter ball on this issue. It's his only 'claim to fame' and helps keep him in at least the gay press once in a while. That may excite Wilson, but it's unfair to the public who deserve a two-sided debate.

No matter what Wilson says to the contrary, the record is full of data that shows poppers to be relatively harmelss, even if they're inhaled for enhancing sexual pleasure. For all Wilson's trashing of the site called all about poppers www.allaboutpoppers.com, it's actually one of the most credible sites about poppers to be found anywhere on the web. There is no credible evidence after all these years that shows poppers to be significantly harmful. Wilson's own studies that he banters about are so flawed their credibility rating is essentially zero.

Just a few weeks ago a major study was released that showed poppers had no impact on sero conversion in MSM who were HIV+. Where's Wilson on that one?

Minnie1964 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an illegal drug. Get over it! They sell it as a video cleaner for a reason! And your Poppers ads on allaboutpoppers aren't any neutral information at all. --91.89.6.50 19:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly you have it wrong again. "Poppers" are not a drug. Check your facts. And, they're sold as video head cleaner for obvious reasons. Everyone knows that. You are also wrong about all about poppers.com, it has no ads and it's the best site on the web for information about poppers. Tell us of another site you're aware of that has more information or better information. We're all ears and would all be happy to have a peak. BTW, the site is not 'mine' as you imply. You anti popper types are all alike: you don't have any basis in fact for your outrageous claims that poppers are harmful, you cannot engage in civil or coherent debate on the issue, you disregard and dismiss valid science in favor of flawed studies and biased reporting, and you're basically just wrong about nearly everything you believe and espouse about poppers. On top of all that, you personally attack anyone who disagrees with you rather than trying to support your position with valid information and fact. You really should one day open your minds and look at the facts. But right back acha: Poppers are safe and the world is round, not flat. And YOU need to "get over it!".

Minnie1964 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth getting upset over the two anti-popper guys. You just feed their egos when you post like that. These two have been around for a long time trying to trash poppers.

I don't know how old Wilson and Dalmation were when AIDS first started to become known, but I recall hearing in the mainstream media that it seemed primarily to afflict gay men who went to pick-up bars and did poppers. That understanding changed as more public health work was done. These guys just never got the message I guess.

Any look at the literature shows you poppers are not the boogyman they claim they are. If Wilson or Dalmation are gay, they should know that blaming gays for the AIDS epidemic is like what happened in the Middle Ages when Jews and other minorities were blamed for the great plagues back then. The goyim needed a scapegoat, and their priests gave them one.

Today's anti-popper nazis are a lot like that. They've simply found another way of demonizing a group that they happen to fear and dislike (in this case it's popper users and/or anyone who knows more about poppers then they do -- or who might just be having more fun then they are).

My wife and I have been using poppers for almost 25 years and they've kept our sex life as fresh and exciting as it was when we first met. We've read everything we could over the years, to be sure we weren't doing anything dangerous. Wilson and Dalmation should open their minds and do the same thing.

As far as most people are concerned, what consenting adults do should be their business, not that of a couple of nosey busy-bodies. Wilson and Dalmation should butt out of other people's lives. Cactuspuss 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hank Wilson and Dalmation are part of the 'flat earth society' for sure, but I wonder if they think Homosexual EVIL is everywhere, too. I wonder if they're just another couple of queens who have internalized homophobia and just like the fallen preachers we see every day, they know they've 'sinned' by doing poppers and they want to atone for their 'sins'. I just saw this in a forum and it strikes me that it sounds like Wilson/Dalmation and his/her/their war on poppers:

Satan spoke thru his servant Bill again: > And Max spoke through his sock puppet "Virtuous" again.

I speak for myself...and for Jesus Christ, naturally.

> Yes, thirty years ago every family was all "Leave It to Beaver" and "I > Love Lucy".

I never said that. But fifty years ago most families were at least together and not in tatters. I think we could all learn a lot from Ward and June Cleaver...except that Beaver needed more discipline. He was always disobeying his parents and getting into trouble

> I think you need to be "degraded" and see how good it really feels.

I already know what a dog's tongue feels like on my hand. Only a pervert would enjoy such sensations...especially on the body's more private parts. Ugh!

> Probably less than you, Max.

I'm Velma. You're terribly confused. Do you use those poppers to dilate your rectum when you engage in sexual perversions?

> I'm sorry that the lesbian lover you had was so poor at it.

I know how to resist lesbians. A knuckle sandwich works just fine against their slurpy tongues.

> So what's your point? Different tastes for different people? I can agree > with that.

But homosexuals tastes are perverted. They seek out degradation. Do you know that they lick each others buttcracks and then French kiss?

> Thank god for that!

But that's what unleashed the aids on the world. Have you been tested?

> No they don't.

Rectal prolapse is common among gayo men and bisexual porn whores.

> Aww...poor Max is running away.

No. He's just resisting conversion. You'll never sleep with him again though. Praying for decent people who are careful to avoid wickedness... Wholly holy, good and Godly gospel witness Chaingangball 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pac West puppets (PWP's) are on good form! Hello "gentlemen"! or is that the singular? Chaingangball is probably best ignored as even JM / PWP's don't stoop to this level.

"You anti popper types are all alike: you don't have any basis in fact for your outrageous claims that poppers are harmful, you cannot engage in civil or coherent debate on the issue, you disregard and dismiss valid science in favor of flawed studies and biased reporting, and you're basically just wrong about nearly everything you believe and espouse about poppers. On top of all that, you personally attack anyone who disagrees with you rather than trying to support your position with valid information and fact."

This is great stuff! Bully for you. Thanks for saying it so well. Hank Wilson and his friend Dalamation -- popper haters each (I wonder, too, if they are the same person) -- have continually vandalized this wikipedia article on poppers for the last year or more. He has removed all the wonderful analysis to the flawed "studies" he's posted in this article, and constantly alters and edits any posts to remove information he does not agree with.

Seems he can't justify his position, and instead deletes anything that challenges him.

Gostu98 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The PWP's (Pac West Puppets) strike again! LOL "all the wonderful analysis" you mention.. bought and paid for by guess who?????? Not the highly regulated and reputable "poppers industry" surely? The guys that sell inhalants as cleaners? I am sure that we can trust them...what d'ya all think? Do you think that they give a fig if you cause yourself long term damage by involving yourself with their hyped up product?

Shine the light of truth on the cockroaches and they'll get back to the dark poverty from whence they came.

I think this article and its discussion page are a good illustration of the fact that the Wikipedia principle just doesn't work out. Drug producers promote their drug here which is illegal in most countries, they declare scientific results as "not neutral", they accuse others of homophobia and publish disgusting hate texts against homosexuals themselves, and even though they're ignorant of the medical research on the topic and of the background needed to understand it consider themselves responsible for "guarding" the article. Isn't that absurd? How can Wikipedia ever aim at becoming a reliable source of information with letting such things happening?

Looking at the texts above, I consider Wikipedia rather a platform for hate speech than an encyclopedia. The claim of being the latter is an insult to the true encylopedists, especially Denis Diderot. --85.216.120.103 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the most comprehensive bibliography of research on poppers. Research is accumulating since the spotlight was shined on poppers back in 1981 when popper use was suspected of causing AIDS, initially called GRID for "Gay related immunodeficiency disease".The research to date has limitations, but taken as a whole, it shows that poppers are not the harmless drug that its manufacturers and sellers claim.Admittedly, the research has limitations but the high prevalence of use by gay/bi men compels more research.

Poppers are cheap to make, profitable to sell. There is an incentive for popper sellers to proclaim poppers safe, distort or deny research,and make ad hominem attacks on those who publicize the potential dangers. There is always a significant segment that will continue to use harmful products after learning they are harmful. Individual choice. Informed choice seems a reasonable goal.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hankwilson (talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Take a look at the German Wikipedia: Poppers -- The bibliography has just been deleted there. This has happened here as well and it had to be restored continuously. Without continuous "guarding" of the page all scientific content will erode sooner or later. Wikipedia is garbage. --87.139.42.96 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

Despite the long safety record of alkyl nitrites, in the early 1980's the AIDS phenomenon opened the door of opportunity for certain self-serving individuals to promote themselves as “experts" on the study of "poppers" and to condemn their use as unsafe. These self-proclaimed "experts" did not have the knowledge of immunology or epidemiology to make informed judgments about AIDS or its cause. But that did not stop them from trying to grandstand and take their place in the spotlight anyway. Most of these opportunists saw the light decades ago, when it was shown they were wrong. However, some have continued to disregard the science and to this day they continue to proclaim poppers as being significantly dangerous, when they simply are not. It seems that Hank Wilson appears to be one of these people

Hank Wilson's claim that Wikipedia "has the most comprehensive bibliography of research on poppers" is absurd. What Wikipedia has is what Wilson himself has posted on the poppers page. If you look at the history of the poppers page, you find that anything that gets posted which disagrees with him is removed almost immediately, and the posters are subjected to character assignation or are slandered and maligned as being either agents of some popper company or other nefarious characterization. (I guarantee you that as author of this post I will similarly be maligned.)

The articles referenced in Wilson’s bibliography of research, which he has posted on Wikipedia, do not support his claim that nitrite use causes risky sexual behavior and a decrease in immune function that may lead to HIV infection or Kaposi's sarcoma.

A major issue concerning the articles referenced by Wilson is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results are not repeated by other scientists. In fact, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers.

Much of the work he references has experimental design flaws, one of which is that the sample sizes are too small. It is important to utilize a large enough sample in experiments to accurately represent a true population. Furthermore, in many of the studies, most of the tests are not repeated. This is an extremely crucial element of experimental design that is necessary in establishing statistical significance for a particular result. It is essential to repeat experiments because it is possible to obtain contradictory data between different tests, resulting from factors such as researcher error.

Although Wilson proposes that nitrite use can facilitate HIV infection and Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of his 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.

Another significant problem with Wilson's "studies" is the integrity of the work done by one of his main research associates, Soderberg (to whom the record shows he supplied the poppers used for many studies over twenty or more years). Soderberg's studies using mice suffer from a very serious flaw, which is that the mice are exposed to extremely large doses of nitrites when their body size is taken into account. It seems that when Solderberg and Wilson did not get they results they wanted with normal doses, they increased the dosage until it became lethal.

Wilson's theories about seroconversion are as similarly weak as the rest of his other theories. For years Wilson has tried to convince people that "poppers" increase the chance of seroconverting. However, as Dr. Steve Harris reminds us, among many other credible studies that also dispute Wilson, are the results of a huge San Francisco study, begun in the mid-1980's, which clearly demonstrated that "poppers" appear to have no effect on seroconverting: "Readers will remember that once men were infected with HIV, subsequent use of poppers, and subsequent numbers of partners, made no impact on future risk of developing AIDS. That is one important way epidemiologists know they have the cause of a problem. If many things correlate with risk of getting a diseases, but all things stop correlating after one of the variables changes, then that is likely to be the causal variable of interest. We now have studies showing such a relationship between HIV and AIDS, and between KSHV and KS."

Yet another problem with Wilson’s references that lessens his credibility is that many of the articles are not published in peer review journals. It is much easier to publish scientific articles in these types of journals, because the data and conclusions are not reviewed by experts in that particular field. In addition, some of the journals referred to are somewhat obscure and not found in medical school libraries, which carry a large number of the best and most used medical journals.

An additional infirmity of the references listed by Wilson is that some of them are merely data presented at meetings as posters or informal talks. These types of presentations are usually not referenced in scientific publications because they are not peer reviewed and nearly always are preliminary data that has not been confirmed or published. It is difficult to critique these references because they are not published or found in easily obtainable publications.

Wilson has also been guilty of listing references which were submitted but not accepted for publication. Articles that were rejected for publication are never cited in credible reference lists.

When Wilson was finally called to task about these serious flaws, he began to alter his reference list to try to clean it up. However, once you post something on the internet, it's always there. You can't erase it.

So, even though Wilson’s reference list might look impressive to the untrained eye, he does not have a case for his claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma -- or even that they are significantly harmful in any other way, even if misused as inhalants.

But, facts be dammed, with Wikipedia, he has the perfect forum for his never-ending war against poppers. He just posts all this stuff on the Wikipedia poppers page, and sits back rubbing his hands in glee that he's finally found a place he can control by loading it up with his flawed data while simultaneously editing the posts made by anyone who dares challenge him -- and then self-proclaming that "Wikipedia has the most comprehensive bibliography of research on poppers"

For example, a few months ago someone had posted analysis of Wilson's "studies", which sent him over the edge it appears. He's since removed all of them. In any other Wikipedia page that would be considered vandalism. But since Wilson and his alter egos essentially control the Wikipedia poppers page, he gets by with it.

Wilson appears to try to paint himself as less than an anti-popper nazi when he says "research is accumulating since the spotlight was shined on poppers back in 1981 when popper use was suspected of causing AIDS, initially called GRID for "Gay related immunodeficiency disease". The research to date has limitations, but taken as a whole, it shows that poppers are not the harmless drug that its manufacturers and sellers claim. Admittedly, the research has limitations but the high prevalence of use by gay/bi men compels more research."

No only does the research he claims show poppers to be significantly harmful have 'limitations', as discussed above it is deeply flawed. And, when "taken as a whole" as Wilson puts it, his own research does not support his claim that poppers are significantly harmful.

Based on Wilson's history on Wikipedia I will be attacked and/or my post will be edited or deleted. Cactuspuss 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Poppers Industry vs The Law

The poppers industry "view" above and always from the same person - already exposed by a San Fransisco journalist for his online promotion of inhalants. The connection is Indiana. Promoting the use of "cleaning products" as inhalants, in contravention of State and Federal legislation, designed to protect the public? What is the name for that?

One point Cactuspuss..."anti-popper nazi"? This is not only offensive, but also shows your true colours; everyone knows that you have a temper problem. Why has every nation worldwide BANNED poppers, Cactuspuss? Is it part of an anti gay conspiracy as you claimed in the 1990's?

Do you know better than the authorities, and is that why the industry chooses to outwit the law? The poppers industry graft their drug onto the gay community like a cancer and the motive is profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalmation55 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

My wife just called me from work to tell me that, as predicted, you've chosen to attack the messenger rather than trying to support your position on poppers with facts.

My views may mirror the 'poppers industry' views, as you say, but they also mirror the medical and scientific community as well. What I find baffling is why you persist in your onslaught against anyone who tries to post information about poppers with which you do not agree. You've attacked everyone who has done so.

Rather than personally attacking everyone you don't agree with, why don't you just put forth your best arguments and debate the issue in a civil manner?

The term 'anti-popper nazi' pretty much describes the actions of the anti-popper zealots who have taken over the Wikipedia page on poppers. The dictionary definition of 'nazi' is as follows: "...a person who holds and acts ... in accordance with extreme... authoritarian views." Cactuspuss 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"My wife just called me from work" LOL

Why has every nation worldwide BANNED poppers, Cactuspus? It is illegal to sell inhalants! Drugs which dramatically lower blood pressure are a danger to public health, and that is why the sale was made illegal. Why do the poppers industry feel able to circumvent the law? Are they above it? Please answer my questions. These "bought and paid for" reports and other falsehoods planted in the gay press in the 90's are symptomatic of an industry filled with hubris and greed. Rather like a Columbian cartel commisioning a report on the benefits of cocaine.

Cactuspus, may I ask you a favour? please never use the term "nazi" again..you clearly do not understand it's meaning

Dalmation55 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above has been copied to German Wikipedia by Cactuspuss, see [2]. The German Poppers page has been blocked from editing after I had tried to restore the scientific references, and the administrators call them "wissenschaftliche Irrlehre" (= "scientific heresy"). What do you now think of Wikipedia? --87.139.42.96 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In your earlier post yesterday you indicated you were also active in the German Wikipedia page on poppers. I didn't know it existed, so I added my post to the debate there, too.

