Talk:2C-T-7

the image is wrong, someone please correct it.

"Tetris"

I can't find any sources claiming this compound is known on the street as "tetris." The article that I assume the second citation is referencing, [1], makes no claims of the sort, and is, in fact, incorrectly cited. The third citation also does not make this claim. Ohnodoctor (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Murple

To be honest, it doesn't seem like this violates no original research. Three deaths reported, not two, and why take out the bit about nootropic properties? Miserlou 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just read your report, Murple, great research! I think this article is coming on nicely. Could do with a spinning molecule.Miserlou 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian analog act?

Don't think there's such a thing.. the Analog Act exists in the US, not Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.85.40 (talk) 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's true, the CDSA does not mention that analogues of 2CB or mescaline would be illegal... it only says so for amphetamine, and I don't think 2c-t-7 would be considered substantially similar to amphetamine. I am changing the article 198.53.41.16 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MAOI effects?

So, what's up with the section on the MAOI effects? Reading the cited journal, it appears they tested the thiopropylphenylethylamine wihtout the methoxy's. So it should be changed to a suspected or likely MAOI, no? At least the source doesn't seem to establish it conclusivly, though does suggest it. 65.185.93.86 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed section to poosible MAOI effects as nobody objected for a while (I had another comment earlier in Feb that I removed with this one.65.185.93.86 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the paper doesn't mention the 2,5-desmethoxy analogue anywhere. There is are alpha-methyl (amphetamine; compound 8c) and alpha-ethyl (9c) analogues described though. Alibobar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Citations , writing

I think the citations are pretty good now, or at least as good as can be had for something with a lot of bullshit hyperbole but little objective facts out there. Unless someone digs up the autposies I think we've got a lot of what was needed, so I've removed another citation needed tag.

That said, after my edits the paragraph reads pretty crappy on the deaths. While all claims are cited, some aren't till a sentence later than they appear. Anyone wanna take a stab at cleaning it up? I'm pretty bad at wikipedia style and so its hard to write stuff and not loose citations.

If anyone has questions about the citations for the previously identified uncited claims post here and we'll work it out. Maybe someone better than me can figure out how to present the information on deaths better. I would think a table would be pretty good for this purpose, and the three individuals can be shown along with the drugs they took and dosages, where known.

Could be a nice counterpoint to some of the ignorant claims like the Partnership for a Drug Free America's Claim that this drug can be deadly at small doses, despite no known cases of such happeneing and the partnership not even providing any evidence one could infer that from.

Anyone object to removing the tag at the top now re citations? If so, point out what needs fixed. --Δζ (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please find a source to support this (Erowid, PubMed, BBC, etc.) "the three known deaths of 2C-T-7 intoxicated individuals, all involved either excessive insufflated doses or the concomitant ingestion of other stimulants such as ephedrine and MDMA." I will be forced to remove them if you cannot. Thank you.--Astavats (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I mean where the sources aren't clear and I or someone needs to improve them, but thanks for identifyinig this. There are three known or attributed deaths while someone was on 2CT7, and the sources are presented in the deaths section. The problem is that none of the sources that list dosages are self aware (don't discuss the other deaths) and some don't indicate the person's name, but do give other information that allows the person to be identified.

But if you remember there are only three deaths (number cited on the DEA page I believe and I can find no more in the scientific literature searches I did or news searches) and check out the sources you can see that they all either took stimulants like ephedrine or MDMA or took excessive insufflated doses. All are sourced, just poorly. The source for the dose being 'excessive' for the one person who died while insufflating the drug is also present, and I believe it is on the DEA page, though I may be mistaken. I'll take a hack at the article and try to make it read better and the citations better later. Maybe I'll just list the deaths and known drugs/dosages/routes in seperate paragraphs since there are only three and it would make the claim you identified clear.--Δζ (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the clarrification with sources that I or someone should add (I'll get around to it in a bit if no one else does). All of these are allready in the article they just aren't as clear as they should be (cited wrong spot or at second claim or sentence structure sucks).

Source for three deaths total as of date of source publication and source for "excessive dose" opinion re: insufflation death, and source for claim that all deaths not involving the excessive dose involved MDMA use: "In the fall of 2000, a young healthy male died following snorting an excessive amount of 2C-T-7. Since this initial 2C-T-7-related death, two additional deaths reported in April 2001 have been linked to 2C-T-7. These two deaths resulted from the co-abuse of 2C-T-7 with MDMA." http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/2ct7.htm

Source for the Joshua Robbins death and mentions another death (Robbins is not the excessive dose kid mentioned by the DEA or the Analytical Toxicology journal article, it is another large dose that lead to death, though it is the same dosage as the DEA called excessive, which is strange) and some supporting evidence for the additional drugs Robbins took: "In the same month, Joshua Robbins, a seventeen-year-old from Cordova, Tennessee died after snorting between thirty and thirty-five milligrams of 2C-T-7, not long after taking several other stimulant drugs. According to Rolling Stone, which ran an article on Robbins' death, in the twelve hours before he died Robbins also had consumed Ecstasy, nitrous oxide, and a "mini-thin" containing ephedrine and guaifenisen." Platoni, Chris. "A psychedelic summer". East Bay Express May 1st 2002 (this is online if you search- easy to find)

