Talk:Desomorphine

Toxicity paragraph
For this article to be scientifically (and medically) correct, the "Toxicity" paragraph should be renamed to "Toxicity related to the use of impure Desomorphine formulas" - and to add a proper "Side effects" section with the -actual- side effects caused by the actual - pure - pharmaceutical-grade Desomorphine's use, since, obviously, this article is about a specific singular chemical - hey, there's even a 3D construction thereof - by which I mean that, despite the "Krokodil phenomenon" - this article is *mainly* about the specific drug/chemical "Desomorphine" by itself.

So - a proper way to write it would be to provide the effects and side-effects of the drug Desomorphine when taken medically or recreationally in its medical form, and as an appendix - a proper statement (most of which already exists in the "Side-effects" paragraph about the appeared toxicity and specific side-effects caused by the impure clandestine manufactured (or the attempted manufacturing) of Desomorphine illegally using the method described at the top of the article (similarly to the pseudoephedrine-based low-grade methamphetamine manufacture):

This should be added as an appendix - not as the only statement of possible side-effects of Desomorphine, cause if so - why bother providing actual side-effects of withdrawn drugs at all? Is it a selective policy? What prevents you from simply adding the actual (and easily obtainable) side-effects of medical use of Desomorphine?

My questions feel rhetoric - but I'm dead serious - there's no reason to provide information about both sides of the coin, metaphorically speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.249.232 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reference
The reference #10 seems incorrect (Savchuk, S. A.; Barsegyan, S. S.; Barsegyan, I. B.; Kolesov, G. M. (2008). "Chromatographic study of expert and biological samples containing desomorphine". Journal of Analytical Chemistry 63 (4): 361-370. doi:10.1007/s10809-008-4009-5.)

This is an analytical journal, so it probably does not contain how the junkies make the Krokodile. But this is just a hint, becouse our university has no access to this journal.

Somebody - who has access - please check this article!

193.6.136.39 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That article says in the introduction that krokodil is made using codeine, iodine and phosphorus, but they don't give any details of the methods used, the authors don't seem very interested in this, but more want to find out what is actually in the "krokodil" mix the users are injecting. They suggest more than one technique is being used and don't say what the ingredients might be, but one sample tested had more methyldesorphine than desomorphine present, and that seems most unlikely to be produced just from codeine, iodine and phosphorus. Meodipt (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard a different version of why it's called "Krokodil"; as far as I know it's because the junkies look like as if they've been bitten by a crocodile. Oh Frustration (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually this theory seems to be a mere yellow press rumor, that, however, is still a perfectly valid assumption.

Split suggestion
I think that it may be a good idea to split this article between desomorphine and the krokodil phenomena - it seems to me that the latter is less about the substance and more to do with the manufacture and the impurities and so on... Egg Centric 14:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * i dont agree. comapre with Heroin Decora (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the split, krokodil is often faked, it is also possible they are synthesizing any number of different compounds, tetrahydrodesoxymorphine also likely. Krokodil is dangerous due to it's poor filtration of large particles, the failure to neutralize sulfuric acid, and the presence of other impurities.  Krokodil, if made in the "meth cook" style, is probably only about 5% pure...

take a look in this forum: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.214.34 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks IP - it seems that krokodil can contain all kinds of fun stuff, and actually the claim that codeine may be bought OTC in russia doesn't even seem to be the case; or at least if bought it's usually in compounds - that's the same in the UK! [autodidact junkie] Indeed iirc you can buy codeine pills OTC in france and even in the UK you can buy 600mg of codeine in linctus form if you talk a chemist into letting you[/junkie] Egg   Centri  c  21:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple quotes from this article (Grund et al, July 2013, International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 265-274): ""...using gas chromatography, Savchuk et al. (2008) identified four synthetic analogues of desomorphine, (traces of) codeine and other compounds in “desomorphine” samples, with the desomorphine fraction ranging from traces to 75%""

""Krokodil's actual psychoactive content may therefore strongly depend on the medicines, chemicals and reagents available locally, the actual reactions used and on the skills and preferences of those cooking and consuming the drug.""