I don't read German but from what you've said it looks like the German poppers page is being guarded by administrators who are not allowing it to be vandalized by anti-popper zealots. I'd think that has to be a good thing and in the best interest of free and open debate on the subject. It'd be great if the same level of monitoring could be obtained on the USA Wikipedia poppers page. Cactuspuss 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. If these pages are transformed into ads for illegal drugs, this would only be more proof that Wikipedia is garbage. Why should I waste my time in guarding scientific content on an anti-scientific platform? Go to hell! --91.89.6.103 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by to share something.

Hank Wilson and Dalmatian may be one in the same, but it appears Dalmatian, when he posts without signing on trying to hide his identity, is always using the same server in Germany. Wilson uses severs in San Francisco. (If Wilson lives in San Francisco, this would make sense unless he's doing some fancy VPN from elsewhere.)

Dalmatian is either in Germany, or he's eslewhere in Europe (perhaps even in one of the alledged shady Eastern European countries). Given the change in IP addresses when he posts, he's probaby moving around and using WiFi at one or more different coffeeshops near where he lives. Or maybe he's using VPN from somewhere.

Because he complained about a German Wikipedia page having administrators who are blocking him from vandalizing the German Wiki poppers page, it's likely that they know him well over there.

This all points to the real possibility that Dalmatian and Wilson are working together in some coordination of their anti-popper campaign, and that the Europeans are keeping them from vandalizing their Wiki pages.

That's how it looks from here.

In case anyone is interested here's the trail that I discovered:

23 Jan 07 19:47 Dalmatian threatened a poster by telling the poster to "Go to hell!!" Dalmatian used: IP address is 91.89.6.103 City: Frankfurt Hessen Country: Germany Continent: Europe Time Zone: GMT+1

23 Jan 07 Dalmatian Complaining about being blocked from vandalizing the German Wikipedia with Hank Wilson's flawed bibliography Dalmatian used: IP address is 87.139.42.96 City: Frankfurt Hessen Country: Germany Continent: Europe Time Zone: GMT+1

23 Jan 07 15:13 Dalmatian proclaiming that Cactuspus cross posted to the German Wikipeia Dalmatian used: IP address is 87.139.42.96 City: Frankfurt Hessen Country: Germany Continent: Europe Time Zone: GMT+1

23 Jan 07 11:09 Dalmatian/Hank Wilson posted the following in Talk:

Do you know better than the authorities, and is that why the industry chooses to outwit the law? The poppers industry graft their drug onto the gay community like a cancer and the motive is profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalmation55 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

22 January 2007 11:24 Dalmatian posted Talk "take a look at German Wikipeia...." Dalmatian used: IP address is 87.139.42.96 City: Frankfurt Hessen Country: Germany Continent: Europe Time Zone: GMT+1

16 January 2007 19:38 Anonymous poster (probably Dalmatian or a sock puppet) questions someone's challenge to the POV of Hank Wilson's flawed list of references by deleting the Wiki alert on POV-Section. They also said: "References - These are scientific quotes. Why is this considered POV? If science is POV, what isn't?" IP address is 91.89.6.50 City: Frankfurt Hessen Country: Germany Continent: Europe Time Zone: GMT+1

9 December 2006 07:08 Hank Wilson posted in Talk using: IP address is 209.244.188.83 City: San Francisco California Country: United States Continent: North America Time Zone: PST

9 December 2006 06:36 Hank Wilson posted using the following IP: IP address is 209.244.188.83 City: San Francisco California Country: United States Continent: North America Time Zone: PST Msmchaser 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on the German wikipedia page and have no idea what you are talking about. Conspiracy theories apppeal to those that fear authority, do they not? I feel rather embarassed for you, you are clearly a very silly person.Dalmation55 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone earlier mentioned an Australian study and I located it. True enough, it shows that there is no link between popper use and unprotected sex amongst HIV-positive gay men, at least not in Sydney, one of the world's major cities.

Hank Wilson continues to deny it, but the Australian researchers seem to have just confirmed it: Earlier studies looking at the relationship between recreational drug use and sexual risk taking have produced conflicting results. Although some studies, often conducted in the US, have found a link between the use of specific illicit drugs, particularly methamphetamine, and unprotected anal sex, these findings have not been supported by other studies. There have also been methodological limitations with many studies, particularly as they have simply tried to establish if unprotected sex and drug taking occurred within the same time period, not on the same occasion.

In this new research the investigators found that “illict drug use was no greater in encounters in which a condom was not used than in those which a condom was used.”

I'm sure Wilson will attempt to debunk this study, too, but it'd be better if he'd just allow both sides of the story to be told, and not fear an open discussion on the matter.

Reference

Prestage G et al. Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney. AIDS 21( suppl 1): S49 – 55, 2007.

Msmchaser 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comprehensive Lead to the article containing links to sites mentioned -- including especially a link to the web's most anti-popper site. I included links to all referenced sites in the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy including two popper sites referenced there (Neither of which appear to sell to the public and which seem to be informational only. From an historical and sociological perspective it seemed to me to make sense to include them, but if there is common consent to remove the popper sites I will do so.) I believe this Lead adds to the article and hope it can stand. MDwife 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And me, I have reverted the article to remove your lead, for it was quite unencyclopædic and out of line with WP:NPOV. If you're going to discuss "controversy", you need to present both sides of the debate, evenhandedly and with an attempt at equal quantity and quality of supporting references. What you put up was essentially "See, it's perfectly safe, harmless fun with no negative side effects or risks!", with carefully selective enumeration and documentation of the types of risks that have been shown not to be present to significant degree. Consider by analogy: The fact that you cannot be electrocuted by Carbon Monoxide does not mean CO isn't deadly. The fact that crystal meth probably won't directly cause you to drown does not make crystal meth safe. OK, sure, we're pretty certain that poppers use does not cause AIDS. That has been examined and robustly refuted. But, we do know that poppers use causes immunosuppression significant in degree and duration, which in turn must necessarily increase the user's risk of contracting disease.

Likewise, by simple dint of the physiological effects of nitrite inhalants, there is vascular risk (stroke, etc.). This risk is cumulative with long-term usage, and I'm not aware of any studies that have looked at the long-run physical effects of recreational nitrite inhalation. Remember, the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The fervour with which nitrite advocates rush to make the prima facie dubious claim that there is no risk associated with use of poppers, should make you pause and consider their perspective and your own. If it does not, then you are likely biased for whatever reason, in whichever direction.

Also, "Avant-garde" is a real phrase. "Avant guard" is not. --Scheinwerfermann 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Scheinwerfermann,

Thanks for your contribution and thanks for the spell-check on "Avant-garde"

In a gesture of courtesy I'll wait a bit for your response before I revert the lead. However, in the future please do not make arbitrary deletions, especially of such huge proportions. This page has been the object of ongoing vandalism and you risk being labeled as a vandal. You have demonstrated that you have strong opinions about the subject of 'poppers' and I hope you'd agree that you should discuss them or argue them on the Talk page.

Lead sections are not where you'll expect to find encyclopedic detail. You can expect to find encyclopedic detail -- a more comprehensive, thorough, complete, in-depth discussion of the subject -- in the other sections of an article.

NPOV is an important part of a well-written article on Wikipedia, and many people have attempted to achieve that lofty goal on this article. But vandals and extremists have worked to make it hard to achieve (Review the history and you'll see what I mean. It has been very frustrating.)

What I put up was in no way intended to convey, as you labeled it, "See, it's perfectly safe, harmless fun with no negative side effects or risks!"

I tried to present both sides of the debate in the lead. If you check the citations and links you'll see that the Lead contains links to the most bitterly hostile anti-popper websites on the internet. The lead is a summary of the available literature. Admittedly my view of the literature; if you have another view please discuss it here, and feel free to write your own fact-checked lead. There have been many attempts for as long as I've watched this article to get such input from other posters.

You're certainly entitled to your statement that "...by simple dint of the physiological effects of nitrite inhalants, there is vascular risk (stroke, etc.). This risk is cumulative with long-term usage, and I'm not aware of any studies that have looked at the long-run physical effects of recreational nitrite inhalation". However, if you expect such statements to stand, you'll need to back them up with citations and valid support.

Though I am not one of the "nitrite advocates" you mention, I'd remind you that you, yourself, must be careful that your own fervor to rush to make the prima facie dubious -- actually unsubstantiated -- claims that there is somehow significant risk associated with use of poppers, should make you pause and consider your own perspective. If it does not, then you, yourself, are likely biased for whatever reason, in whichever direction"

I hope you'll pardon my cynicism, but this article has been vandalized recently and posters have suffered personal attacks and profanity from anti-popper extremists. Some of it seems to be coming from someone in Germany. At the least they are using a German-based server for their attacks. If you have constructive criticism to add, or additional information that has not already been posted here, please discuss it in Talk. If you have thoroughly reviewed the literature, or are a medical professional with expertise in this subject, or a scientist who has made this subject a matter of research, then by all means edit the lead to your heart's content. But be able to back up your statements with citations and verifiable facts. This article deserves contributions by others who share a genuine desire for the greatest level of veracity and intelligibility.

This article needs a lot of help. Your responsible contributions will be welcomed and hopefully a breath of fresh air. MDwife 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

MDwife, a few things: As you are not one of the nitrite advocates, I am not one of the vandals. The subject matter of this article is of only minor interest to me. I'm aware of the heated & troubled history of this article. Your use of the virusmyth.org website as a reference put up a giant red flag, for if you'll review the onrunning commentary on this talk page (and do a quick bit of investigation into the site and its owners) you'll find that it and its many companion & mirror sites are fronts for what I will diplomatically call aggressive poppers advocates. It's imperative to remember that Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of references. The quality of references is equally important.

As far as the (assumed) absence of long-term investigations into the cumulative vascular effects of nitrite inhalation: Such absence is not a reason to exclude discussion of simple, observable physiological causal sequence. The tobacco companies for many decades successfully used lack of definitive, airtight proof as a tool specifically to exclude discussion of the observable effects of tobacco use, and more generally to withhold information from those who sought it. Wikipedia, as an encyclopædia, is an effort to bring the most comphrehensive, highest-quality information to the reader. There is no good demarcation line separating good info from bad here, though. Difficulty finding a printed reference does not necessarily neutralise a fact. Unfortunately for all of us, "published" doesn't necessarily imply easy or convenient access. It's obnoxious that certain research bodies make it inconvenient to get access to certain of the information they publish, and I certainly wish it were possible to search several particular archives of published records more extensively than it is, but...it's not. Offhand, I can think of a dozen out-of-print books that are exceedingly difficult to find. Surely one wouldn't consider it reasonable to keep something from such a book out of Wiki simply because few will go to the expense and trouble of obtaining a copy! The opposite problem is equally pernicious: Simply because something has been printed (or reprinted, or rereprinted) in a book or on a website does not necessarily imbue it with veracity. So, certainly, the question of availability as applied to the phrase "the available literature" is considerably more complex than it might seem.

As a finaly note: my professional activities are, per WP:NOR, irrelevant to my contributions to this or any other article.

--Scheinwerfermann 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the extremes on this subject are so active in this article. The anti-popper zealots have taken it over and won't allow for open and civil debate on the issue. They won't even allow anyone to add anything of substance unless it is negative. 72.255.16.71 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I really enjoy reading Joe Miller's pompous orations on this page. Keep it up Joe - you should have been a lawyer! DrNog 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is the source of sometimes heated debate and needs careful attention.

If you are compelled to edit please do not not delete entire entries. Instead please use Talk to discuss your edits preferably before they are made.

Playing nice would be appreciated. MDwife 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an add on: At the moment the wiki page on poppers certainly needs to be checked for neutrality, I would contest the statement that alkyl nitrites are 'mentally addictive drugs'.

You're right, poppers are not 'mentally addictive drugs', and the poppers article is full of inaccuracies.

It would seem that the anti-poppers zealots have literally vandalized the page until it has become a cesspool of false information. Too bad really. MDwife 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Poppers risk factor for HIV/Sexually transmitted infections:A Review

A review of club drugs found the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites for being associated with HIV/sexually transmitted infections. See www.Pubmed.gov (PMID 17002993): "Club drugs as causal risk factors for HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men: a review." by Drumright,LN et al. in Substance Use and Misuse 2006;41(10-12):1551-601.

The authors reviewed medical and pyschology databases for articles published between January 1980 and August 2005 demonstrating associations between HIV/Sexually Transmitted Infection risk and club drug use.They reviewed 74 articles and found 30 with adjusted risk ratios for associations with HIV/STD infections and club drug use by men who have sex with men. After constructing a conceptual framework of biologically plausible pathways for causation, they used Hill's criteria to examine club drugs as causal risks for HIV. They found the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites.They acknowledged that more research is needed. Hankwilson 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A review of articles going back to 1980 would undoubtedly dredge up old, outdated and now-invalid 'data', and would not include the more current and most recent information. For example, the recent Australian study which found that "..no significant relationship was found by the investigators between recreational drug use and unprotected anal sex with casual partners. " See the following:

"A study has found that the majority of HIV-positive gay men in Sydney, Australia, used “party drugs” such as ecstasy in the previous six months. However, no significant relationship was found by the investigators between recreational drug use and unprotected anal sex with casual partners. The study is published in a special supplement to the January 2nd edition of AIDS. The investigators comment, “the relationship between illicit drug use and risk behaviour is neither simple nor direct.”

Earlier studies looking at the relationship between recreational drug use and sexual risk taking have produced conflicting results. Although some studies, often conducted in the US, have found a link between the use of specific illicit drugs, particularly methamphetamine, and unprotected anal sex, these findings have not been supported by other studies. There have also been methodological limitations with many studies, particularly as they have simply tried to establish if unprotected sex and drug taking occurred within the same time period, not on the same occasion.

Investigators from Sydney therefore designed a study to explore the relationship between illicit drug use and a sample of HIV-positive gay men enrolled in the ongoing Positive Health study. They examined the factors differentiating drug users from non-users and looked at the use of drugs both generally and on specific occasions, particularly during casual sexual encounters.

A total of 274 men were included in the study in 2004 and 209 attended a second follow-up visit in 2005. In face-to-face interviews, the men were asked about their sexual identity, involvement in the gay community, contact with the HIV epidemic, sexual relationships, sexual practices with both regular and casual partners, and their drug and alcohol use. Information was also gathered on age, education, area of residence, employment and income.

Almost all the men (94%) identified as gay, and the majority participated in the gay scene, with 63% reporting that most or all their friends were gay and 58% said that they spent a lot of their free time with gay men. The men had a mean age of 45 years, 75% were Anglo-Australian, 40% had been to university, 63% were employed, and 50% earned at least AU$32,000 a year.

Most of the men reported the use of some illicit drug in the previous six months. The most commonly used drugs were amyl nitrite (poppers), which were used by 51% of men and marijuana, which 63% of individuals said they had used. A “party drug” of some kind was used by just over 50% of men. Ecstasy was the most frequently taken drug of this kind, being used by 40% of men. Methamphetamine was used by 22% of men, although only 6% reported its use on a monthly basis and 3% said that they used it weekly.

Factors significantly associated with use of party drugs in 2004 were younger age (p < 0.001), socialising on the gay party scene (p < 0.001), and engagement in esoteric sexual practices (p < 0.001).

Interviews with 209 men from 2005 were also available for analysis. The results were broadly similar than those for 2004, with 52% saying they had used party drugs. The investigators also found that the same factors were significantly associated with party drug use.

