Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:08, 4 April 2008

Pharmacology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedia

Maybe patients, e.g. old people, want to know what the sleeping pills are, which have been given to them. And not that this is a dangerous MKULTRA brainwash drug from the KGB arsenal, and causes brain rot, cancer, necrosis of testicles. Not that they use the favorite drug of Nepalese junkies. Not that their sleeping pills turn them into CRIMINALS in a "Jekyll and Hyde" manner. This article is full of speculative references to unrelated, anecdotal, spurious and loosely associated material. The references are also misrepresented, they actually don't say what the editor claims. This is a SUBTLE FORM OF VANDALISM. The matter of the article is reliable pharmacological information, not paranoid and hysterical rantings about drug misuse. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Case study in abuse potential" - is this REALLY encyclopaedic information??? Anecdotes do not belong on Misplaced Pages. This story may serve to convey the powerful nature of temazepam addiction, but it mars the professionalism of the article. I am removing the bulk of the material. Feel free to discuss. 64.149.229.192 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Teratogenicity in terms of pregnancy category was corrected to X as indicated in the recent edition of "Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation".

• • • • removed obscene material*****

Could you use biostatistical/NIH reviewer help?

I'm wondering if you could use the kind of help I could offer. If not, I'm perfectly happy to stay away and continue working on poetry and novels; working on this article would be a busman's holiday for me: i.e. "work."

My background is that I've been a professional biostatistician for 30 years, and I'm a reviewer on an NIH clinical trials study section. (Please note that this does not mean that the NIH endorses my views or that I can represent the NIH in any way; I only mention it to indicate my level and kind of experience.) My feeling is that I have no especially great desire to make pharmacology a prominent part of my Misplaced Pages volunteer work, where I'm much more personally interested in the arts -- however, I do have a Wikipedian spirit that we're here to make the encyclopedia as useful, accurate, and objective as possible, and therefore I don't want to refuse to contribute my expertise where needed. Also, one has to understand the limitations of my abilities. So, I'm inquiring here since you people asked for editing help and consensus, and I'd like to see what my potential contribution could be.

Some points to bear in mind:

• I'm a beginner as a Misplaced Pages editor, so it's pointless to ask me for opinions about process or asking me to do technical things like straightening out references.
• I know zero about pharmacology itself.
• However, I am used to the process in which, every 4 months, the NIH SRA sends me about 5 grant applications in areas that I often know little or nothing about but NIH expects me to give an expert review on scientific validity and funding priority. Each application will have about 5 other reviewers. Subsequently, there's a meeting in which the total committee of about 25 will report and collectively vote on all the clinical proposals submitted to our institute in that cycle.
• Those grants are written in a precise, technical way and are profusely illustrated with numbers, tables, and graphs: i.e. data. This causes my statistician's brain to move into operation and analyse, "What do these people think they're proving? What, if anything, are they actually proving?" This style would probably not be appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article.
• Similarly, when a drug company consults with me, we assume from the start that I don't know anything about their drug. Usually, someone will send me a stack of primary scientific articles to go through.
• So, if you want me to do anything effective, you'd need to refer me to pdf's on the Web of the primary scientific literature or of data-oriented review articles.

Sorry to be so complicated, but that reflects my real life. There are situations where I can be extremely effective, but it's always in collaboration with other scientists. We're all narrow, but we know how to support each other interactively.

If I can help, let me know and I'll be happy to. Otherwise I'm planning to work on poetry and novels. William P. Coleman (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo William, if you think you can help improve this article, then please feel free to contribute with ideas. Almost all the contents of this article are referenced by scientific studies, clinical trials, etc. What the article really needs is improvement in grammar and a little "trim".

GoodSon (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal status in australia

a schedule 4 drug can be obtained with a prescription made in any australian state

Overhaul of article

This article has become a total mess. There are some blatant factual inaccuracies (eg, saying that alprazolam, lorazepam, diazepam, et. al. are NOT hypnotics) and many of these are associated with references. In many cases, the references cited don't even say what the articles say they do. There is so much repeated information throughout this article, and a lot of that isn't accurate. There is a great deal of subjective data here and, while it looks like this article is well-cited, there is a lot of secondary material and a great deal of heresay.