So it probably would be better to split this to Krokodil (drug)---it's redirect now. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree, a similar discussion has been had on whether to split MDMA and Ecstasy (drug) because of analogous issues with unknown contents of street pills etc but it was decided to keep it as one page. The toxic outcomes associated with the illicit use of "Krokodil" are still fundamentally related to desomorphine use - even if the addicts fail to actually make desomorphine and instead inject unreacted codeine and toxic crap plus random opiate mix, the intention was still to make desomorphine, and the highly addicting nature of the times they did actually get desomorphine has to be a large part of why addicts carry on using it despite the gangrene etc! Meodipt (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that it should stay the same, per the points of Meodipt and Decora. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If a split is accepted then there need to be a lot more references on krokodil than there are now. Testem (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Not sure? This is blowing up in the US and when I went looking I did find http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Journal+of+Addictive+Diseases+krokodil&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= which means there are peer-reviewed Journal articles on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2QTNoH8 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting within the article
Even if a split is not accepted then desomorphine and krokodil should be differentiated much better than they currently are. A section which concerns only "krokodil" and no mention of it elsewhere seems best. Testem (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting a bit woowoo here guys. >_>

 * While crude amateur attempts to make krokodil will almost invariably still contain some remaining codeine, as well as other "accidentally produced" synthetic opioids such as iodocodeine, some of the krokodil produced also contains other drugs. For example, the codeine pills sold in Russia may also contain ingredients such as caffeine, paracetamol, or diphenhydramine (coincidentally an opioid potentiator);

Even the most primitive home production would use a CWE to extract the codeine which would ditch 'other drugs' such as the caffeine and paracetamol. If they're using iodine and RP for the cat they'd be following meth cook recipe's bastardized for their use which would also include the preambles attached to all quasi-scientific 'home brew' documents of that nature explaining, in depth, the risks and contaminants and how 'gunk in gunk out' is a good reason to ensure that you aren't reacting anything but the codeine first, inclusive with various turps 'cures.'

It's a bit naive at best, or sensationalised (ie: taking the tabloid news articles at their worth) at worst, but given that news is the main primary source for wiki articles I can see why neutrality would be an issue when the news sites on the subject are busy impersonating chicken little when deso has been home cooked since the 60's with few deaths or injuries compared to, well, even OTC medications when you think about it. But the above paragraph in particular is too naive to pass up commenting on.

Perhaps a better source is needed, perhaps an editor with a good pair of scissors to cut out the hokum is needed, but something ought to be done about it. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

8-10 times more potent than morphine?
I have yet to see a study that shows how desomorphine is ten times more "potent" than morphine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.78.229 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a study for ya (not before giving a quote) - " In 1942, a study was conducted comparing the effects of 1 mg desomorphine to 10 mg morphine injected subcutaneously in 902 patients with cancer. Pain relief averaged 2 hours and 25 minutes in the 126 patients that received desomorphine and 3 hours and 7 minutes in the 776 patients that received morphine." This is just from the Desomorphine page on erowid.

Now there's the information about the study cited:

Eddy NB, Halbach H, Braenden OJ. "Synthetic Substances with Morphine-Like Effect". Synthetic Substances with Morphine-Like Effect 1957; 17:569-863

Bye.

are you crazy?
why would you ever put this on the internet for all to see? now everybody knows how or what is needed to produce this junk!! thats how you stop a problem like this stuff is causing isnt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.168.167 (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read this: What Wikipedia is not --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read a different article? Because I certainly couldn't go out and make some krokodil right now, and I read it. Furthermore, everything on here is sourced, so your complaint is kind of like complaining that google returns items you don't like. Finally, I'd say that the way to stop a problem like this is to stop cracking down on heroin, because junkies are gonna get their fix anyway and better heroin than krokodil or whatever the next and shittier thing would be. 69.122.244.46 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero verified cases of krokodil abuse in the United States?
Interesting article in Slate: The Krokodil Menace Now Seems Faker Than Ever (and It Already Seemed Very, Very Fake). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ariz. poison control center reports first U.S. cases of krokodil use -- Moxy (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "In Arizona, doctors at Banner Medical Center have identified several cases of suspected krokodil use, though all remain unconfirmed, said Dr. Frank LoVecchio, co-medical director of Banner's Poison Control Center." Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-met-krokodil-hunt-20131027_1_bath-salts-heroin-false-alarm