The investigators then turned their attention to the answers the men provided about drug use during sexual encounters. In the six months before the 2004 interview, 48% of men said that they had had used illicit drugs to enhance pleasure during a casual sexual encounter. The most commonly used drugs were poppers (62%), alcohol (43%), and erectile dysfunction drugs (35%). Methamphetamine use during casual sex was reported by 22% of men, and the investigators found that two-thirds of these men used an erectile dysfunction drug at the same time.

Of the men interviewed in 2005, 46% (131) reported unprotected anal intercourse with a casual partner in the previous six months. Of these men, 103 provided detailed information about their most recent sexual encounters. The investigators found that “illict drug use was no greater in encounters in which a condom was not used than in those which a condom was used.”

Reference

Prestage G et al. Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney. AIDS 21( suppl 1): S49 – 55, 2007. MDwife 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the claim that poppers are "mentally addictive drugs". The article on addiction says that psychological addiction is not the result of anything inherent about the substance, but repeated behaviour being associated with endorphins. Poppers, therefore, are exactly as addictive as square dancing. The citations said nothing, they merely both linked to ads for a book with chapters titled "inhalant addiction" and "amyl nitrite addiction".

--Awesome 00:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried poppers once. It wasn't very addictive. It just made gay sex fun. 121.6.225.88

Awesome, you're remarks are a sane addition to what had become a mess of unsubstantiated statements and postings full of misinformation. As for 121.6.225.88 poppers are not additive under any circumstances -- or at least there is no credible evidence to suggest that they are addictive ( and this after 200 years of use by millions of people it seems). But they do made sex more fun -- gay or straight! ;-) 65.199.96.2 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The poppers article is getting better. There are fewer personal attacks in the discussion page too. If the extrremes can be kept at bay it may stay that way. Bay House Deals 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm performing a big cleanup of the article. I'm not going to add or remove any information, but I'm referencing anything I can find a reference for, and leaving requests for references for things that I can't find. I'll go through the references section itself as well, and remove anything that doesn't contribute to the article itself--it's pointless having a reference that isn't used IMO. If they're particularly relevent, but don't contribute, I may move them to the "External links" section.

I'm using footnote referencing, as that way, every fact can be verified, and the sources checked easily. I think one of the problems this article has had is that people have been adding information without references, and because the reference section is so huge, nobody's put the effort to see if it is actually true. me_and 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely removing a load of references for various reasons. For posterity, I'll leave a list of them here me_and 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Death Rush: Poppers And AIDS ISBN-10: 0943742056 [3] Out of print & I can't check what it's verifying
• Inhalants.org [4] About inhalants other than poppers
• Inhalants Dependence [5] Cannot check what it's verifying
• Adin.com [6] List of links--not a source
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [7] List of links--not a source
• Narconon [8] Primarily regarding inhalants other than poppers
• Inhalants Depandence [9] Cannot check what it's verifying
• The Beach Comber [10] About inhalants other than poppers
• Life Works [11] Not about poppers
• Needle [12] Not about poppers
• [13] Dead link, not in archive.org--may be worth rechecking in a few months
• [14] Primarily regarding inhalants other than poppers
• PMID 17325605 Despite the title, the article makes only passing mention to poppers; the abstract does not mention nitrites at all.

A meta analysis of published research between 1980 and 2005 found "the most evidence for methamphetamine and volatile nitrites" use as a causal factors for acquisition of HIV/STDs. "Club Drugs as Causal Risk Factors for HIV Acquistion Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Review" in Sustance Use and Misuse, 41:1551-1601,2006. PMID 17002993. The authors found 17 studies that met their criteria: 13 demonstrating popper use as an association with acquisition of hiv/std or risky sexual behavior and 4 did not, "indicating good consistency and strength in association." There were 7 longitudinal studies, 3 case control studies, and seven cross-sectional studies. 6 or 7 longitudinal studies demonstrated associations between popper use and elevated incidence of sexually transmitted infections, unprotected anal intercourse with a serodiscordant ot unknown status partner, or relapse in condom use during anal sex; providing evidence for temporality.

The studies cited in this analysis can be cited and the evidence cited as a concern about popper use fueling the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men.

The controversy section needs to cite 1.the role of poppers being a factor in behavior change leading to HIV acquisition.2. that poppers are immunosuppressive and the article needs to include every published article showing immunosuppression. Whether the immunosuppression is significant is debatable. It may be that dose, i.e. quantity of sniffs,or frequency of popper use may determine susceptibility to infection.

Published research about poppers should be cited and referenced. If you mention immunosuppression as a controversial issue then you should include all the studies that assess immunosuppression, independent of limitations. Most research has limitations hence almost every discussion section cites some. Hankwilson 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this to correct the formatting and make it easier to read. Hope you don't mind me_and 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that point 1. is already in the controversy section, albeit without a source (as I have yet to find one, although I'm still trying to make sense of the references section). Point 2. is also already in the controversy section, and indeed is in the health risks section, with citations. me_and 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This recently published study PMID 17325605 underscores the importance of poppers use being a cofactor in HIV acquisition. This study should be in the reference section and cited with a cite number.

Artiles,documents,etc in the reference section should have numbers so that several studies can be cited in the the main article to validate a statement. For example, in the controversial issue of whether poppers are immunosuppressive, it would be helpful to have a dozen plus references, or their cite numbers, following such a contention. Makes it harder for the "poppers are not immunosuppressive, or not significantly immunosuppressive" to just dismiss the contention when the published research overtime is accumulating.

Taken as a whole, from 1980s onward, the evidence supports that poppers are immunosuppressive. "Significantly immunosuppressive" seems debatable and may depend upon the dose and frequency of popper use.

The reference list needs to retain all the studies showing immunosuppression, independent of whether there are study limitations. That they have been published in research journals should warrant their inclusion. Hankwilson 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

formatting again me_and 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have Pac West been allowed to vandalise this article YET again? Also, they are constantly planting their brand names on the article - Rush and their new brand, Locker Room. When will this be stopped? Is Wikipedia now accepting adverts from manufacturers of "room deodourizers?" This is shameful. Cue the usual puppets....Dalmation55 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? "Locker Room" and "Rush" are common names for them, just as liquid paper is often called "Tip-X" and pocket tissues are often called "Kleenex". I'm pretty sure none of the cited sources have any business with Pac West... me_and 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They are known as poppers actually. Rush is a brand of room deodouriser, and is misused as poppers according to the Pac West website. Dalmation55 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dalmation55" is involved in the sale of counterfeit RUSH® and other fake PWD products. He and his associates own several websites selling fake RUSH®. The fakes are made in Canada and shipped to Dalmation55's group in Prague, CZ. Dalmation55 then sells them to dealers around Europe, and to the public from his web sites. Some of his customers in Europe have already been sued and and no longer buying the counterfeit products from him -- hitting him right in his pocketbook. This is what drives him and his venomous attacks on Pac West Distributing.

What total bullshit! The reason why many people point to Pac West (actually GLP, and the lonely owner) is that he has a long history of using this page as a link farm for allaboutpoppers.com. That dates back several years. I was not the first to point out who was behind this vandalism.

This crazy, and wholly innacurate attack, which is based on god knows what, is an indication that the poppers sellers are very active on wikipedia. Everyone knows this. It has been exposed many times.Dalmation55 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dalmation55 is working together with Hank Wilson, the anti-popper zealot from San Francisco in efforts to harass Pac West Dist. Wilson's personal vendetta toward Pac West goes back to the 1980's and drives his efforts to demonize the company and it's products, all of which is well-known. DrKnow07 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More paranoid libel. I have never met, nor spoken with Hank Wilson, in my entire life. You clearly have a persecution complex. Your enterprise is based upon avoidance of enforcement against your product - misrepresentation as a deodoriser. This is simaltaneous with an online campaign to promote the misuse of inhlants as an aphrodisiac. This is probably illegal. You probably have more experience of the courts than I, dating back to the 1970s, so perhaps you have a better idea. I am sure that a conspiracy to outwit the enforcement of law has a name?

I can imagine that you have become very nervous, and irritable, given your clandestine activities. This imagined conspiracy against you is testament to the fact that you are not rational in your response to the widespread concern regarding the misuse of the inhalants that you are selling.Dalmation55 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Published research articles should be included in the reference section. There have been multiple deletions of published research which showed that popper use was a significant risk factor in unsafe sex and/or HIV infection, or that popper use had an effect on the immune system. When the article is reviewed, hopefully the reviewers will put the published articles back in the reference listings and utilize them in a controversial issues section. The achilles heal of the poppers industry is the published research which continues to accumulate. Reliance upon experts from the early and mid 80s is questionable since the research continued. Their views that poppers are harmless should be taken in a historical context. Most of the published research, risk for unsafe sex, hiv seroconversion, and immunosuppressive effects of poppers have been published after the experts went on record. Recent expert testimony supporting poppers, or giving them a "no risk" assessment are lacking. On the contrary, recent researchers are saying pay attention to poppers because they are a factor in fueling a continuing HIV/AIDS epidemic among men who have sex with men. Hankwilson 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hank Wilson: why do you consider the editing of this article to be vandalism whenever someone posts something you do not agree with?

Why do you use unnecessarily alarmist statements like "poppers are a factor in fueling a continuing HIV/AIDS epidemic", when they are not.

Why do you disregard studies such as the most recent study out of Australia (Prestage G et al. Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney.), published last month, which shows that there is "no significant relationship between popper use and unprotected anal sex with casual partners."

Are you implying that the authors of this study are not 'experts' but that you are?

I agree that the studies you keep pointing to have "limitations" as you call them. Remember, someone else here had posted analysis of all your studies -- that long reference list you keep posting on here -- and almost all of them had serious limitations (including the ones you added twice in your effort to make the list look even longer than it was).

For example, all the studies you put on here which claimed poppers were significantly immunosupressive, or which claimed to support your allegation that poppers cause AIDS or lead to an increase in seroconversion, etc, -- they all suffered from limitations such as giving lab animals huge overdoses. Each of your studies which claimed harm, when analyzed, turned out to have been done with animals which you overdosed with lethal amounts of nitrites. When you used amounts of nitrites that were closer to what humans might be expected to encounter, there were no harmful results. (Which, of course, correlates with human experience over the past 50 years)

You are coming across as an alarmist who disregards the true reasons by MSM are practicing unsafe sex and putting themselves at risk for HIV. You should be trying to educate this population about things that they can do that really make a difference.

No one here is encouraging popper use, but neither is there a need to be alarmist and to twist the facts and waste time beating a dead horse. Msmchaser 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wilson: No responsible person is suggesting or encouraging the misuse of nitrites as poppers in this article. I respect your right to say anything you want, but what you've been saying in this article is not only alarmist and misleading, it is contrary to the general consensus of responsible researchers and studies on nitrites. For example, your position is at direct odds with this government study:

Alkyl Nitrites study -- As part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (Section 4015), Congress requested that NIDA, through HHS, conduct a study of alkyl nitrites to determine the extent and public risk associated with alkyl nitrite use. For this study, NIDA analyzed data from three ongoing nationwide substance abuse surveys to ascertain trends in alkyl nitrite abuse in the general population and in specific sub-populations. In addition, NIDA conducted a technical review workshop on March 31, 1987 with leading authorities in the area of the alkyl nitrites. The study reviewed such topics as the extent of nitrite inhalant use among adolescents, homosexual men, and intravenous drug abusers; the results of acute toxicity studies in animals; and a review of the epidemiological associations of nitrites with Kaposi's sarcoma in AIDS. Based on the surveys and the workshop, the HHS Report to Congress concluded that nitrites are not a causal factor in AIDS infection. There was consideration during the workshop whether use of large amounts of nitrite inhalants might be a co-factor in Kaposi's sarcoma, but the Report stated that medical studies failed to confirm any such association. The Report also found that there was a 21% decrease in use by high school students in 1985-1986. Because of the lack of significant health risks associated with nitrite use, and the fact that less than 3% of the population has ever used it, the HHS Report suggested no Federal legislation and recommended that alkyl nitrites not be treated as drugs. Based on these recommendations, the Committee concludes that no further Federal action as to alkyl nitrites is warranted. However, in view of the Report's finding of somewhat increased use by high school students, the Committee recommends that the States consider prohibiting access by minors to alkyl nitrite products.

Msmchaser 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To Msmchaser: The HHS study you cite was published over 20 years ago. Because of congressional legislation in 1986, NIDA conducted a human study to see if popper use effected the immune system. Elizabeth Dax et al. conducted the study which found that natural killer cell function was suppressed. The dosage of that study was less than a typical user might use because the Safety Monitoring Committee would not allow more than 3 sniffs. 3 sniffs would be at a low end of the sprectrum of quantity of use. See: Dax,E.M. et al. "Amyl Nitrite Alters Human In Vitro Immune Function" in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology, 13(4), 557-587 (1991). This study was conducted in 1986, but the full report not published until 1991...a long lag time. And it was not properly indexed by the National Library of Medicine for a couple of years. The author did not include the key word AIDS in the summary, despite it being funded as an AIDS study. Community advocacy got National Library of Medicine to index it correctly. Also, the author moved to Australia and failed to publicize her findings to the affected gay community. I consulted with Dax. The Dax study is very significant because it was a human study, not a mice or rat study. It was done because of the 1986 Congressional mandate.

    Since the Dax human study, NIDA has gone back to its mice and rat studies. The immunosuppression findings of the Soderberg lab and  Fung HL /Tran labs are included in the reference section. The overwhelming immunosuppression research has been done subsequent to the HHS report of 1986 and makes that report important for a historical analysis only. That the report is used to exonerate the safety of popper use illustrates why the gay community is confused, mis informed about poppers. The HHS report findings are obsolete in the context of the accumalted research since the report was issued.   
    Joseph Miller, owner of Great Lakes Products, contributed thousands of dollars to politicians and lobbied heavily to influence government non response to sales of an illegal drug. Popper ads boasted of selling 10,000 bottles of RUSH...DAILY around the world. Big profits. Miller hired the chief enforcement officer of the Consumer Products Safety Commission upon his retirement. CPSC fined Miller a token $10,000 for violating the law. 
    Government inaction against the popper industry may be because the health and safety of gay men is not a priority. It could be the result of effective lobbying on Miller's part, or a combination of factors.Some researchers and prevention workers have shied away from poppers because Peter Duesberg, an AIDS denialist cites poppers as harmful.However, recently  researchers have called  attention to popper use in the HIV epidemic. A speaker at the opening plenary of the Toronto 2006 International AIDS Conference cited popper use, along with crystal meth, as a driving factor in the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men. Hankwilson 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Wilson (I sound like Denis the Menace! :-) ):

You're free to say whatever you want here, but you'd be more credible if your analysis of the data you present were less alarmist and more factual.

An analysis revealed that the Dax study you cite never offered any compelling evidence for a major effect of nitrite inhalation on the human immune system. (I'll post it below in the next section where you've listed Dax a second time). Contrary to your claims, the study's protocol does not represent typical human usage. It's reasonable to consider that all your excuses for why the Dax study was never published, or was 'lost', or whatever other reason it was that it was never considered as a credible study, was more likely due to it's flaws.

Why do you misrepresent this and other studies as claiming to be proof that nitrites are so dangerous, when none of your studies have proven that?