Furthermore, the article goes off on several tangents. It spends far too much time talking about drugs other than temazepam, and many of the references don't even mention temazepam. This is an article about one drug, not a class of drugs.

Incidentally, there is an astonishly long rambling section about "truth serum" and its reported use in the Soviet Union by the KGB. This goes on to discuss brainwashing, LSD, breaking people's will, and just a great deal of other silliness that is not only completely off track and not appropriate for an encylopedia-style article, but must be highly suspect in factual accuracy, at best (even if there are references cited).

Many of the more legit studies cited in the article go into far too much detail -- listing protocols, experimental data, and far too many other things that really clutter the article. In some cases, it looks like their abstracts were copied and pasted in their entirety! And, again, much of this was off-topic, inaccurate, or highly suspect in its validity.

I removed a lot of the repitition, corrected a lot of the citations, fixed a lot of the scientific details, removed all the tangents about other drugs, the larger class of drugs, and conditions. I tried to preserve as much information as possible, while making it more articulate, concise, relevant, and accurate. I even left a statement in there (with its citation) about the alleged use of the drug by the KGB :)

These sorts of things always seem to happen to Wiki articles about drugs of abuse. I wonder why...

RJSampson (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All the information is correct and the article is well sourced with scientific references. Maybe there are a few problems with grammar and things, but other than that it is ok.

Temazepam was researched by the East Germans, KGB (Soviets), CIA (USA), and Asian nations too. Have you ever heard of MKULTRA? Well temazepam was used under code name MKSEARCH (after 1964 - a continuation of MKULTRA - they were searching for the ultimate truth drug). Did you forget about the psikhushkas in the USSR, where dissidents were kept on temazepam to keep them in a state of vegetation? Perhaps you can go and read The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia - Past, Present, and Future. by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick and another good book Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: The Shadow over World Psychiatry. by Sidney Bloch and Peter Reddaway. Also you should busy yourself with reading the history of this drug well, it's obvious you don't know much about it. This benzodiazepine has a darker history than most others.

Alprazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam are anxiolytics and have sedative effects, yes! But in medical terminology, a hypnotic is a sleeping pill used to treat insomnia. So Temazepam is a hypnotic, but also has anxiolytic, muscle relaxant properties, and anticonvulsive action. The hypnotic group of benzodiazepines are generally more sedating, are more likely to cause severe amnesia, and often, the onset of their effects are felt very quickly relative to anxiolytics like lorazepam, diazepam, clonazepam, bromazepam, alrpazolam, and most others. So in Medical world lorazepam and alprazolam are not hypnotics, they are anxiolytics. But temazepam and nitrazepam are hypnotics.

GoodSon (talk) 7:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Someone with a little more experience than myself with this particular citation format should try and clean up the errors in said section. I gave it a go, but I'm not sure it did much. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking care of them. I have already cleared up all the references in the "Toxicity" category. It was a mess, I don't know why. Those are all scientific references. GoodSon (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Building a consensus

Hi, Wisdom and Goodson. I appreciate you guys engaging me in this discussion about how to better improve the temazepam article.

Wisdom, I think you and I are thinking along similiar lines in terms of how to improve the article. You seem to agree with me that it has become inflated.

Goodson, I appreciate your input and enthusiasm for benzodiazepines. I see, however, you've reverted all of my edits (which were relatively considerable) and all of Wisdom's (which were minor, but necessary to improve the flow of the article, correct grammar, etc.)

You have obviously made a lot of contributions to the temazepam article and many other drug and benzodiazepine aricles, so I imagine that you are proud of your work and time you put into it, as well you should be. I appreciate your enthusiasm for these medications. However, I would suggest not being entirely hasty when others want to modify your work. You've kind of "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" and ended up reverting back some of your acknowledged grammar mistakes. In any case, I'd like to address a couple of your comments..