 * "In Phoenix, physicians told toxicologists at the Banner Good Samaritan Poison Control Center that they spotted symptoms consistent with krokodil, an intravenous drug that is prevalent in Russia and Eastern European countries, according to a statement released to the Los Angeles Times. Although toxicology reports have yet to confirm the presence of krokodil, reports in the media sounded the alarm, prompting fascination and speculation. 'The Most Horrifying Drug in the World Comes to the US,' said Time magazine. Mother Jones minced no words: 'Zombie Apocalypse Drug Reaches US: This Is Not a Joke.'" ... "Absent any definitive proof that krokodil abuse has occurred, the DEA has -- so far -- labeled the Arizona cases anecdotal. Other reports of krokodil in the last two years in Alabama and Arkansas were never confirmed, agency spokesman Rusty Payne said. 'When I hear about about these things like krokodil, I’m skeptical,' Payne said. 'I’m not believing it until I get a lab report. There’s still no evidence that it has entered the illicit drug market in the U.S.', Payne said." Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/28/nation/la-na-nn-krokodil-heroin-arizona-20130927 --Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

((od}}

Drug withdrawal: St. Louis Krokodil paper disappears

Krokodil hype: Is toxic 'flesh-eating' street drug in Canada?

“Krokodil” paper withdrawn by American Journal of Medicine

DEA Debunks Krokodil Sightings

Why You Don't Need to Worry About 'Flesh-Eating' Drug Krokodil

Reports of U.S. "Krokodil" Epidemic Exaggerated

Don’t Believe the Hype about the “Flesh-Eating” Drug Krokodil

The Krokodil Menace Now Seems Faker Than Ever (and It Already Seemed Very, Very Fake)

Krokodil in Kentuckiana: Urban threat or urban legend?

Krokodil...not so fast, my friends!

Another Way Prohibition Makes People's Flesh Rot

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a medical article, and all sources must conform to WP:MEDRS.
I just went through the article and removed all tabloid journalism sources and claims. In particular, the Daily Mail has been publishing a series of articles that have been severely criticized by the medical and scientific community, and again and again I have found that if I pick a phrase out of an article in the US press and search on it, it turns out that they are rehashing a Daily mail article. This is a medical article, and all sources must conform to WP:MEDRS.

On a related note, I need someone who reads Russian to check the Russian-language sources and determine whether they meed the criteria in WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Community
Hello all! I am a university student editing this page for a class assignment. Thank you for your patience. I've changed the formatting of the previous page (subheadings into regular headings) and i've gone into deeper detail on certain aspects (such as effects -> health effects). I hope I've made a helpful contribution! Thanks, -Jamessze (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Toxicity
Added expansion needed tag, as the article lacks any info on the toxicity of pure desomorphine. AFAIK all opioids are toxic at a sufficient dosage (i.e. overdose). If no reputable source can be found regarding desomorphine's toxicity (or lack thereof), at least a link to Opioid_overdose should be added. Not adding this myself as I don't have the time to research and my AFAIK means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.153.85 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A study of the crude street preparation that became in vogue in Russia and neighbors
The Chemistry Behind "Krokodil": Street-Like Synthesis & Product Analysis Forensic Science International (2015) Nagelfar (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Zombie drug
Scopohyoscpnol is the zombie drug, not this thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.38.178 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Source or it didn’t happen. I’m pretty sure that’s an urban myth, since no drug I’ve ever seen has that naming convention//string (“scpn”). Dfcorrea00 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Subsection Transfer
In reference to what some other uses have said, discussing recreational uses under the "Uses" section breaks with wikipedia norms as this is an article about the drug as a legitimately used medicine, although I disagree with it neccessitating the creation of a new article. All information regarding the recreational use/abuse trends of a drug is traditionally placed within the "Society and culture" section of an article (as is the case with most articles on opioids, benzodiazepines, and other potentional drugs of abuse); I recommend transferring the entirety of the "Recreation" subsection from "Uses" to "Society and culture" in order to conform with Wikipedia's standard practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.190.142 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

History section
The history is more elaborated in the introduction of the article than in the history section since some information is missing there. Maybe get rid of the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:1a3f:c906:f0a7:df9f:9e44:a2d0 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)