You said that the Solderberg and other studies proved significant harm and proof of danger. But, again, each of those studies were similarly flawed -- they all used lethal or near lethal doses of nitrites to try to show harm. When lower doses were used, no harm was found. I read that you worked closely with Solderberg, even supplying him with the poppers he used in his studies. Who knows what you gave him. And, your close relationship with Solderberg along with the zeal both of you had to prove harm hardly allows you to be a neutral investigator. In fact, when your dose levels showed no harm, you ramped them up to produce lethal or very dangerous effects.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the U. S. Government, which banned the sale of poppers, is guilty of "government inaction"? Or that the U. S. Government does not have the health and safety of gay men as a 'priority'?

I've read your statements and have sifted through all the studies you've posed here, and your trail leaves no doubt that you are a strong opponent of poppers, when hardly anyone else feels they pose any significant danger. What is it, exactly, that you're trying to prove? What is your goal? Msmchaser 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See the reference listings for Dax, 1991, human study finding natural killer cell function suppressed. See reference listing for dozen Soderberg lab studies, and HL Fung and DC Tran lab studies...all finding immune suppression or disregulation. The epidemiological studies of Buchbinder, Colfax, Ostrow, Plankey, Lampien PMID 17362516, and Drumright all find popper use a significant risk factor in unsafe sex or HIV seroconversion. Some of these listings of published research were removed from the reference section. This makes the article less authoritative. It also weakens the position of those of us who are urging a cautious, reduce use, or stop use of poppers approach. Hankwilson 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wilson (No, I'm not Denis the Menace. :-) ),

The studies you cite are all similarly flawed. See the analysis below.

As was pointed out above, your anti-popper zeal and your close relationship and collaboration with some of these researchers, along with the fact that you supplied them with the poppers for their study, hardly allows you or them to be neutral in their research. As has already been pointed out, when your studies failed to produce a finding of danger or harm at lower, more reasonable doses, you ramped up the doses to lethal or near lethal levels to produce the results you wanted.

An analysis of all the studies you have in your reference list found that none of them proved there was any significant risk factor in unsafe sex or HIV seroconversion. In fact, some of your own studies when replicated found just the opposite!

Other studies you included in your reference list were never even accepted for publication; they were so un-credible that they were rejected. You even included items in your reference list that were not even studies, but just posters at some AIDS event.

Your statement that removing these apparently flawed studies from your massive reference list makes the article "less authoritative" is astonishing. On the contrary, such misinformation is what makes this article less than credible.

Why do you fail to acknowledge studies such as the large Australian study that was published last month which found that "..no significant relationship was found by the investigators between recreational drug use and unprotected anal sex with casual partners. " (Prestage G et al. Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney. AIDS 21( suppl 1): S49 – 55, 2007) Wouldn't the inclusion of all information in the article -- pro and con -- make more sense, instead of only unsupported alarmist statements based on flawed studies?

Such zealotry makes whatever you have to say suspect at best and potentially crazy at worse, and diminishes your entire position. I don't see anyone here who is encouraging popper use and the only thing that weakens your position urging "cautious, reduce use, or stop use of poppers approach" is your own "Chicken Little -- The Sky's Falling!" approach.

Dax et al. (1991) Amyl nitrate alters human in vitro immune function. Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology, 13:557.

ANALYSIS OF STUDY: In this study, the effects of volatile nitrite inhalation on the immune system of gay male volunteers was examined.

However, the amyl nitrite was administered in an unusual manner; namely, the apparatus used consisted of a 4 liter flask connected by tubing to a rubber inflatable breathing bag. Another tube connected the flask to room air, and a mouthpiece was attached to a side opening of the flask. Amyl nitrite pearls covered in gauze were broken and dropped in the bottom of the flask. Thirty seconds later, the subject exhaled, and then inhaled the air from the flask until the rubber bag collapsed and completed inspiration with room air (via the flask). The inspiration was held for 5 seconds before exhaling.

The drug dose was varied by altering the number of nitrite pearls dropped in the flask. This method of drug administration is very complicated and it does not represent the actual exposure that occurs when the drug is inhaled from a vial.

As everyone has a different lung capacity, it is impossible to standardize dose using this flask apparatus. Because of this dilemma, it is not understood why the nitrite was not inhaled directly from a vial to more accurately depict a physiological dose. Surprisingly, the authors claim that "the experimental protocol simulated the common episodic pattern of nitrite abuse." Since the drug was given three times a day (over a nine hour period) for either three or nine days using a complicated device, it does not follow that this protocol simulates nitrite abuse.

Another major flaw in this study is that there were only nine participants in each of the studies (short term or long term, consisting of three or nine day treatments, respectively, with drug administered three times a day) and the study was not repeated. This is a very low sample number and the experiments should have been repeated at least twice. Since the effects that were observed were readily reversible (see below) the same participants could have been used in an effort to replicate the data. Another approach could have been to recruit other volunteers for this study.

In these experiments, there were no changes in the number of T or B cells (which is considered to be an indicator of general immune function) in either the three or nine day experiments. The only statistically significant effect of nitrites observed was a 30% decrease in natural killer cell activity. This effect only occurred in the long-term study and returned to baseline within four days after cessation of drug exposure. This reversibility indicates that nitrite use may not have long term effects. Other immune function tests were not performed and nitrite exposure had no effect on cell proliferation. These results are not compelling evidence for a major effect of nitrite inhalation on the immune system.

Keilbasa and Fung (2000) Nitrite Inhalation in Rats Elevates Tissue NOS III Expression and Alters Tyrosine Nitration and Phosphorylation. Biochem and Biophysic. Res. Comm, 275:335.

ANALYSIS OF STUDY: In these experiments, rats were exposed to 109 and 1517 ppm isobutyl nitrite for four hours, which is excessive and does not represent human exposure.

The authors did not find alterations in NOS expression in the lungs or spleen, which according to Soderberg’s hypothesis, they should have found.

They reported an increase in the kidney and liver, which are organs of detoxification, and it is unclear what an increase in NOS expression in these organs means. They do not address why there is differential expression.

Also it is not understood why they do not measure macrophage NOS expression, which is the proposed tumoricidal mechanism of macrophages. If nitrites diminish NOS in macrophages, it would support a role for nitrites in depressing tumoricidal activity.

Tran et al (2003) Inhalant nitrite exposure alters mouse hepatic angiogenic gene expression. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 310:439.

ANALYSIS OF STUDY: In this study, the dose for mice was 1400 ppm for four hours, which is even higher exposure than Soderberg. The utilization of this high dose negates any results that may be observed. The authors give as a rationale for performing the research that organic nitrites (NO donors) in vitro studies have shown NO to stimulate vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) protein and mRNA expression. VEGF is essential for tumor growth and metastasis.

In the discussion of this paper, another Soderberg article is referenced presenting the fact that NO is liberated by nitrite, but exogenous NO does not produce the immunotoxicity observed following exposure to isobutyl nitrite. This does not make sense because NO mediates macrophage tumoricidal activity; as a result, NO liberation would be beneficial.

Other conflicting data presented included that inhalant nitrite exposure also significantly suppressed the gene expression of Smad5 and Smad7 in mouse liver. Smads regulate transforming growth factor-β-dependent (TGF-β) gene expression, which controls cell proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, migration, and extracellular matrix production. Smad5 plays an important role in angiogenesis and Smad7 is important in negative feedback regulation of TGF-β.

Since these Smads have opposite effects on cancer proliferation, one would not expect both to be suppressed if nitrite had carcinogenic effects.

Another area of concern is that these authors do not address why there were no changes in lung VEGF expression, the increase was seen in the liver. “This observation is somewhat counter-intuitive, since the nitrite exposure concentration is expected to be higher in the lung than in the liver.“

This statement indicates that the authors are unclear about the meaning of their results.

Msmchaser 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who wants poppers banned? Apparently a question being asked twenty years ago as shown in the following:

A ‘Fact Sheet’, originally publish in 1988 by Chemsearch, Ltd, of Indianapolis, IN

Here are the facts

"Poppers"... What are they?

1. "Poppers" is the street term used for nearly 50 years to describe the misuse of any alkyl nitrite (including amyl nitrite, isobutyl nitrite and butyl nitrite) as inhalants for recreational purposes.

2. Although "Poppers" have only recently come to the public attention, alkyl nitrites have been inhaled for over one hundred years. They have had a long and well-documented history of public safety. This record is strongly reinforced by the fact that during the past 35 years a very high probability has existed that a large percentage of all nitrite odorants sold were misused as "poppers".

Who Wants Them Banned and Why?

1. Despite that long safety record of alkyl nitrites, the AIDS phenomenon opened the door of opportunity for certain self-serving individuals to promote themselves as “experts" on the study of "poppers" and to condemn their use as unsafe. These self-proclaimed "experts" did not have the knowledge of immunology or epidemiology to make informed judgments about AIDS or its cause. Real experts now tell us that AIDS is caused, not by "poppers", but by a virus and that the misuse of nitrites as "poppers" appears rather clearly NOT to be causally associated with AIDS or any of its opportunistic infections. In 1987, the large MCS study, among others, confirmed that no such connection exists.

Are They Really Safe?

1. Anti-"popper" individuals suggest "poppers" are unsafe because they are not regulated by any government agency. This is simply not true. Of the compounds most commonly used as "poppers", amyl nitrite is regulated by the FDA and nitrite-based room odorizers are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Within the past few years, the CPSC has twice been asked to restrict isobutyl nitrite products and has twice, after thorough investigation, decided that the safety record of these products did not indicate that such action was necessary. Although responsible nitrite odorant manufacturers have never encouraged or promoted the misuse of their nitrite odorants as "poppers", they have long recognized the high probability of such misuse. They, therefore, have shared a deep concern and responsibility toward each responsible adult user of these products. (in much the same manner that responsible children's crayon manufacturers recognize that their crayons will be eaten and thus assure that they are safely edible.)

2. A review of the literature clearly shows that inhalation of the alkyl nitrites poses no significant health hazard. ©1988 by Chemsearch, Ltd

Daddlylonglegs 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are Chemsearch, Ltd? Anybody guess? The clue is in the location. Dalmation55 10:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realised that the recent vandalsim has been catastrophic. The usual "link farming" for allaboutpoppers.com, removal of any critical websites, and the planting of Pac West brand names. This needs to be sorted, as this is simply an online advert as it stands. Google should delist this site until the perpetrators of this deception are stopped. This will only happen when someone takes some action - the article in the San Fransisco press, identifying this online campaign to promote inhalant abuse, was only a start. This needs to be now fully exposed.Dalmation55 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the "vandalism" you are referring to is my edits, seeing as I have been the only person to make any edits recently. There are a large number of links to All About Poppers, however all I have done is reorganise the links that were already there so that they are correctly cited. Equally, I have not removed any critical websites. The only citations I have removed are listed above in this talk page, with reasons why I have removed them--please feel free to discuss these specifically, as I beleive all of the removals are justified.

Further, I have not planted any brand names. I have, however, cited sources for all the street names listed, and in all cases, except "Brown Bottle", at least one of these sources are US or UK government sponsored (NIDA, TheSite.org and Frank).

I do not think that the article reads as an advert. Rather, it reads as a discussion about the positive and negative effects of poppers--considerable emphasis has been placed on the "Health Risks" section, and many of these risks are repeated in other sections. If you have any specific ideas as to how to improve the article, state them, rather than just critisizing.

Do you have a link to the article in the San Fransisco press, or at least enough information to cite it? It would be useful for the Controversy section. me_and 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush and Locker Room are brand names. They are always planted at the same time as the link to allaboutpoppers.com. This has been happening for a long while; law enforcement calls it "pattern behaviour". Dalmation55 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The label "Rush" has been used as a street name for as long as I can remember, which is at least into the late 80's. --John T. Folden 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not controversy. It is a fact that there is a campaign promoting inhalant abuse in online communities. Significantly they also carry a safety message about "purity" ...and a well known brand! Can you guess which one? The article has been cited many times and then disappears. This is typical of the many faces (puppets) and other underhand techniques of the pushers. The fact that they hang around chat rooms and boards, is the equivalent of a pot pusher outside a school gate. History repeating itself, perhaps? There are even cartoons, for God's sake, pushing poppers! Disgusting.Dalmation55 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the campaign you mention? Also, what's the purity issue about? What article has been cited and then disappears. I don't remember what it's called but there's a web site that allows you to go back in time and grab a web site from years ago, so we should be able to locate it.

Who is hanging around chat rooms and boards? What support do you have for such a statement? Doug Stephen 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in the San Fransisco press details this. There is also an online watch being mounted by a anti inhalant abuse organsiation. Once there are multiple examples that connect the poppers industry to these campaigns, light will shine in many dark places. Wikipedia is a prime example. The constant changes are of significance, as they are being made by a very small number of individuals in conspiracy. Rather dangerous actually, but certain people have long thought themselves above the law. Dalmation55 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I feel I should clarify: I have no connection to any pro- or anti-popper site or company. I have tried using poppers once, although I was not overly impressed. However, when I was looking for information on poppers, I came across this page, and thought it could do with a hand in cleaning it up. me_and 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure.Dalmation55 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I'm defending myself, but why don't you take a look at my edits? I've been a Wikipedia editor on-and-off for almost two years. I very much doubt that that is typical behaviour for the puppet accounts you keep referring to.

Thanks me_and for the reference edit. Two corrections: 1. The correct PMID is 16288974 for Tran, DC. et al. "Effects of repeated in vivo inhalant nitrite exposure on gene expression in mouse liver and lungs." Nitric Oxide 14(2006) 279-289. "These studies demonstrate that in vivo exposure to inhalant nitrites results in changes in the angiogenesis cascade." "We examined the effects of multiple repeated in vivo nitrite exposure on the hepatic and pulmonary expression of a selected panel of genes related to angiogenesis and cancer, using gene microarrays." Research on KS and the mechanisms of tumor growth continue to be explored.

2. The correct PMID is 16414306 and the correct author spelling is Mbulaiteye SM, et al. "Risk factors for human herpesvirus 8 seropositivity in the AIDS Cancer Cohort Study. In analyses adjusted for smoking and drinking, HHV-8 seropositivity was positively associated with nitrate inhalant use (OR=1.7;95% CI 1.3-2.3) among men who have sex with men. Research on KS and HHV-8(also known as KSHV) and the factors that effect them continues.

References to KS need to include some kind of statement and reference that researchers continue to explore KS risk factors. Having the KS virus(HHV-8 or KSHV) does not usually result in KS. Other publications finding popper use related to HHV-8:

Casper, Corey et al. "HIV serodiscordant sex partners and the prevalence of HHV-8 infection among HIV negative men who have sex with men: baseline data from the EXPLORE study." Sexually Transmitted Infections 2006: Vol 82 Issue 3: 229-235.

Casper, Corey et al. "Correlates of prevalent and incident KS-associated herpesvirus infection in men who have sex with men." Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002 April 1;185(7):990-993. PMID 11920325.

Pauk, et al. : Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men." New England Journal of Medicine; 2000 Nov 9; 343(19):1369-77. PMID 11070101.

Hankwilson 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hankwilson, I'll put those in shortly. me_and 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dalmation55: you seem to be the only person on here who is so consistently angry about Pac West and Rush. Whenever someone posts anything that mentions these names, you go ballistic.

For example, you went off on "Me_and" when he posted Rush and Locker Room as generic names for poppers. If you go to the U. S. Government's sites, and if you read the many news articles that have been published over the decades about these products it's clear that Rush and Locker Room are almost always used synonymously with poppers. Are those people "planting" the names, too?

You've also yelled at him for including http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/. Yet that site is full of links to all kinds of credible information and background. It's not a site trying to sell poppers to anyone.

You've thrown tantrums and threatened people. Screamed and yelled. That kind of behavior is consistent with a personal vendetta. Is there anything to the earlier post that claimed you were selling counterfeit Rush and got caught?