I have passing familiarity with "MKULTRA" but obviously not knowledge to the level you do. You asked if I "forgot" about the "psikhushkas." Well, I was unfamiliar with the psikhushkas. These are obviously subjects of great interest to you. However, they not very relevant to temazepam. I'll grant that it's probably worth mentioning that the couple of books (which I imagine were very interesting reads) you read state that temazepam was used by the Russia and the US for various purposes, but you go far too much into those things. Look at this passage you reverted:

"..It was utilized as a truth serum during interrogations because of its strong hypnotic properties. Given to the subject, temazepam weakens the resolve of the subject and makes him or her more compliant to pressure. As a truth serum, temazepam was not often used mainly because the onset of its powerful sedative-hypnotic effects were quick, rendering the subject asleep. It was still, however, utilized by the Soviet Union and East Germany in the 1970's during the Cold War. It also saw limited use as a truth serum in some parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia. The preferred drugs used as truth serums were, and still are barbiturates, particularly sodium thiopental (Sodium Pentothal). Temazepam was also one of several drugs used in the research of mind control, brainwashing and mass-scale social engineering by Secret Intelligence agencies, including the KGB and the CIA. Temazepam was used under the code name MKSEARCH, which was the CIA's successor project to MKULTRA. In former Soviet Union, temazepam was one of several drugs that was extensively used to keep political dissidents housed in psikhushkas (mental asylums and psychiatric hospitals) in a constant vegetative state."

See the tangents? We're talking about truth serums, brainwashing, sodium thiopental, East Germany, social engineering, politcal dissidents... This is all a little much, don't you think? (I would like the opinion from other users on this as well) If you cited everything there is to discuss about temazepam (why don't you inlclude its marketing history? It's funding history? The battles between Merck and Mallinkcrodt and Upjohn for market share?), the article would be tediously long. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff, frankly, doesn't warrant nearly the time you gave to it. Not in this article, anyway. A single sentence should do just fine. I know you're the subject matter expert on that, and have lot of knowledge you want to share, but you could perhaps relegate most of that information to an article about "brainwashing" or "truth serums." ...and by the way, "you should busy yourself with reading the history of this drug well, it's obvious you don't know much about it." was a rather inappropriate and rude thing to say to someone you don't know.

With regards to the sedative/hypnotic/anxiolytic issue, virtually all BZs are classified as hypnotics. More specifically, in the USA, they're known as "Sedative/Hypnotics." Technically, yes, there is a fine line; the medical term "sedative" refers to a drug which is capable of decreasing activity, moderating excitement, and calming the patient. A "hypnotic" is a drug which is capable of facilitating the onset of sleep and maintaining a sleep state that resembles natural sleep. Virtually all BZs are classified as "sedative/hypnotics." Or at least, so says the FDA. I myself am not quite so removed from the medical community as you might think (here-say alert: My fiancee is an oncopharmacologist at a major Pharm company, my father is a surgeon, I myself have a degree in Biochemistry with a focus on clinical pharmacology). Granted, alprazolam, etc. have a primary indication for anxiety and other conditions, but many (incl. alprazolam and diazepam) are approved for treatment of insomnia (not even off-label). The others have been prescribed off-label for insomnia. In any case, the differing levels of sedation are minimal, subjective, and different for every patient. The mechanisms of action are largely the same. . . So if you want to go on marketing terms, I suppose an argument could be made that they shouldn't be identified solely as Sedative/Hypnotics, BUT to say that these drugs AREN'T hypnotics is just flat-out inaccurate. I suggest, to avoid an edit war, the statement be removed all together. Thoughts from other users?

Now, since you erased ALL of Wisdom's and my edits, there are far more things that I'd like to point out, but it would take forever. However, there is one glaring statement that you reverted back that I had removed: "Benzodiazepines are generally thought to be safe in overdose". Not only is this statement not backed up by the paper you source, but it is both highly inaccurate and irresponsible. The paper (and many others like it) say that benzodiazepines have a relatively higher therapeutic index than its predecessor drugs, the barbiturates. This does NOT make overdosing on benzodiazepines "gnereally thought to be safe." Terrible physical and psychological harm have been recorded in thousands of such patients. Even though overdosing may not cause respiratory and cardiac collapse, it's by no means safe. People have had seizures, coma, jaundice, fatal allergic reactions, dysphagia, and a slew of other complications from BZ overdose. Thoughts from other users?