Additional source for the "excessive dose death" mentioned by the DEA. Though this article was published quite a bit later, it does refrence the 2000 death, which was the first known and is the one that the DEA called excessive and which matches in dosage one of the later dosages per the East Bay Express: "This compound was initially identified from a routine screening procedure in postmortem urine from a 20-year-old male that died in a local emergency room after reportedly insufflating 35 mg." Analytical Toxicology 27.7 (2003): 493-98 (I need to add the author's name to the cite, must have messed that up when forming it)

There's also the rolling stone article cited by someone, not me, but I don't know what it says cuz I haven't pulled it yet. I know in general it discusses the drug and one of the deaths and could be used if needed and found.

Let me know if this clears it up as to the authenticity and if you have any other concerns. Once the sentence structure and sources are lined up more clearly would you be cool with removing the citation tag? If not, let me know what else you have an issue with. Thanks for the input.--Δζ (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing citation tag in light of no additional issues identified. If anyone disagrees, bring it up here.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Murple's informal research paper on erowid. Should refrence be included?

While Murple's paper may not be notable enough in general, it is on eof hte few reviews of this substance, and I'm kind of torn- wikipedia policy notwithstanding.

Here's what appears in the second paragraph of the article, in the lead (or whatever its called prior to TOC).

"There has been little real research done on this chemical other than Shulgin's comments in PiHKAL. There have been a few small animal studies mostly aimed at detecting metabolites, and an informal amateur research paper written by Murple titled Sulfurous Samadhi.[4]"

Given that the murple paper isn't well cited, if at all, I don't know if this is a very good source to mention in the second paragraph. While I don't know if it's appropriate at all, I think an external link may be supplied, but I don't know if it deserves mention in the summary given that it isn't well-cited, though skimming it reveals it is likely accurate.

Thoughts? I propose removing refrence of it in the lead and relegating it to the existing external link section with a brief description printed there. IF some wikipedia guidelines invoker comes along I'd be in favor of removing it all together if it can be shown to be against policy- which it probably is, though I don't know.

I'll move it to external links only unless objections are raised.--Δζ (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed stuff around, could someone give opinion on article now?

Hey, I removed a citation needed tag and moved a paragraph from pharm to death sections, then expanded. Could someone look over the article, particularly the deaths sectino and pharm section, and see what they think of it and/or my changes? Also, could somone give me a link or help with citing a previously-refrenced footnote/source? I don't want to just have the references filled with duplicated sources, but there are statements that look pretty suspect and/or just need a source to look like they belong in an encyclopedia, that I've not yet cited if the cite is included elsewhere, for formating reasons. If someone could clear up how to make additional cites to new points in the text, that would help me and the article.

The new paragraph I made from some existing text is:

All of these known deaths of individuals under the influence of 2C-T-7, therefore, occurred in those known either to be intoxicated with potentially deadly[15] stimulants such as ephedrine or MDMA or after the individual insufflated an excessive amount of 2C-T-7- excessive being an amount greater than necessary to induce the full range of the drug's effects, such as the reported 35mg insufflated dose taken by the individual who died in the Fall of 2000. This reported dose was characterized as "excessive" by the US DEA. Additionally, ephedrine, itself an MAO inhibitor,[16] and MDMA may interact with any monoamine oxidase inhibition by 2C-T-7, which is presently speculative, to increase the effects of MDMA or ephedrine[17], which together were known to be present in two of the three deaths of 2C-T-7-intoxicated individuals. Ephedrine's cardiovascular effects[18] have previously been shown to be potentiated by some MAO-A inhibitors[19]

These are all able to be cited, and I think I've got everything cited now that needs it, though not neccesarily in this paragraph (waiting to see how to cite one footnote in multiple places in text before adding the additional cites). I hope this doesn't sound too much like advancing a point of view. For disclosure, I find the reporting and political activities surrounding this substance to be a bit of a moral panic and pretty ignorant/pointless, but I've tried to stick to the facts and citeable stuff in my edits. I feel the inclusion of the fact that no one has died except those who took potentially cardiotoxic drugs (ephedrine and MDMA) that have some MAO metabolism/inhibition issues, and those who took an excessive dose and insufflated it, is something that needs to be indicated- especially since the sources find these factors relevant, even the US DEA.

Thoughts appreciated.--Δζ (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article needs work and it's too strongly biased against ill effects

There is no history about this substance. Alexander Shulgin, the chemist that discovered this compound considered it one the top six substances he ever discovered, implying significant therapeutic potential. It should be noted it's a Schedule One substance that prohibits scientist from studying this substance.