The only 'pattern' I can see in this article is your never-ending effort to smear anyone who tries to improve this article. "Me_and" is just the most recent example. Look back at the history of this article. Your fingerprints, under different screen names, are on nearly all the anti-Pac West and anti-Rush tantrums in this article.

You should take a break and lighten up on 'me_and' and let people improve this article. Diamonddriller29 00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pac West are the guys that are responsible for the online campaign promoting inhalant abuse. They use kids cartoons, message boards, and a whole host of tactics to try to sell the message that poppers are a harmless aphrodisiac with a long history. That's my problem. They are a menace to public health, and are trying to introduce poppers to a new generation of victims.

Pac West are behind allaboutpoppers.com. That is a fact. If you look back over the history of this page - are you new here? - then you will realise that Diderot was the first to identify what the boys from Indiana were up to.

It's weird that you can't understand that someone would be concerned about pushers selling dangerous chemicals? You don't get that, then?Dalmation55 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dalmation55: There you go again, using alarmist statements with no basis in fact.

You claim that your "problem" is that Pac West is a "menace to public health", and that they are "pushers selling dangerous chemicals". These are highly inflammatory phrases.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of research done on poppers has shown them to be essentially harmless, and that they are no threat to the public health. Research and investigations by the United States and other Governments arrived at the same conclusion -- no public health menace. Other studies over the past thirty years have said essentially the same thing, and just this past weekend one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, The Lancet, published a study which has already been mentioned on this page, that put poppers at the bottom of any list of potentially harmful compounds. And just last month yet another large AIDS study, this one out of Australia, confirmed other studies which have demonstrated that poppers do not lead to unsafe sex. So, where's the harm? Where's the public health menace you claim exists?

You appear so angry at Pac West and their products, when there is nothing to be angry about, that it makes sense that you are the person who was sued for selling fake Rush, a claim made earlier on this page. Diamonddriller29 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense to you as there is nothing else in your life apart from pushing chemicals and picking fights. You are notorious for it apparently. An ex employee of Pac West has already spoken online about the machinations and rivalry in your organisation. This is the source of most of what we know about the major league popper pusher in the USA.

I suspect (given your known propensity for planting links to that Virusmyth site) that you are just another of a long history of puppets on this page. Strange how many faces pop by with the same message! Who would have thought so many "different" people actually gave a damn. Clearly poppers is something that a whole bunch of people care passionately about.

Anyway, you say: " So, where's the harm? Where's the public health menace you claim exists?" So, why not stop selling them as "room dedoouriser"? Stop fiddling with the chemistry to outwit law enforcement? Why were poppers outlawed in the first place? A Republican conspiracy against the gay community! That was one of your weaker arguments!

What about poppers and viagra? You are planting messages all over the net about poppers being a safe aphrodisiac. You are luring young gay men into chemical abuse. Can't you see what you are doing? Look in a mirror. How you sleep at night is beyond me. Put up another monument, sponsor another book, hug another celebrity. Nothing changes the fact of what you are. Dalmation55 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys should take your flame war private. Not only does the data about poppers speak for itself, there's more than enough factual, impartial information about poppers online that people can make up their own minds without you continually clouding this issue with your spitting contest. 69.86.55.110 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to research released in the Lancet 24 March 2007, both alcohol and smoking are more dangerous than many illicit drugs including marijuana and poppers. Alcohol and tobacco were in the top 10 while weed was 11th and poppers were 19th out of 20.

The researchers were from two different groups and considered experts in their fields. These included law enforcement, chemists, pharmacologists and addiction specialists in the Royal Society of Psychiatrists.

In the UK a system that has evolved over nearly a century regulates illicit drugs according to a classification system that aims to relate to the actual harms and risks of each drug that's been used by a small group of experts, and which has been described as a "rational scale for assessing the harm of drugs of misuse".

Using a rational scale for assessing the genuine degree of harm from misusing poppers might be a better way to evaluate them, as opposed to relying on conflicting studies related to AIDS which after twenty five years have not proven poppers to be either significantly dangerous or totally harmless. The bottom line seems to be that they are neither, and that they are basically at the bottom of any list of potentially harmful compounds. NancyDowden 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lancet reference. At least poppers made the list of drugs. I would characterize the ratings as a survey of researchers...as opposed to "research". And some questions about the "experts" and their "expertise". I dont take it for granted that the surveyed experts have expertise about poppers. If they had no or limited info about poppers then the 19th ranking is not surprising.

Too often in the past poppers have not been listed as a "drug". In 1999, Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York, a pioneering AIDS community based organization, surveyed 7000+  men who have sex with men and one question asked was "what drugs do you use with sex?" Poppers was not listed as a possible choice. This omission of poppers as a gay sex drug was repeated in a pamphlet "Sex and Drugs" produced in California targeted to gay men. The cover listed the various recreational drugs used by gay men( and others). Poppers was missing. And the pamphlet was produced by gay men. 

 As for the Lancet report, some questions about the UK "expert" raters:  1.Expertise on poppers? 2. Expertise on HIV/AIDS and substance use as a cofactor for HIV transmission and seroconversion? 3.Expertise on sexual and drug using behaviors of men who have sex with men? 4.Awareness of the published research on poppers/nitrite inhalants? 5. Attitudes towards men who have sex with men? how are gay men valued by these experts? 

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, even some of the HIV researchers and service providers(prevention workers and doctors) are unaware of the published research about poppers.There is an information overload problem in the HIV field. And specialization has resulted in narrowing of focus and lack of exposure to some info areas.

When men who have sex with men are asked what drugs they use, some do not list poppers.However,if they are subsequently asked if they use poppers, they acknowledge using poppers.They did not consider poppers a drug. Researchers adjusted to this "poppers aren't drugs" phenomenon by probing responders with the follow up question to get realistic data about popper use. I learned this as a member of the UCSF Community Advisory Board. Hankwilson 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hank Wilson, are you not able to allow yourself to consider that anyone besides yourself may actually have valid knowledge about poppers!

This study was published in one of the world's most prestigious and highly respected medical journals, The Lancet. It reported that the researchers were from different groups and are all considered experts in their fields, which included law enforcement, chemists, pharmacologist and addiction specialists in the Royal Society of Psychiatrists. Your personal characterization of their work as a "survey of researchers...as opposed to 'research'" is insulting and contrary to the report in the The Lancet.

This was an unbiased study that included poppers, which was published this weekend, and which concluded that poppers are neither particularly dangerous nor totally harmless, and it placed them at the bottom of a list of potentially harmful items. You can't just dismiss it on a whim based on your own prejudices and zealotry.

This Lancet study had nothing to do with HIV or AIDS, yet your efforts to demean the study and its authors drifted into a rambling diatribe about HIV researchers and doctors not being aware of your and your collaborators' published research about poppers. That's a red herring in your argument against the Lancet study, but it's what you use whenever anyone says anything about poppers that you don't agree with.

It's highly doubtful that the world's most prominent and widely respected HIV/AIDS researchers and doctors actually are not aware of all the studies that you and Solderberg and others have collaborated together on over the years (Do a Google search on poppers and one finds that you've planted your list all over the web -- including in this article on Wikipedia.)

What's more likely is that they have long recognized that your studies were so flawed as to result in invalid data, which has been reported on numerous occasions. Like the rest of the research community they also recognized that your own studies which were done within proper dosage parameters, showed that poppers had little or no negative effects on immune functioning, HIV/AIDS infection or seroconversion rates, or presented any other significant health hazards.

You also dismiss the large Australian study that was published last month, which concluded that poppers do not contribute to unsafe sex.

You are the only one, besides Dalmation55, who continues to make unsubstantiated claims that poppers are significantly harmful. You continue to post old and outdated research, while promoting your alarmist and invalid theories about poppers, and you constantly try to demean and diminish any studies that don't show poppers to be significantly harmful. What is your agenda here? Msmchaser 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilson, can you be more specific about the variety of reasons why you say HIV researchers and service providers are unaware of research on poppers?

It strikes me as odd that prominent researchers and local HIV/AIDS service providers would not know that poppers are so profoundly dangerous and related to HIV/AIDS. Doug Stephen 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why is it that Wilson dismisses current research showing poppers to be innocuous at worst and not related to unprotected sex among gay men, in favor of old and outdated studies that have been show to be seriously flawed and invalid?

Wilson posted that the Lancet study published this weekend, which put poppers at the bottom of a list of potentially harmful items topped by alcohol and smoking, is inferior and invalid because the experts who conducted the research were, according to Wilson, unaware of published research about poppers which he claims proves them harmful. The Lancet research was not about HIV/AIDS and the experts who did the research were looking at poppers from a different perspective, one around other public health issues -- not HIV/AIDS.

But when it comes to HIV/AIDS, according to current research, 51% of HIV-positive men in a large Australian study used poppers and they found that there was no link between use of poppers and unprotected sex.

In a reference to Wilson's old studies, the Australians made a point of saying that earlier studies looking at the relationship between recreational drug use and sexual risk taking have produced conflicting results. And, more importantly when considering Wilson's outdated studies -- they also said that although some studies, often conducted in the US, have found a link between the use of specific illicit drugs and unprotected anal sex, these findings have not been supported by other studies.

This is reported in AIDS Map, a well known HIV/AIDS outfit, referred to by most if not all HIV/AIDS doctors, researchers and most AIDS Service Providers. It just strikes me as unlikely that Wilson's claim that the HIV community is not aware of the data on poppers is a valid claim. Instead, I would agree that it's more likely that the HIV/AIDS community does not consider poppers to be a significant issue, because they actually are aware of the current research and also aware that the studies Wilson keeps using to make his point, are almost all outdated or were long ago shown to be seriously flawed and invalid. It looks more like they've essentially dismissed him and his apparently outdated theories.

This might help to explain the zealotry for continuing to beat a dead horse. NancyDowden 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Stephen: Some possibilities of why HIV experts may ignore poppers....some starting the ignoring phenomenon way back in 1983., others at various times over the next 2 decades...but poppers still turn up in research as significant risk factors for unsafe sex, seroconversion, and some relationship to KS...still to be defined. 1.Some experience an information overload in the HIV field. 2.Much of the research on poppers being immunosuppressive has been published in specialty journals as opposed to the hiv journals. 3.Some dismissed poppers having a role in hiv infection when AIDS was discovered.Initially, poppers were suspected of causing AIDS or KS 4.Others discounted poppers when the 1983 CDC mice study found poppers to not be immunosuppressive. Subsequent mice studies all found immunosuppression. The dosage levels of the mice studies are an issue of contention. But it should be noted that even in the 1983 CDC study there was a reference that there was thymic atrophy in some of the mice exposed to the higher doses...the thymus is important in the immune system generating t cells. This was one clue that poppers could be immunosuppressive at higher doses. 5. Some dismissed the role of poppers in KS when the KSHV or HHV-8 was discovered. It needs to be considered that positivity for HHV-8 is not sufficient by itself to manifest KS. Most people with HHV-8 infection do not progress to KS. 6. There has been and continues to be a pro poppers promotion campaign...similarities to the cigarette industry lying to consumers for decades....and initially getting away with it. 7.Duesberg's focus on poppers and his denialist position has also given momentum to HIV experts shying away from consideration of poppers. 8. The variability in research instruments, questions(frequency, quantity, vs simple ever used, never used contributed to conflicting results....and in some cases the lack of questions. 9. Straight researchers who have never used poppers not understanding their effects.Not factoring in the compound risk that poppers present. Its immunosuppression PLUS disinhibition...both a behavior effect as well as physiological increased susceptibility.10. I have gotten positive feedback from HIV doctors, and researchers who indicated that they were not aware of the published studies. also HIV+/PWAs and hiv- gay men have expressed both interest and gratitude. I expose blown up bibliographies in booths at street fairs in San Francisco. People give me feedback with folks all over the map on the issue/and knowledge of poppers. My goal and behavior has been to publicize the research.I prefer that the research speaks for itself. Hankwilson 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian researchers call for rapid needs assessments of MSM's awareness of HIV-related risks associated with use of poppers. They report a "disturbingling high prevalence of popper use of young MSM during a period of rapidly increasing HIV incidence in British Columbia. Our results, together with those from previous studies, suggest nitrite inhalant use by MSM is associated with a synergy among risks for HIV seroconversion. Use of poppers is associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in anal intercourse with an infected partner and in addition, a higher probability of infection following each such exposure." They conclude:"Efforts to reduce the use of nitrite inhalants during sexual encounters should be considered a high-priority HIV prevention strategy for MSM." from BMC Public Health 2007,7:35. article URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/35. PMID 17362516.Hankwilson 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't keep inserting a blog into the external links. Blogs are generally considered inappropriate per Wikipedia's guideline on external links. If you think this is a unique situation where we should disregard the guideline, please explain why here instead of reinserting it. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This recent 2007 study from a leading AIDS research publication should be reinstated in the reference section and included as citation evidence for the controversial contention that popper use increases the risk for HIV infection. PMID 17325605 clearly indicates this. That the specific word "nitrite" is not included is immaterial because "popper" is both in the title and in the summary several times.The removal of this study raises doubts about the neutrality of the editor who removed it.Hankwilson 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is definitely an important study which should be cited in context. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the study Hank Wilson mentions above should be referenced. However, it's clear that unprotected receptive anal intercourse and multiple partners seems to be the most significant variables, not poppers.

But more importantly, where is the NPV in this article? It seems that studies which counter the ones Hank Wilson posts here are being removed. For example, the large study that was just published by Prestage G, out of Australia, which found no link between poppers and unsafe sex, has been deleted again.

I'd suggest to Hank Wilson that such deletions similarly raise doubts about the neutrality of the editors who removed these references. In other words, when Hank Wilson or his associates remove references to articles that they do not agree with, it raises serious questions about the neutrality of their posts here. 38.136.6.221 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently kind of a disaster, and it's a little tough to sort through all the anonymous IP's and single-purpose accounts to figure out exactly who is pushing which POV. The best approach is probably to discuss additions here, and to rely on reliable sources, including peer-reviewed medical literature, rather than advocacy sites of unknown provenance. Can you give us a PubMed ID number for the study you're mentioning, or the citation info (journal, date of publication, etc)? MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Reference # 56 is the Prestage G study out of Australia. This study is currently listed and the deletion accusation is erroneous.

Published articles about poppers, or related to popper use, from scientific journals should be included. Hankwilson 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea... instead of edit-warring over the external links (of which few, if any, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion), how about spending that time improving the article itself, which is in pretty woeful shape? Our goal here is really supposed to be improving the encyclopedia article, not making sure our pet external link gets included. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and several people have tried to do exactly that. There's a history of the article being thoughtfully edited and brought along, and then the radicals sweep in and destroy the work that's been done . How do you prevent the radicals from continuing to take over the article?

The archives and edits show that others who have tried to improve the article were prevented from doing so by vandalism and personal attacks from what appear to be anti-popper zealots. Then there's the guy from Europe, Dalmation55, who appears to be waging war on a personal level. His most recent attacks have been against user "me_and". The edit history describes several others who he's hammered as well. Nospinhere 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Start by contributing well-sourced, verifiable content to the article and removing or editing sections which are either unsourced or cite unreliable sources (see WP:RS for guidance on what constitutes a reliable source). So far it looks like you've worked exclusively on the external links, unless perhaps you've used another account as well? If vandals or POV-pushing becomes an issue, there are ways to deal with problem edits or editors which are spelled out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a suggestion, the article is less likely to be successful if it's sourced half to pro-popper advocacy and half to anti-popper advocacy. It will do best if it's sourced to neutral and reliable sources such as medical literature, governmental resources, major newspaper and magazine coverage, etc. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MastCell's suggestion is a noble one. Many have tried it but so far no one has been able to achieve such a lofty goal due to resistance by zealous anti-popper people. Check the archives.