Anyway, thanks Goodson and Wisdom for beginning this discussion with me. I'm too tired to make some of the edits I wish to make for the time being :P I hope others will weigh in and we can all end up with a professional, scientific, concise, and articulate Wiki article at the end of all this :)

RJSampson (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo RJ, I apologize for any remarks I made that sounded rude. I hope you can understand that I have put a lot of time, effort, and research into this article, and so I feel like I should have a lot of say and incredible influence over what happens to this article (moreso than any of you, to be blunt).

I suppose I did get a bit much into detail about temazepams history, but I don't see why that is so wrong? I believe the more information, the better. I realize, however, that the "History" section can be trimmed up and cleaned a bit. As of right now though, I oppose any drastic changes that anyone wishes to make on the article. I am not opposed to a compromise of some sort, but I believe that I should have last word on what goes and what stays in the article - or at least any changes that you or Wisdom plan to make, you should consult me first. I feel this way because I have put far more time and effort on this article than either you, Wisdom, or anyone else that ever contributed to Temazepam.

Temazepam's history is important because for the first 10-15 years of its existence, it was incorporated in highly covert research projects involving brainwashing, mind control, and mass-scale social engineering (of course, temazepam wasn't the only drug used, but it was the only BZ - which I find significant). I think that is an important aspect of its history to mention.

In regards to the anxiolytic/hypnotic issue, temazepam is a hypnotic BZ, as is flunitrazepam, triazolam, nitrazepam, nimetazepam, and a few select others. Research on the differences between BZ's have been conducted in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and other nations have always come to the conclusion that the "hypnotics" have a significantly higher fatal toxicity index. Most of the hypnotics (ie. temazepam, nitrazepam, flunitrazepam) have shown that, relative to those BZ's most often indicated for the treatment of anxiety, panic disorders, etc are very toxic, especially in overdose situations. These are facts based upon scientific research and have nothing to do with "marketing". Research has consistently shown that the "hypnotic" BZ's are more dangerous due to more intense side effects on respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure.

Please read the following:

In a clinical study conducted in the United Kingdom between the years 1991-1993, it was found that temazepam was the most toxic of all benzodiazepines, easily causing death in an overdose, even when not combined with any other CNS Depressant, unlike most other benzodiazepines, especially the anxiolytics which all have a much lower toxicity profile. Oxazepam had the lowest toxicity profile of all benzodiazepines. Others with low toxicity profiles were diazepam, alprazolam, lorazepam, bromazepam, and clonazepam. Besides temazepam, other hypnotic benzodiazepines were tested (flunitrazepam, nitrazepam, flurazepam, midazolam, and triazolam) and all had a high toxicity profile. The reason was that the hypnotics more strongly reduced the rate of respiration, caused more sedation, were more likely to induce coma, amnesia, and hypotension. All the hypnotic benzodiazepines that were tested in the study showed that they can cause death without ingesting other CNS depressants, very much like barbiturates. Nimetazepam, though was not part of the British study is believed to have a toxicity profile similar to temazepam's.

I hope we can further discuss this article as to avoid edit wars. Dialogue is always a good thing.

TheGoodSon (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Goodson. I appreciate your apology, and I do understand where you're coming from. I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as rude. I appreciate you continuing this dialogue with me.

Anyway, in response to your comments, I'd like to address two things that you brought up. One is with respect to general style guidelines, the other is with regards to the content arguments you made. I will address the former first, and the latter second. I believe the latter point deserves a new section with a whole new heading on this discussion page, which I will create below, as you made some pretty serious comments that should be extrapolated upon.

So with regards to the content, the main issue you brought up was the hypnotic vs. anxiolytic classification issue. You quoted one of your passages, which referenced a British study (please note that, while this British study is listed as a reference, your paragraph does not directly link to it as it should. Just thought I'd point it out.)