The archives show that two people are almost solely responsible for the poor condition of this article.

Hank Wilson uses a shotgun approach to just fill up the article with references that sometimes may not even be focused on poppers. And Dalmation55 has been undertaking a personal war against anyone who adds to the article anything he doesn't agree with. He's arrogant and uses rude comments toward anyone he does not agree with, and has even threatened people. Then he deletes posts or additions he doesn't think should be included.

Until that changes it'll be hard to get anyone who's credible to try to improve this article. Doug Stephen 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not touching the article - I have explained the reasons, and it is more useful when crafted by the poppers criminals. It will be better that way in the long run.Dalmation55 09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The availablity of poppers in the USA is a cause of current concern, where do they come from? Are they being re imported, or somehow slipping out of the factory? I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this question? Thank you Dalmation55 09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What are 'poppers criminals'? Munatobe7 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If the edit wars and personal attacks can come to an end, this article can be improved. Most people just want credible information so they can make up their own mind about the subject. They are not interested in personal vendettas or passionate arguments.

At the end of the day, it seems these nitrites are neither the killer some claim, nor totally harmless as others claim.

With continual use tolerance seems to occur after about two or three weeks, but a similar period of abstinence seems to restore sensitivity. There is no evidence of physical or psychological dependence or any longer term damage from sniffing nitrites.

Probably the biggest controversy surrounding nitrites has been the claim that they are implicated in the onset of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in HIV positive gay men. This was first identified in the early 1980's when it was revealed that all the original AIDS cases who manifested KS had also been users of nitrites. Poppers were implicated in two ways; firstly because some of the metabolised by-products of nitrites have been shown to be carcinogenic in the lab and secondly because nitrites were capable of somewhat depressing the immune systems of those using them when compared to non-users. Subsequent research has disproved the KS-nitrite theory.

• • The above information is incorrect (KS and popper link). See: "Correlates of Prevalent and Incident Kaposi's Sarcoma Associated Herpesvirus Infection in Men Who Have Sex with Men", Casper et al (2002) The Journal of Infectious Diseases 185:990-993. "Two behaviors that were associated with seroconversion to KSHV in a multivariate model were having an HIV-positive partner and the use of amyl nitrites in the past 6 months." The article has multiple references to this area of research.

The nitrite/KS theory has long ago been disproved and the article you mention, "Correlates of Prevalent and Incident Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Infection in Men Who Have Sex with Men", does nothing to change that. The article begins with statements about how difficult it is to establish a causal relationship between behavior and infection with KSHV (Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus): “However, findings in these investigations regarding specific sexual behaviors that may transmit KSHV are conflicting and have led to the lack of a consensus about modes of acquisition…Failure to definitely identify behaviors that may predispose to infection with KSHV is due to many factors… ”. These types of remarks delineate the complexity of linking any type of behavior with sexually transmitted diseases. Researchers cannot conclude on what type of sexual behavior predisposes for KSHV or HIV, much less drug use (nitrites in particular).

In this study, Casper lists nitrite use as a behavioral correlate of prevalent KSHV infection. This does not establish a causal relationship between the two. Actually, the odds ratio (OR) for nitrite use in KSHV seropositive was given as different values, depending on how they analyzed the data, which further confounds the issue.

Also, they state that “Amyl nitrate use has been reported elsewhere, although not as a risk for incident KSHV infection...A biologically plausible model for amyl nitrite use and acquisition of KSHV remains unclear...”

The results of this paper are not conclusive and the final sentence of the publication sums up the inability of research to date to determine that exact role of nitrite use in KSHV infection, if any: “Current uncertainty limits our ability to provide a clear and effective public health message to high-risk populations about methods to reduce KSHV transmission and acquisition.” Straightshooter7

The numerous references to studies that are posted here in an attempt to prove poppers are inherently dangerous serve mainly to emphasize that there is a perennial problem of extrapolating the results of laboratory studies on animals to humans who apart from being different physiologically, do not use drugs in the way they are given to animals in laboratory settings. There's also the problem that many of the references posted here have been to studies which appear to have had significant protocol problems, and may not even be valid.

Even so, this does leave open the question of the effect of nitrites on the immune system. Although there are studies showing that nitrites act upon the human immune system, the question of whether this immunosuppression is sufficient to cite nitrites as a genuine co-factor in AIDS remains unresolved. Doug Stephen 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"so they can make up their own mind about the subject"

Does Wikipedia Foundation also allow promotion of other illegal drugs? The authorities have already banned the product at State and Fed level. There are NO countries in the world where poppers are legalDalmation55 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't allow promotion of illegal drugs. We do, however, allow articles about them. Also, poppers are legal in several countries - maybe not all of them as clear cut as the others, but let's not forget that the US is pretty strong on drugs compared to the rest of the world. Hawker Typhoon 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Inhalants (poppers) are ILLEGAL. They exist in some common law jurisdictions which have currently not oulawed their sale. Denmark banned them in a matter of days, following a case of blindness attributed to poppers use. No European country allows the sale of poppers. Japan has recently outlawed them.

If you wish to allow your pages (I note you say "we) to be used to promote the use of inhalants - say so. Does Wikipedia Foundation also allow the Cali Cartel to present the "positive side" of cocaine? Governments across the world have rightly outlawed inhalant abuse - the poppers industry, and now Wikipedia seem intent on promoting an alternative perspective for room deodouriser products. What about glue sniffing? Does the glue industry claim that glue sniffing has a positive side? Of course not! If they did so there would be lawsuits galore. How do the poppers pushers get away with it then? With Wikipedia's help.

The poppers industry have in fact long conspired to outwit enforcement by re labeling this illegal inhalant. If you wish to allow the industry to spin out their "allaboutpoppers" / Pac West propoganda then feel free - it is a disgraceful abuse of the noble aims of the founder.

Dalmation55 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States has long waged what it calls a 'war on drugs'. But it has been an abject failure. Drug use has actually increased in all categories since their prohibition.

Commonly sold 'poppers', though, are not drugs. Only amyl nitrite has ever been classified as a drug and it is regulated by the United States FDA. It was once sold freely over the counter because of its safety record.

Poppers sold in bottles as room odorants, leather cleaners, and the like are consumer products regulated in the same manner as all other consumer products by the United States CPSC. Not withstanding the arguments that continue to be made on this page about safety issues, according to that agency, these products seem to have a safety record that lacks any significant demonstration of harm even if misused as poppers.

It's true that poppers appear to have varying degrees of regulation or legality in different countries. Even within some countries regulation can vary across regions and provincial locations. Munatobe7 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the References section is overly large and rather gangly. A lot of it is nothing more than listcruft at this point considering many of the items listed are not citations for the main body of the article. Keep in mind Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable (are we to list every report or article we come across?). Also, the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. --John T. Folden 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Can the References section be archived with a link for easy retrieval? Munatobe7 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections "health and safety" and "controversy" could easily be combined using effective editing to further improve the article.Munatobe7 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:ARCHIVE "Regular articles are not archived because their previous version may be seen in the history tab", which answers my earlier question.

If a consensus can be developed to remove the references section it could be noted as being available for review under the history tab. This would go a long way toward cleaning up the article. Munatobe7 04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why the responsible people at Wikipedia should be aware of what is going on at this page:

CUMBRIAN schoolkids have been snorting the sex drug poppers in the playground.

One youngster claimed he went into a shop and bought a bottle of amyl nitrate while still wearing his uniform, according to police.

Experts warn the recreational drug could potentially kill.

It is illegal to enter a sex shop under the age of 18 and although poppers are legal to possess, it can still be illegal to supply them.

In South Cumbria, licensing officer PC Glenn Myerscough and schools liaison officer PC Mike Brown, have visited shops and warned them about selling poppers to youngsters.

They have also enlisted the expertise of Paul Brown, director of Cumbria Alcohol and Drug Alcohol Service.

Mr Brown said: “Because young people can get intoxicated very quickly they can easily get themselves in situations that are very dangerous.

"Because young people usually find secluded areas to use these drugs they may not be easy to find if left abandoned by their friends who do not want to get into trouble if something goes wrong."

Barrow drug squad boss, Detective Sergeant Mike Unwin, said: "Poppers are not currently controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, they can have unpleasant side effects such as causing headaches, dizziness and nausea.

"They can cause rashes and eye problems and they are poisonous if swallowed. Although poppers are sold in sex shops, they can actually cause problems with getting an erection."

A spokesman for the adult only Private Shop, Dalkeith Street, Barrow, said: “We have a strict over-21 policy not even 18. The problem is we do check their age and if they don’t have identification then we won’t serve them. We also now write down the details of anyone who looks under age who comes in.

"The problem we have is it’s often the adults that buy it and it’s passed down."

No one was available for comment from Barrow’s other adult shop, Simply Pleasure.Com, which is on the same street.

View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy Dalmation55 10:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a geographically-isolated case similar to that of adults buying alcohol for youngsters engaged in underage drinking. If stores are selling directly to children, that's a policing issue and should be easily resolved with warnings and education for vendors. Munatobe7 13:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It is very common apparently:

Today, poppers abuse is widespread among British youngsters -- and some take the first sniff at an early age indeed. In Bedfordshire, for example, police recently reported that teachers found school children inhaling "Rush" during a class break. In Dewsbury meanwhile, police acting on a tip off by a local child discovered a hideaway where youngsters grouped up to inhale gas and poppers. Sgt Darren Brown later said the hideaway, known as a "gas pit", was just one of several dotted around the town centre, an area which has become known as the place to come and buy poppers. Dalmation55 10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's common. The British press is well known for being alarmist and sensationalist and it looks like they're at it again. Remember the age-old saying: "Don't believe everything you read in the paper."? Msmchaser 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The press in the UK is probably the most sensationalist in the world. Between the printing lots of exposed female breasts and nipples to tantalize potential male readers, and the screaming of alarmist headlines, they're all shouting at you in an effort to increase circulation.

The other thing about that article is that it's likely they mistakenly (or purposely) incorrectly lumped poppers in with the more common inhalants youngsters have been abusing for decades, such as glue, fingernail polish, correction fluid, gasoline/petrol, etc. If these really young kids were inhaling poppers regularly, it would be an unusual and isolated occurrence, one quickly resolved with education toward shops in the area. Straightshooter7 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you are right and the the police, iabuse.org, welfare groups are all wrong!

Poppers are a chemical inhalant - they are not an aphrodisiac. The euphoric effects from inhaling these fumes is similar to other forms of abuse. One poppers manufacturer even uses cartoons to sell their chemicals! They are aiming the product at the youth market - it is no surprise that they are appearing on the playground. Dalmation55 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no real aphrodisiacs, but there is substantial documentation that poppers seem to be the closest thing to a real aphrodisiac that exits.

I've looked at the cartoons you mention but don't agree with your claim they're directed at the youth market, or that children are being influenced by them. A U.S. Senate investigation found that less than 3% of the entire U.S. population had ever been exposed to poppers at a time when advertisements for them were being widely published. That would mean that exposure to children or the youth market would be negligible at best. Since then, print advertising for poppers has apparently disappeared and there is no suggestion that the youth market -- especially children who would be in a "playground" even know about Captain Rush.

Upon what are you basing your allegations and comments? Munatobe7 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Published research in scientific journals should not be dismissed. The statement that "any damage to the immune system is undone in a few days" is misleading in the context of the published research finding that popper use increases risk for HIV infection. Published research finds that popper use increases risk for HIV infection. While the immune system may rebound and recover after a few days, HIV infection remains....certainly a challenge not to be dismissed...at least with the current anti viral drugs that manage HIV infection, but do not cure it.

Whether poppers are immunosuppressive continues to be controversial and is an important issue in the context of the AIDS epidemic. This controversy goes back to the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and pro and con perspectives articulated, with references cited so that readers can come to their own conclusion. Hankwilson 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're directing your comments to me please understand that I am not suggesting published research in credible scientific journals should ever be dismissed.

Would you list the research that you mention which shows nitrites are significantly immunsuppressive or are a significant risk factor for HIV seroconversion? Munatobe7 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PMID 1346559 : Seage GR et al. : The relationship between nitrite inhalants, unprotected receptive anal intercourse, and the risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am J Epidemiology 1992, 135:1-11.

PMID 16505748 : Brewer DD et al. : Unsafe sexual behaviour and correlates of risk in a probability sample of men who have sex with men in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Sex Transm Dis 2006, 33(4):250-5.

PMID 6562964 : Ostrow DG et al. : A case-control study of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 seroconversion and risk-related behaviours in the Chicago MACS/CCS Cohort, 1985-1992. Am J Epidemiology 1995, 142:875-883.

PMID 9584015 : Chesney MA et al. : Histories of substance use and risk behavior: precursors to HIV seroconversion in homosexual men. Am J Public Health 1998, 88(1):113-6.

PMID 15851918 : Buchbinder S et al. : Sexual risk, nitrite inhalant use, and lack of circumcision associated with HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005, 39(1):82-9.

PMID 15738319 : Colfax G et al. : Longitudinal patterns of methamphetamine, popper(amyl nitrite), and cocaine use and high-risk sexual behavior among a cohort of San Francisco men who have sex with men. J Urban Health. 2005,82(Suppl 1):i62-70.

PMID 17362516  : Lampinen TM et al.: Nitrite inhalant use among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver during a period of increasing HIV incidence. BMC Public Health 2007,7:35 article URL http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/35.

PMID 17002993  : Drumright LN et al.: Club drugs as causal risk factors for HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men: A review. Substance Use and Misuse 2006, 41:1551-1601.

PMID 16255638  : Choi KH et al.: Substance use, substance choice, and unprotected anal intercourse among young Asian American and Pacific Islander men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ Prev. 2005, 5:418-29.

PMID 15838193  : Purcell DW et al.: Illicit substance use, sexual risk, and HIV-positive gay and bisexual men:differences by serostatus of casual partners. AIDS 2005, Suppl 1:S37-47.

Each of these published research articles should be included in the reference section corroborating the concern that popper use is a significant risk factor for unsafe sex and HIV seroconversion.

more to come.Hankwilson 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hankwilson beat me to it, but he has accurately summarized the issue - nitrite use is correlated with increased risk for HIV infection. Whether nitrites themselves facilitate viral transmission and development of AIDS, or whether nitrite use is simply a marker for other high-risk behavior (unprotected intercourse with multiple partners) is a matter of contention, but the correlation is real. See: PMID 15851918, PMID 17362516, PMID 9610684, PMID 14740789, etc. Some mention of the correlation should be made, although we should also be clear that nitrites may either have direct effects that promote HIV, or just be a marker for known high-risk behaviors. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points.

In view of John T. Folden's 11 April post about the References section being "overly large and rather gangly" and "unencyclopaedic " should there be discussion here about the References section being either archived or allowed to continue to grow?

To get to NPOV requires consideration of all viewpoints. Do either of you have a suggestion for best way to achieve NPOV in the article? Munatobe7 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the references section is a mess, and would favor removing all of the "general reading" and leaving only the references that are actually cited in the article. If there is material in the removed references that would improve the article, let's work it in using article text with a citation - that's much more useful than a laundry list of related reading. As far as NPOV, that will require discussing each controversial section here and coming to a consensus everyone can live with. I've found the most useful approach is to focus on very specific content issues (i.e. ideally someone proposes wording and others suggest adjustments to it). MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if by removing all the 'general reading' from the References section it may set off another edit war between the two camps, each whom seem dead-set on making sure their point of view is represented.