I read the paper, and this paper does indeed make a distinction between anxiolytic BZs and hypnotic BZs, so I see the validity in your argument. This came from the British BMJ journal, and the authors make distinctions between the two. The journal does reference that the tested hypnotics have higher toxicity than the anxiolytics, but we shouldn't assume that ALL hypnotic BZs have higher toxicity -- for example, the "hypnotic" triazolam (while very potent), has a similar safety profile as the "anxiolytic" alprazolam. Anyway, with all that said, quite a few other journal articles, and namely those in the USA, classify all these anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and other BZs as "Sedative/Hypnotics." As I mentioned earlier, the FDA does so as well. So while I think you have a point that anxiolytics and hypnotics can be considered distinct from one another, FDA nomenclature and that of other researchers clearly show that it would be inaccurate to say that alprazolam, lorazepam, diazepam, etc. are NOT hypnotic drugs. So this statement should just be removed entirely.

Now, onto the next discussion which, I think is the most important of all:

This Article Must Follow Misplaced Pages Guidelines

First comment to address: You said "I suppose I did get a bit much into detail about temazepams history, but I don't see why that is so wrong? I believe the more information, the better."

I'm glad you agree that you did get into a little too much detail. You ask why that is so wrong. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines, "Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles should aim to be less than 32KB in size." However, this temazepam article is over 74KB in size. It needs to be trimmed down, and drastically. But where to begin? Again, according to the guidelines, "Stay on topic.. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts." We appreciate your knowledge of the KGB and Russia and truth serums, but since this article needs to be trimmed, that stuff should be the first to go. A single, brief sentence is more than enough.

The second statement you make is the most interesting. You say: "I feel like I should have a lot of say and incredible influence over what happens to this article (moreso than any of you, to be blunt)."

WOW. What a statement.

You go on to say, "I believe that I should have last word on what goes and what stays in the article." Finally, you tell me that if myself or anyone else wants to make a change: "you should consult me first."

I'm pretty darn speecless about that, GoodSon. I must admit I've never seen that before. First of all, I respect your honesty. You apparently feel this way because you "have put far more time and effort on this article than either you, Wisdom, or anyone else that ever contributed to Temazepam."

Now, Goodson, surely you see the problem here. Before I say anything else, please read Misplaced Pages's policy on who has final say over articles. You'll note that this page says that "Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Misplaced Pages. Another page on writing good Misplaced Pages articles states "articles have no single author with one overarching plan (Check here for more.) The overall point of these policies is that "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

The edits that Wisdom and I have suggested are most certainly within reason -- we're trying to shorten it to within the 32KB guidelines. We're trying to make it clearer. We're trying to keep it on topic.

Goodson, Misplaced Pages belongs to everyone. No one person has any more right to edit than anyone else. We appreciate your enthusiam, and your participation. And with all due respect, no one needs to consult you to do anything, regardless of the time you put in. The only party that should be consulted, if any, is the community itself, and that's precisely what we're trying to do on this page.

...In any case, it's once again late and I'm too tired to actually make edits but I will be doing so over the weekend. While you've put a great deal of time in, the article needs to be improved: Your grammar isn't as solid as it should be, there's far too much repitition, the article can be confusing, and we need to whittle this thing down to the most important facts to keep it closer to Misplaced Pages guidelines.

The last thing, unfortunately, I'm going to say is this: In many parts of this article, you copied and pasted text directly from journal articles. I'm afraid this is plaigiarism. Even when cited correctly (which isn't often), this article is not only cluttered and inflated, but it lacks integrity. I know you didn't intend this, and we've all done it here, in college, in conversation, or wherever, but all of these issues must be addressed.