Perhaps, in fairness and NPOV, a new section called "External Links" or "External Reading" could be used to provide a home for the material that is being removed form the "References" section. Munatobe7 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the reference section in this case has nothing to do with POV, imo. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to be a Table of Contents or Index for an unlimited number of 3rd party articles. I think anything not used for a citation should be removed entirely. Otherwise, you aren't improving the problem of listcruft, you're just shifting to another point in the article. As MastCell mentioned earlier, if there is something unique in one of the removed references then work it into the article and make it a real, valid citation. --John T. Folden 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or Wikipedia is not a directory for a policy formulation of this idea. Some articles do contain a brief list of "Further reading", but our job is to filter the current laundry list of all things poppers-related, extract the useful, verifiable content, and present it as neutrally as possible. MastCell ^Talk 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I've been finding with reviewing the references section is that a lot of it is relevent to an article about poppers, but there's just such a huge volume of references to try and sort through. IMO, it would make sense to simply delete all the references that aren't inline already, as pretty much everything in the article is cited, so there's no reason for them to be there. If that idea doesn't land me with a torrent of abuse, then I'll be bold and do just that. me_and 01:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, based on all the comments that are already on the talk page, I'll do just that now. I won't touch the external links section yet, however. me_and 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to do the same to the External Links section, as well, on the grounds that nobody will ever be happy about the content of that section, and that there are plenty of good, verified links in the inline references. me_and 01:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the items that were in the references section, me_and, were suspect in one way or another. You're edits are grounded in sound reasoning.

I tend to agree with you about the External Links section as well. Munatobe7 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent elimination of any reference to poppers being a risk factor in HIV infection is a blatant example of vandalism. Dozens of published research articles, with PMID numbers included, were eliminated from the reference section. Attempts to link the references to the article have been repeatedly sabotaged by tag team tactics, apparently from those who cannot let the controversy even be referenced, let alone published research findings from major AIDS journals. Unfortunate for those who would be interested in the popper/HIV connection and/or controversy. The controversy does exist. It should be referenced. The poppers industry does exist. It's viewpoint should be included but not result in the elimination of information supported by dozens of published research articles. Hankwilson 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's find a way to incorporate information on the poppers/HIV correlation into the article, rather than as an indiscriminate laundry list of links in the reference section. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hank, an item should not be listed in the References section if it's not directly used as a citation in the main article. Wikipedia isn't meant to list every article on every subject. ...and crying 'vandalism' when it clearly isn't true won't help your credibility in this area. --John T. Folden 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you add or delete items in the "references section"? I am not able to. It looks like the section is somehow locked or something.196.40.34.129 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The references list is generated automatically from citations in the body of the article. So to modify them, you have to find the text where the reference is cited and edit that. To add a reference, just put the text you want footnoted between <ref> and </ref> tags. It will appear, numbered properly, in the references section once you save it. There's more how-to information at Wikipedia:Footnotes - let me know if that doesn't make sense. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In being bold and making some changes to the 'Health Issues' section I'm hoping to avoid abuse by following the guidelines in the "This Topic contains controversial issues" notice at the top of the Discussion page.

I've thoroughly read the discussion-page dialogue and have cited reputable sources supporting the information contained in the edit. Also I'm trying to "carefully describe the reasons" for the edit.

Setting aside the passionate arguments and sometimes heated rhetoric in the discussion-page, the body of data points to a general consensus that inhaling nitrites is not significantly harmful nor is it wide spread through society. [15] </ref [16] [17] [18] [19]

The concern about poppers and a possible relationship to AIDS creates the most rhetoric in this article and underlies passionate exchanges throughout the discussion-page. I hope any debates over the general consensus of thought about poppers can be on a high note and not degenerate to the silliness and personal attacks seen in the past. Munatobe7 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources - many of those you cite would fail that guideline (virusmythpoppersmyth.org, allaboutpoppers.com, for instance). Further, it's not clear to me that there's a medical or scientific consensus that poppers are "not significantly harmful" - in fact, a number of scientific papers cited above target popper use as an area of intervention to improve the health of affected communities. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than looking at apparently biased sites such as virusmythpoppersmyth and so on, or complex scientific papers which most Wikipedia users cannot understand, my preference would be to reference and cite sources that provide information about poppers, but as a general review of drug (ab)use in general. In the UK, the two that come to mind to me are FRANK (drugs), which is a government sponsored drugs awareness programme, and TheSite.org, which is run by a fairly large UK charity, and covers a large variety of information for teenagers and young adults. Merck also seems to fit this criteria. These sorts of sources will inherently be more trustworthy than the sources that focus soley on poppers, as these seem to tend to have either a strong pro- or anti-popper stance. me_and 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think we should focus on reliable secondary sources like those you mention. In the U.S., there's the National Institute on Drug Abuse, for one (see [20] (slightly out of date), [21], etc). Virusmythpoppersmyth, allaboutpoppers, etc are not encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I chose the 'not significantly harmful' text based on the Merck site along with public statements from what appeared to me to be credible sources, including the CPSC and other Government agencies, and researchers here and in Canada.

What makes the allaboutpoppers.com site unreliable? It appears credible at first glance and once inside is full of apparently credible and valuable information. For example, there's the page that contains comments from various credible sources . The Lancet article seems to fit your criteria perfectly, as well. The article about the CPSC is not biased one way or the other.

I don't entirely agree that because a site may focus solely on poppers it is inherently less trustworthy. I think that it would depend on the content and any underlying support for that content. In fact, such a site could actually be more trustworthy if it is grounded in genuine expertise on the subject.

I've noticed disparities in the content of the various general review sites which try to be the know-all on various subjects. Some fit the classic criteria for the admonishment to beware of what you read on the internet.

My effort to add to the article isn't to take a position one way or the other. The article had been sitting idle so I though I'd be bold and add what I felt was an honest assessment of the available credible information.Munatobe7 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize you; I think boldness is a good attribute here. I was focusing mainly on the sources involved. Allaboutpoppers appears to be a self-published site(?). The fact that it may appear credible at first glance is not necessarily reassuring, rather the opposite. If we want to use the various reliable sources found at the site, we should link them directly. It's quite easy to link the Lancet article directly via PubMed, and I think we can find the other sources to link directly online without going through the filter of a self-published site. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken MastCell. I appreciate your civil feedback. BTW, would it be better if I removed the edit I did until we come to some agreement on all this? I put it out there thinking it would be worked on almost immediately. I think I may have screwed up anyway since the references don't seem to be working properly now. I must have miscoded it or something.Munatobe7 01:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A site concentrating on poppers is not biased inherently. However having looked at the sources that have come up on this article, I've found sites that focus on poppers or inhalants tend to have a strong bias one way or the other. All About Poppers, for example, has no references to anti-poppers articles that I can see. That doesn't make the content unreliable, but it does mean that when reviewing the site, one has to remember that this bias exists; a problem that is reduced, at least, by using secondary sources. Also, as MastCell points out, all(?) the content on All About Poppers is simply reprinted from elsewhere—better to find a copy of the original source and cite that.

IMO, the content you added was good; there's no need to remove it, it just needs the referencing corrected (I think you missed the > from the opening <ref> tag—you want <ref>citation</ref>). You might also want to consider using citation templates to include more information in the citations, although that's my preference rather than Wikipedia policy. That said, I will admit to being concerned about the "Though no definitive proof exists, caution seems prudent" comment—that's really something for the reader to make their own mind up about (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and so on). I'll let you correct, not least because it's gone 3am here, and I need to go to bed!

Echoing MastCell, I'm very grateful for other editors on this article! One of the problems this article seems to have suffered is a lack of bold editors (myself included—it's far too easy to take the easy road and try to avoid an argument). Thanks! me_and 02:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Me_and thanks for the comments. I assumed that when you were referring to the suggested correction you meant I might want to rethink "though no definitive proof exists", which is what I removed. You're right, the reader can make up their own mind. Do you think "caution seems prudent" is too much? Or not enough?

I love your citation style, and I tried and tried to do the same thing. But when I couldn't get it to work after several attempts, and my eyes began to glaze over, I decided to throw in the towel and go to bed, too. :-) Munatobe7 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "caution seems prudent" is to close to advising the reader to use caution when using poppers. I've changed it to "most current secondary sources do not consider the risk large enough to note", which I think achieves broadly the same purpose, but draws a conclusion from cited sources, rather than actually advising the reader.

I've removed a few references that seemed to be duplicating themselves; Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist (Kim, 2006) has the added advantage of linking to further sources. After the article's references had been cleaned up so beautifully from the sprawling mass that they were before, I'd hate to see them all creep back in.

If you want to try to learn how to use the citation templates, I recommend looking at how I've edited them; for example your reference to Merck simply became <ref name="Merck"/>, as it had already been referenced earlier in the article. More usefully, the reference to the US CPSC became:

 
  {{cite web |                                                 Name of the template
  url=http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/cpsc_report_1983/ |  URL of the source
  title=Briefing Package on Petition HP82-1 |                  Title of the source
  accessdate=2007-05-12 |                                      Date the source was last
                                                                 checked
  last=McNamara |                                              Author name, you can also
  first=A. Moira |                                                use Author= instead of 
                                                                  Last= & First=
  year=1983 |                                                  Date of writing/publication
  month=July |                                                 If the full date is available,
                                                                 use date=[[yyyy-mm-dd]]
  format=Reprint |                                             This could be, for example, 
                                                                 PDF, or similar
  publisher=[[Consumer Product Safety Commission|U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]]
                                                               I've wikilinked the publisher
                                                                 so that people can find out
                                                                 more about the source
  }}

I find the easiest way to learn how to use the references system is to play around in the sandbox. The templates are all at WP:CITET, and you seem to have the hang of the <ref> tags now. me_and 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The health issues reference to "most current secondary sources" should be changed to "some current secondary sources" to achieve NPOV. The current wording overstates, it is non neutral, and it is dismissive of published concerns by multiple researchers that popper use increases the risk of HIV transmission.

A credible current secondary source which does cite a concern about popper use increasing the risk of HIV transmission is the FDA. See 2006 FDA letter, this articles reference #3,:including this statement:" FDA recognizes that the abuse of amyl nitrite inhalant and other poppers is a serious health issue, particularly for the segment of homosexual male population that continues to use them. There are reports in the literature that associate the use of nitrite inhalants with immunosuppression, increased risk of HIV transmission, and Kaposi's sarcoma."

The current health risks section fails to reference the accumulating published research which finds popper use a significant risk factor increasing HIV transmission and risky sexual behavior. See previous citations with PMID numbers for easy reference.

Again, this is a major health issue for  gays and men who have sex with men, the major consumers of poppers.

Again, there should be a statement that there is a controversy and the divergent positions should be stated for the reader to consider. I will be adding these changes but am noticing for constructive feedback in advanceHankwilson 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hank, the author of a letter, even if it's a government employee as is the case with the FDA letter you cite, isn't necessarily a reliable secondary source. The statement about poppers that you reference is based on the letter-writer saying there are 'reports in the literature'. There are also 'reports in the literature' that conflict with his statement.

The massive indiscriminate laundry list of links to both your anti-popper papers and the pro-popper references was mainly listcruft and was finally cleaned up. I hope you're not going to rebuild it. But reading through it I found it hard to understand why you think this is a "major health issue" for gays and men who have sex with men. I also can't find a reliable secondary source to support your statement that gays are "the major consumers of poppers'. Is that an urban myth within the gay community, or fact?

There is already a statement in the 'Health Issues' section of the article that addresses your concerns about divergent positions and controversy. Straightshooter7 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The FDA letter is a usable, reliable secondary source. It's not private correspondence; it is stored on the FDA's website and represents an official response to a request on nitrites and therefore an indication of the FDA's thinking on the subject, at least as of the time it was written. Yes, there are reports in the literature stating various things - hence the need for reliable secondary sources (e.g. FDA letter, Merck manual, etc) to parse them. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Hank. "Most seconary sources" implies that the majority of secondary sources draw no link between poppers and HIV or related illnesses, although some secondary sources do draw such a link. To me, that seems to be the case; especially if one concentrates on secondary sources designed to be seen by the general public.

On a seperate note, with your permission, Hank, I'd like to edit the formatting of your posts on this board; at times I find it makes this page difficult to read. me_and 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that "most secondary sources" do not draw a link between poppers and HIV or related illnesses, especially sources that are geared toward the general public.

Looking at the studies in that long reference list revealed that there seems to be almost a cottage industry of a few researchers who, going back twenty five years or longer, have performed a number of studies that try to draw such a conclusion, with some of them even having drawn conflicting results sometimes in their own studies.

Some of these studies have been careful to caution the reader about the 'results', while others have used what has been termed ' treacherous' analysis techniques to reach their conclusion about such a connection.

I think it can safely be said that, in general, it seems that science and medicine do not draw any significant link between poppers and HIV/AIDS.

But that is not to say that popper usage should be encouraged. I also feel that it would be useful if more and better-controlled studies were performed on popper usage which might answer some of these open questions.Munatobe7 02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about your "it can safely be said...." There are multiple recent published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals which find that popper use is a significant risk factor for HIV infection. The PMID numbers were supplied for verification of said statement. It seems reasonable that several of these published studies should be cited. They are recent studies. They are in peer reviewed scientific journals. They are not home grown cottage industry researchers. They are responding to the AIDS epidemic and conducting research to reduce transmission of HIV. The immunosuppression research spans over 20 years...and continues. Thus, there is disagreement about what can safely be said. A controversy does exist for sure and it should be included.

There is a popper industry and it has a message. There are researchers and they have a message. I support inclusion of both positions with attribution to facilitate analysis. 71.138.80.137 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Hankwilson71.138.80.137 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hank Wilson:

1) Are you currently or have you ever been a petitioner to the FDA or any other government agency on the subject of poppers or nitrites?

2) Have you ever collaborated with any petitioner to any government agency on poppers or nitrites?

3) Are you an author of any books or publications on poppers or nitrites in addition to 'Death Rush'?

4) Are you currently or have you ever collaborated with any researchers on the subject of poppers or nitrites?

5) Have you ever or are you currently collaborating in any way with any popper sellers or manufacturers?

I don't see the relevance of this. User:Hankwilson is hardly the only single-purpose account active here, nor the only one with a potential conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia are generally relevant insofar as they lead to disruptive or biased editing (see WP:COI). So far I've seen Hank suggest we include balanced information on poppers attributed to reliable sources, which is hardly disruptive. So let's focus on what sources to use and how to present them instead of going after a contributor who has not been disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording says "it has been suggested". This should be changed to "Research has demonstrated that poppers are immunosuppressive." It is suggested that the demonstrated immunosuppression is significant increasing susceptibility to HIV infection. Issues of quantity of popper use and frequency of popper use may be considerations effecting the susceptibility to HIV infection.Research is ongoing to understand the significance of the immunosuppression.

To refer to the immunosuppression research is to state reality. The research exists. To judge it,critique its limitations, characterise it, raises points of view issues but these can be included in the context of acknowledging that there is controversy on interpretation of the research.Failure to acknowledge the research is not neutral or objective. Hankwilson 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've slightly reworded this section to indicate actual evidence rather than simply a suggestion of it so as to bring the statement in line with the original cited article. I can not mention anything further as it is not included in the current source article. --John T. Folden 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

www.allaboutpoppers.com is a poppers industry website. Google fails to list that website in a google search re: "poppers" for this reason. It does not pass the neutral point of view test and it should not be listed as a credible reference.Can more credible references replace existing references? Hankwilson 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What references are you talking about? --John T. Folden 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that All About Poppers is biased, however, as other users have pointed out, it does have a good collection of sources that can be verified elsewhere. I support changing the citations to reference the original source that All About Poppers uses, but whilst the collection may only consider one side of the argument (so linking to http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/ wouldn't be NPOV), referencing the individual articles seems sensible to me.