Please do not take any of this personally. I know you feel like this article is your baby and you're proud of it. But just because much of the words are yours doesn't mean it isn't in need of substantial improvement. Don't rule out that you can learn a thing or two from some of your fellow members of your Misplaced Pages community -- just as I have from you about some of the "darker" components of psychiatric history. You also taught be about "psikhushkas" :) RJSampson (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RJ, I think we should leave the article as it is for now before WE begin making improvements to it. I am tired at the moment and I will discuss this with you later. I am German, so you shouldn't expect my Englisch grammar to be top class. In anycase, I still feel strongly about this article and will fight for it. Minor changes I will not mind, major ones will bring on a major war that I do not intend to lose. GoodSon (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more edits

Reworked a little of the introduction. Temazepam is not considered as strong as this section suggests. I will provide the citation for this directly from the manufacture's prescribing info. Temazepam is relatively weak among other bZs and sedative/hypnotics. It is also short acting, and not as rapidly absorbed as other BZs. See the following from the maufacturer:

- http://www.restoril.com/broch_unique.asp - http://www.restoril.com/pdf/restoril_prod_pi.pdf

RJSampson (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Temazepam is not considered as strong as this section suggests" -

says who? Restoril.com will tell you that it is the safest, least addictive and all sorts of other bullocks to promote their product. It's called business. Research on temazepam shows that it is actually a particularly dangerous benzodiazepine relative to most others. I think its toxicity rating, which is included in the article is enough proof that temazepam is not a "weak benzodiazepine". I agree that on a mg for mg basis it is not overly potent, but temazepam is a well studied benzodiazepine. Findings suggest exactly the opposite of you are claiming. Addiction to it is said to be almost impossible to break (physically) and more than any other benzodiazepine, withdrawal from it has been known to cause psychosis, suicide ideation, and permanent brain damage as was shown in a 4– to 6-year follow-up study of hypnotic abusers by Borg and others of the Karolinska Institute. The CT scan abnormalities showed dilatation of the ventricular system. However, unlike alcoholics, hypnotic abusers showed no evidence of widened cortical sulci. The study concluded that, when cerebral disorder is diagnosed in hypnotic benzodiazepine abusers, it is often permanent. Temazepam, nitrazepam, flutoprazepam, triazolam, and flunitrazepam were the culprits - I think that qualifies temazepam as a strong benzodiazepine, despite it's low potency by weight (which basically means nothing). Thegoodson (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section is huge. Much of what is said there might be better placed in a more general form on a more generic page, like benzodiazepine (or if there is a particular sub-page regarding BZD abuse, then there). There's so much information now here that I am unsure where to begin editing.

Where next Columbus? (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Columbus. I am in agreement with you and think we should fix the problems you bring up with the history section. I and a couple of other users tried to do this, but please read the rather entertaining dialogue in the "This Article Must Follow Misplaced Pages Guidelines" section on this talk page to find out what happened when we tried!