Whilst Google does not link to All About Poppers on a search for "poppers", it does link to Flying Pig, and All About Poppers does appear on a search for "alkyl nitrites". In any case, Google's page ranking is not and never has been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. me_and 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hank, I've noticed that you've mentioned in a number of posts that Google does not list All About Poppers in a search on "poppers" as though that's somehow significant. Then, today, you bring it up again saying the reason is because Google claims it is an "industry website" and it does not "pass the neutral point of view test", and that it 'omits references finding poppers are immunosuppressive".

I agree that All About Poppers is biased, but I guess the first thing I wonder is why does that make the site less then credible? It is readily apparent that it's full of credible information, or at least contains links to lots of credible information. And why does Google care anyway? What business is it of Google to police the web and make judgments about websites before it catalogs them? I thought Google sent spiders out that looked at web page content based on the words in the sites and the links to the sites from related-subject sites. I thought this was the criteria it used, not whether it's an 'industry site' or whether or not the site passes some 'neutral point of view test'. ("Neutral" is in the eyes of the beholder.) It should follow, then, that under this criteria your anti-popper sites should also be de-listed.

I can understand, but don't agree with, Google China kowtowing to the Communist government and de-listing sites because the government does not want its citizens seeing certain sites, but this is not China. What right does Google have in de-listing any site in the USA simply because they don't feel it "passes the neutral point of view test" or is an "industry website"? (How do you know, or how does Google know, that this is an 'industry website'?)

My next question is how do you know this is the reason why Google does not list the site? What makes you say that? Google's algorithms and criteria are thought to be more secret then even the Coke formula. How do you know why Google does not list All About Poppers?

When you mention that All About Poppers should not be listed because it's not a 'credible reference', you raise another relevant question. No offense intended, but what makes any of the sites you yourself have referenced any more credible than All About Poppers? I mean, after-all, based on what you've posted in this article over the past year or more along with your history of anti-popper advocacy, it's hard to find anyone out there who is more biased against poppers then you are. I yet to find any sites you've referenced that were anything than other than anti-popper. Yet it's clear there's a wealth of information available that is opposed to your anti-popper viewpoint.

Me-and, what is the link to Flying Pig about? When I went to it I only found a 'paper animation kit' site. I think you're right about Google's page rankings not being a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.Msmchaser 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why Google eliminated any listing of www.allaboutpoppers.com. The rationale cited was speculative on my part. Yahoo.com had also eliminated the same listing for a few months but has since reinstated the listing, but at a lower ranked rating. Complaints about popper selling sponsored sites got responses from Google.

A Google search result ranking should not be a credibility criteria. But it is interesting since that popper industry site had been listed as #1 or 2 for about 5 years. And another wiki contributor cited a web program which determined that a popper company owned the www.allaboutpoppers.com site. No surprise since it linked to sites selling poppers and also failed to cite any published research showing that popper use was immunosuppressive or risk factors for risky sex and/or HIV infection.

Primary sources are generally preferable to secondary sources. Citing Simon Sheppard as the reference about poppers being immunosuppressive is less credible than citing the original publication and including its PMID, PubMed identification number, the latter for easy verification. The original Dax research on immunosuppression PMID 1685501 was not dismissive of the importance of the immunosuppression. All exposures to HIV do not result in infection. However, if the immune system is suppressed susceptibility to infection, to HIV and other infections is increased. The Dax study found natural killer cells the immune system component most suppressed. And natural killer cells are a prime defense mechanism against infections. The fact of the immunosuppression should not be minimized, or dismissed, but should be emphasized in the context of the HIV epidemic. This importance to gay men and men who have sex with men cannot be understated.

Hank: In looking at the Dax study you reference, which was also one of the studies in the laundry list of references that used to be in this article, the results were not compelling evidence for a major effect of nitrite inhalation on the immune system.

If you do a search for "Dax" on this page you'll see where the Dax study was flawed due to various problems. I wouldn't agree that just because it was published in a peer reviewed scientific research journal that it therefore necessarily has "very high credibility". I think Peter Duesberg's theories on poppers causing AIDS and KS were similarly published in peer reviewed scientific research journals as well, and he has very little credibility in the area. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it "should be emphasized in the context of the HIV epidemic". What exactly should be emphasized? Where? In the main article somewhere? How would you see it being worded? Munatobe7 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The references I have cited have very high credibility because they are from published peer reviewed scientific research journals...and I also cited the PMID numbers to faciliate easy verification. Others may have cited anti popper websites. I have no connection with www.virusmyth....etc. I cited the www.iabuse.org in reference to concern about youth using poppers but don't recommend it as a reference listing.

In regards to controversial issues, facts, interpretations, it seems that multiple references are preferable to one reference. When there are differing positions cite credible positions from multiple sides. Neutral point of view can apply to each fact, but seems more important to the apply to the article as a whole, and that referencing controversies is reflective of reality and a reference point in time. Some controversies will be settled overtime, but they still might be referenced for historical perspective. Hankwilson 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One correction: according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, secondary sources are actually preferred, if (and this is the big "if") they are reliable secondary sources according to the criteria set forth there. In other words, FDA, CDC, Merck manual, etc are reliable secondary sources. Allaboutpoppers.com and virusmythpoppers.com are not. Primary sources are also useful, and we should include a number of them, but the problem is that when there's conflicting data (as there is here), we need to avoid synthesizing it ourselves (see WP:SYN) and saying "These studies clearly indicate that poppers are (or are not) immunosuppressive." Relying solely on primary sources also leaves us open to selective citation, since there are conflicting studies out there. Instead, we should rely on syntheses published by reliable secondary sources. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My job's keeping me hopping and I've missed a couple of days here. Things move fast!

Yes, it makes sense.

I agree that we need to avoid synthesizing the data ourselves, but I was surprised to see the edit that claims research is still "contradictory as to whether there is a causative link between popper use and HIV...". Is this theory still being debated by credible researchers? My general sense is that it was long ago resolved that HIV, not poppers, causes AIDS. In following links found at All About Poppers I note that several apparently notable researchers have written on this. Stephen J. O'Brien addressed the theory some time ago, as did Stanley B. Prusiner, and Christine Weber who talks about the history of science being littered with disagreements over opposing hypotheses in her research titled "The Art of Scientific Scrutiny: Investigating the Poppers-AIDS Hypothesis".

IMHO the statement "It was previously believed that any link was due to poppers having a causative link with KS" is outdated and not accurate, and may lead the reader to believe poppers have a 'causative link with KS". Is there a credible researcher today who still claims poppers cause KS? On the same links page I found the poppers/KS theory addressed by Christine Weber, among others, who pointed out that not surprisingly, correlation is easily confused with fact.

I'm sensitive to your caution that we not synthesize conflicting data but is there any credible conflicting data that purports to claim that poppers cause AIDS or KS? How should we best handle this? Munatobe7 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After I hung up the phone on that last post I stumbled on this article by an AIDS activist (it may take me forever to get through all the links on the All About Poppers site!) which clarifies a bit the argument over the poppers/KS/AIDS theory. The author, Paul Varnell, peppers his article with some gems, but this one is particularly interesting: "The government's own expert on poppers, Harry Haverkos, has been working on the notion of a poppers-KS link for nearly seven years and still cannot confirm such a link; he always talks in terms of "potential" and "could be" and then calls for more epidemiological and laboratory studies. That's pretty much what he was saying years ago." Haverkos authored a number of the studies that were in that huge laundry list of references that used to be posted in this article. Munatobe7 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how scientists and researchers tend to talk. Are you suggesting this calls his published findings into question? MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I don't know if I'd call his findings into question because I haven't read them. But I'd caution against using his findings as a basis to make definitive statements that poppers cause AIDS or KS which seems to have been what was done in the past in this article. I guess the point I was trying to make, clumsily so, was that I further agree with your earlier caution that we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to fall into the trap of synthesizing conflicting research results, or even studies with questionable results, as a basis for authoritative claims, one way or the other. So how do we handle the current implication in the article's health section that poppers cause KS? Munatobe7 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the point I was trying to make earlier, albeit far better expressed. I'd forgotted that WP:SYN existed... Thanks MastCell! me_and 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple published research studies demonstrating that poppers are immunosuppressive.Do a PUB MED search re: "nitrite inhalants" and you will get many, if not most of those studies. The import of the immunosuppression is still to be determined and is admittedly controversial. A popper industry does exist and consumption will be effected if the research and its implications is known. Nonetheless,the finding and its potential implications in the HIV/AIDS epidemic compel its inclusion in any article about poppers. There is no suggestion. The suggestions are that it is not significant, is significant, or the studies had limitations. Those critiquing the published research showing immunosuppression have questionable credibility, and the existence of an "analysis" does not dismiss the findings. Seems reasonable to critique the critiquer. NIDA,CDC,FDA, vs ? what is the popper industry position? does it ever surface on this site? ever responsible for eliminating references to published research?

The researchers finding immunosuppression are funded by National Institute of Drug Abuse and/ Centers for Disease Control. The publication in peer reviewed scientific journals does not guarantee credibility, however, the total weight of the multiple researchers finding immunosuppression, the funding sources and peer review processes of both funders and journals should outweigh a dismissive position by the poppers industry reps.

The Dax, 1991 study was a human study, not a mice study, so I give it special importance. Suppression of natural killer cell function is very significant in the context of HIV/AIDS epidemic. The simple message is that poppers are immunosuppressive making popper users more susceptible to infections, including HIv infections. The epidemiologal research finds that popper use is correlated with HIV infection. There are both biological(immunosuppression increasing susceptibility to infection) and behavioral impacts(disinhibition and increase in risky sex) of popper use. And there may be a compound effect with both the biological and the behavioral factors both operating to explain the correlation with HIV infections in gays.

The tone of noting the demonstrated immunosuppression should not be dismissive. Indeed, while the immune system itself recovers after a few days, the damage is permanent to the individual if HIV infection has occurred. We need to note the demonstrated immunosuppression, qualify the limitations, and put it in a serious context....potentially increasing susceptibility to HIV infection...

The popper industry position should be included. Its reality. Its a position which is actively promoted despite the mounting scientific research. not surprising, though harmful to the gay community. How many PMID published studies, re: immunosuppression and risk factor for HIV infection are needed? Refer to ARCHIVE #2, topic 20 for a dozen important studies.

Citing 2 decade old positions about the harmlessness of poppers does not negate the aggregate of the research and especially the recent findings re: immunosuppression and correlation with HIV infection. The dismissive analysis of the research is longstanding...but the research findings continue to surface. Too bad we don't have an objective article for those folks trying to evaluate the safety of using poppers. The focus on poppers has changed overtime and the article might include how perspective has changed overtime. Intially suspected of causing AIDS, then when HIV was discovered considered a possible promotion factor/co factor. Initially thought of causing KS, then when KS virus was discovered, considered a possible promotion factor/co factor in KS infection and KS development.

KS: Having the KS virus does not evolve to KS in most cases. Being exposed to the KS virus which is in saliva does always result in infection. There is still a KS mystery. There is a cofactor or cofactors operating which results in development of KS. Poppers are immunosuppressive. Transplant patients given immunosuppressive drugs to ward off transplant organ rejection develop KS. The KS goes away when the immunosuppressive drugs are stopped. This is an obvious clue how popper use might be related to KS. There are dose variations in amount of poppers used, number of inhalations, frequency of use, etc...

Hankwilson 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on this statement of yours "Indeed, while the immune system itself recovers after a few days, the damage is permanent to the individual if HIV infection has occurred.":

Poppers don't cause HIV. Obviously, IF they lower the immune system response then the individual may be more susceptible to any number of illnesses. However, the one thing this article does not need is alarmist statements. In other words, saying there is evidence that popper use contributes to an increased risk for contraction of the HIV virus is perfectly fine BUT we have to be careful about drawing a line because the "permanent damage" is not caused by Poppers, it's caused by HIV (which has it's own article for elaboration in that regard). --John T. Folden 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A researcher friend at UCLA referred me to the UC Berkeley "San Francisco AIDS Oral History Series" for information about the history of AIDS and poppers.

At first I just did a quick search for 'poppers' and 'nitrites'. But then I found myself unable to stop reading so I went back to the beginning. It's an utterly fascinating walk through the history of the epidemic taken from oral interviews with the doctors and researches who were suddenly thrust into the middle of the crisis when it began.

Of the immune system theory being discussed here, Dr. Andrew Moss said that people "who knew what they were talking about" didn't seriously believe it and suggested it was an "ideologically-maintained hypotheses" that some people wanted to believe. He says that poppers were a "micro-hypothesis" and accounted for "a tiny bit" of what was going on -- "maybe". "People decide for their own ideological or personal reasons that immune overload is what causes AIDS, although it's overwhelmingly clear that it's not, and it was from a very early point."

I hesitate to quote much more from the UC site because it has a prominent notice about permissions to quote, but a search for 'poppers' finds that they were early on in the epidemic dismissed as being causative of AIDS or KS and that there doesn't seem to be much to the immune system theory either. I was surprised. Munatobe7 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of poppers being immunosuppressive is the resulting increase in susceptibility to HIV infection, and other infections. A simple concept which does not negate that HIV causes AIDS.And the "poppers are immunosuppressive" point is not part of the immune system theory. Importantly, all exposures to HIV do not result in infection. The immune system can fight off initial exposure. Thus the importance of the hosts immune system and immune response. There are a variety of factors which impact whether an exposure results in infection or not, host defense/immune system response is one.

The first speaker at the last International AIDS conference in Toronto,speaking from the main stage to thousands of attendees referenced two co factors involved in the continuing HIV/AIDS epidemic among men who have sex with men. Those two cofactors were crystal methamphetamine and poppers.There was a slide projection which summarized his points.

The articles that I have cited come from credible researchers funded through peer review driven processes published in peer reviewed publications. The findings seem worthy of inclusion in an article that is supposed to incorporate multiple view points.Hankwilson 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter what level of immune suppression being alleged, the Dax study that was referenced presented no evidence that poppers are immunosuppressive to any significant degree or that they result in an "increase in susceptibility to HIV infection, and other infections".

Jumping to the International AIDS Conferences, it's a well documented and accepted fact that merely speaking at an International AIDS Conference and having a slide projection doesn't prove a theory is true or not. Remember Durban 2000. It was so bad that over 5,000 scientists and doctors from around the world signed a petition that said enough is enough after the conference was taken over by a minority of anti-HIV proponents who had convinced the president of South Africa that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but instead by drugs, including poppers.

Considering that many if not most of the cited articles formerly in the references section here were based on invalid or flawed research with some having conflicting findings themselves, which of those findings are worthy of inclusion in this article? Msmchaser 22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To the methamphetamine and poppers comment above, a large study titled "Associations Between Substance Use and Sexual Risk Among Very Young Men Who Have Sex With Men" which was published last April (Sexually Transmitted Diseases:Volume 33(4)April 2006pp 265-271) showed that among the drugs examined, amphetamine use was most strongly associated with insertive UAI (unprotected anal intercourse/no condom -- the most dangerous kind of sex).

Other drugs associated with an increased risk of insertive UAI included cocaine, poppers, and ecstasy. In multivariate analysis, the association for an increased risk of insertive UAI was maintained for amphetamines and cocaine, whereas the effect of ecstasy and poppers was no longer statistically significant.

An important aspect of this study is that it was done in very young men, ages 15-22, a critical demographic in the current AIDS crisis. Munatobe7 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Poppers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.