RJSampson (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Clutter

Please stop cluttering the benzodiazepines with a collection of refs to arbitrary pubmed articles. Those are largely reports of some experiments, which have been carried out sometime, somewhere and for some reason on rats, mice and brain slices. For almost every such article you will find a match which comes to contrary conclusions. Please limit the contribution to agreed conclusions, as found in pharmacology books and the FDA profiles, avoid anecdotal reports, speculative results, could have, may be involved, has one time been observed, is suspected, is being investigated, could have a theoretical connection etc. Not everything which has sometimes been suspected, investigated, speculated or observed is relevant to pharmacology and should be included. Avoid bot-like inclusion of search results. pubmed is not a source but an Augias-Stable of unfinished research and a playground for students. Example: You conclude that nitrazepam "is related" to quinazolines, by being investigated together with quinazolines in one citation. You conclude that it is a hapten, by being mentioned in an article about immuno assay tests. These are not relevant articles for pharmacology. Of course it is a hapten in an immuno assay test! That is how antibody based immuno assays work! But this has nothing to do with its pharmacology. Please limit yourself to agreed facts, like the FDA profiles. And the intention is to arrive at something which looks more like the FDA fact sheet. You have included unrelated, anecdotal, spurious, loosely associated references, to include claims of neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, carcinogenesis etc. These are not agreed facts, but you have presented them as peer reviewed facts. This is vandalism. I see this edit pattern in Diazepam, Nitrazepam, Temazepam, Chlordiazepoxide, Clobazam and others, always by the same editors under several names. Stilldoggy, Literaturegeek, Literaturejunkie etc. And don't remove a POV mark, without resolution of the dispute. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have not been a heavy contributer to the temazepam article. Thegoodson has done most of the work on the temazepam article. Leave me alone! I have been a contributer to wikipedia for a long time and you have no right to go around everywhere trying to destroy my reputation. I looked up your IP address and notice that you reside in San Francisco, California. Funnily enough only a couple of months ago I banned someone off of a website from exactly the same location and this person who I was previously on good terms with knew that in my spare time I contributed to wikipedia benzodiazepine project. I wonder could you be the same person??? Is this the reason that you keep attacking me? trying to destroy my reputation on wikipedia... Quit harrassing and following me! I see that you have been tracking my conversations that I have had if you know about about my conversations with admins. The several names that I used, an admin spoke with me about that and accepted my explaination that I just used a different username for my work computer and another username at my girlfriends house and one on my home computer. The admin would have had access to ip addresses and was able to confirm that I was using different UK based computers and not proxys or not the same computer etc. I was given the all clear by the admin and I agreed to use one name no matter what computer I am using. That was a harmless mistake on my part so please stop trying to insinuate that my hard work on wikipedia is sinister. I am not going to let you an anon user go around wikipedia trying to defame my name and character. You have no right!!! What are your real intentions for singling out me on this page??? The temazepam page is mostly thegoodson's work but yet you attack me on this page? Why are all of your edits aimed at trying to remove any content which is deemed negative?? Even the drug companies promotional literature on these drugs have a much more neutral point of view POV than your editing habits on here. You are the vandal. Here is just one of your edits to chlordiazepoxide. You deleted everything almost that didn't suit your POV. Now you are undoing the reversals of administrators like you did with this article. Also I have not been a heavy contributer to diazepam either. I am not 100% sure who you are and your genuine motives but let me tell you this, I am not going to let you go around singling me out like this!!!--Literaturegeek (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe patients, e.g. old people, want to know what the sleeping pills are, which have been given to them. And not that this is a dangerous MKULTRA brainwash drug from the CIA and KGB arsenal, also used in Russian PRISONS to TORTURE people or to keep them in a VEGETATIVE STATE. Not that it causes BRAIN ROT, CANCER, SHRINKAGE and necrosis of the TESTICLES. Not that they use the favorite drug of Nepalese JUNKIES. Not that their sleeping pills turn them into CRIMINALS in a "Jekyll and Hyde" manner. Not that their sleeping pills are mostly found in the pockets of SCOT CRIMINALS by Glasgow POLICE etc. This article is full of speculative references to unrelated, anecdotal, spurious and loosely associated material. The references are also misrepresented, they frequently don't say what the editor claims. This is a SUBTLE FORM OF VANDALISM. The matter of the article is reliable pharmacological information, the discussion of DANGERS, MISUSE and OBSCURE uses of the medication should only make up an appropriate fraction of the article. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. But this is the second time I'm going to call you on this. Nothing that you have described meets the criteria for vandalism. Misusing such terminology is damaging, and it's insulting to the editors who have worked sincerely and diligently on this and related pharmacology articles. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in the best intentions, then I may ask that this article is not turned into the black book of drug abuse and pharm conspiracy, but into something that can still be read by old people in a retirement home without suffering a stroke or needing counseling afterwards. I am old myself. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with edits concerning mkultra and temazepam's use by the CIA and the KGB, brain rot etc. You completely ignored my questions in my previous post I see. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it is not a patient information leaflet site and the editors are not writing a press release on temazepam for the elderly. Anyway your argument ain't with me, I have had only limited input into the temazepam article. This page is edit protected because you keep undoing admin reverts of your edits. Now for the LAST time LEAVE ME THE HECK ALONE NOW!!!!! Quit harrassing me, quit sending me messages accusing me of edits that I did not do. This has been going on for days. BOLD edits are only meant to be made by established editors. See wiki bold guidelines . This anon user has yet to contribute anything and has only made bold biased major deletions and slandered editors. I guess there is good reasons why only established editors should make bold deletions.--Literaturegeek (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, temazepam is commonly associated with drug abuse and was used by the CIA and the KGB. Flunitrazepam (royhpnol) is associated with date rape and always will be and both are ranked higher than most other benzos in drug schedulation because of this. Diamorphine (heroin) and its cousin morphine and oxycodone are associated with significant drug abuse. All are medications prescribed by doctors. I am sorry that this bothers you but please get over it. It is not the end of the world. You don't have to obsess about it. Having said that the article does need to be trimmed down as it does go off rambling or focuses too much on some areas. I am happy to discuss with established rational editors on ways of trimming this article down.--Literaturegeek (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So, my previous remarks and coming remarks are to whom it may concern! What I have removed or tried to remove in bold edits on benzodiazepines are e.g. claims of "neurotoxicity", "carcinogenesis", "sperm damage", "testicular shrinkage", anecdotal reports of brainrot i.e. "inclusion body encephalopathy" as well as "precocious puberty in a baby". And the Temazepam KGB, CIA, MKULTRA and PRISON TORTURE antics. They belong into a different entry and are not particular to this medication. Trust me. I have removed those, because they are insufficiently reviewed animal study results with questionable relevance to human pharmacology, or anecdotal (case) reports, not agreed side effects or risks of the medications. And I think a bold deletion is also a contribution. Sometimes less is more. Shave these articles with Occam's razor, until they are a logical organization of firmly established and relevant facts, without speculation, anecdotal reports, tangential associations. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried the diplomatic approach with you and did major deletions under the clonazepam article for you to resolve the dispute. You are never happy though until you have completely gutted the article to get it looking 100% the way you want it to be. You revert, delete without discussion. If the discussion doesn't agree with you, you delete anyway regardles or else simply flag the article as disputed. This can't go on. You never contribute of course, just demand the article is gutted and flag benzo article after benzo article as "under dispute" if anyone even admins dare to revert one of your edits. You obsess about it and you have a "no retreat no surrender" battle to the end type of approach. I can see you being a person who will live out the remaining 10 years of your life on wikipedia every day causing endless wars, fights until you have an article suiting your POV 100%. You harass me, complain and cause mayhem until you get your own way. Stilldoggy my old account tried to accomodate you. It is impossible. I used to enjoy wikipedia. Now it has become a living nightmare sadly over the past couple of days. Some of your suggestions were good, you have a few good points and I did try to work with you initially but to no avail. I am sorry but have you ever considered maybe chronic benzodiazepines sedative hypnotics might, just might be having an adverse effect on your mind and your judgement? Have you always been this obsessive? Is there anyone else you can focus your energies on rather than me? Maybe you don't but I have a life to lead you know. I just can't spend 3 or 4 hours every night arguing about every last edit.--Literaturegeek (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have used your name only once, criticizing your unchecked inclusion of refs. Now ... relax. No more bad dreams... no more bad memories. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, we don't take hypnotic sedatives in our retirement home. We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures,who is truth-speaking, a chief in assemblies, with a thousand ears, well-shapen, with ten thousand eyes, high, with full knowledge, strong, sleepless, and ever awake; Before whom Verethraghna, made by Ahura, runs opposing the foes in the shape of a boar, a sharp-toothed he-boar, a sharp-jawed boar, that kills at one stroke, pursuing, wrathful, with a dripping face; strong, with iron feet, iron fore-paws, iron weapons, an iron tail, and iron jaws; Who, eagerly clinging to the fleeing foe, along with Manly Courage, smites the foe in battle, and does not think he has smitten him, nor does he consider it a blow till he has smitten away the marrow and the column of life, the marrow and the spring of existence. He cuts all the limbs to pieces, and mingles, together with the earth, the bones, hair, brains, and blood of the men who have lied unto Mithra. For his brightness and glory, we offer him a sacrifice worth being heard, namely, unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class pharmacology articles
• High-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles