Talk:Temazepam/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia. 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherealmuse (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

Temazepam is currently an S4 drug in Australia, as only the tablet form is available for prescription (according to MIMS anyway- there aren't any capsule forms of temazepam on MIMS, which leads me to assume temazepam capsules have been taken off the market). Adolon au (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks like temazepam capsules were taken off the Australian market in March 2004 (http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/27/3/58/9/) and for a little more information after they were taken off, (http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/27/5/109/13/) -This may have coincided with the rescheduling of the drug to S4, I'll see if I can get confirmation of that. Adolon au (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.[3] 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.[4][5][6][7] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. Another page on writing good Wikipedia 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, [you should] 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Not like the ones started in 1914 and 1939 you mean? --David from Downunder (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Psst, David, don't mention the war, don't mention the war. AAHHH, the Gentlemen from Germany are there, I will immediately march into the kitchen and occupy it to prepare the sausages. "The sausages, please. One pickled Goering, two Colditz-Salad and two Prawns-Goebbels. -- Ohhh... sorry I got confused because everybody is talking about the war here." "WILL YOU PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE WAR???!!!" "You started it."- "We did not start it" - "Yes you did, you invaded Poland." (from Fawlty Towers) 70.137.178.160 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't know how to say this, but... fire. Fire. F-f-f-f-f-fire. FIRE! FIRE!!!" --David from Downunder (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wenn ist dass Nunstruck grit und Shlotermyer? Ja, Beierhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!" ... ??? ... !!! ... "BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA...URGHHHH!!!" (German dies of "deadly joke" secret weapon of the British service) Monty Python

70.137.190.187 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aahchtunk, Aahchtunk!! Attention, pazzengerrss off ze Luffthanza, rready forr takeoff!! All pazzengerrss close ze seat belts, and I vant to hearr only vone CLICK!!! 70.137.190.187 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To the German, Down-Under and other WWII participants - I thought that this would interest you, apparently it is all the rage in Australia these days (both wrecks found last month), truly one of the most bizarre and (relatively) unknown incidents in WWII (sort of like a Polar Bear finding a Penguin)......io_editor (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Io io... DON'T MENTION THE WAR! Yes, it's big news. I live in Sydney, which is way across the paddock from where they found HMAS Sydney. That was the second HMAS Sydney. I live right near the mast of the first HMAS Sydney, which is planted right next to where Mission Impossible II was filmed. Photos of both are in this article: Bradleys_Head. --David from Downunder (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your immaturity is now another reason to take either of you more seriously, no? If demeaning Germany or it's history by mentioning the first or second world wars provides recreational relief for the two of you, then by all means, continue. BTW, exactly what has Australia accomplished? Had you ever taken on Germany without the aid of nearly half of the world, your entire nation would have been overtaken by Germany in less than 2 weeks. Japan would have easily accomplished the same. Even the Western allies, including the US would have all been defeated had the Soviets not devoured close to 90% of our military and all its resources. None of the Western allies would have never been able to stomach the kind of war we were fighting. Just ask the Russians. Though we shouldn't get off topic here, you both know that, no? TheGoodSon 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, don't criticise me for mentioning the war... YOU STARTED IT. --David from Downunder (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was NO bashing in the humour. Unfortunately, the only one to do any REAL country bashing is you, and it looks very, very silly. They were referring to Monty Python and Fawlty Towers scenes, which serve to ridicule the war - and you really should see these to put everything in perspective - after all its 2008 now!?!io_editor (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not immaturity, kid. Its british humor. 70.137.129.101 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, you are showing a fake profile. Pride in the misguided WW2 goals and achievements of Germany would be incompatible with a normal intelligence and a higher education. 70.137.129.101 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest drop it - you know how nationalism runs deep, most countries.io_editor (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen those scenes from Monty Python and Faulty Towers, but I have never found them to be comical. British humor? Sorry, I never found "British humor" funny. It's distasteful, repetitive, and boring. I was also stating facts when I claimed that Australia would have been overtaken in less than 2 weeks by either the Germans or Japanese (if France fell in a month, Australia would have been gone in far less, I assure you) and Russians devoured about 90% of our military. It's not "nationlism or pride in WW2 goals and chievements" when anyone states Germany was a top military power at the time, it's a FACT, but you seem to have something against facts. It is not "nationalism", but even if I were to be a German nationalist, why would you care? But believe it or not, most Germans, especially younger Germans or very old Germans will be up in arms against such ridicule and attempts at humiliation, and the "nationalism is inherently dangerous" idea has been slowly fading away since 1990, just in case you don't know. Most Brits (and it's usually them) that make jokes about the war are quickly dismissed with a middle finger or some sort of retort that 25 years ago might not have been heard. It's not the same as it was prior to unification. If you think anyone today is going to stand back and let you make jokes about historical events at our expense, then you are terribly mistaken. TheGoodSon 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Goodson... you really cracked me up when you wrote "I have seen those scenes from Monty Python and Faulty Towers, but I have never found them to be comical. British humor? Sorry, I never found "British humor" funny. It's distasteful, repetitive, and boring" but I was not at all surprised. What a sad life you lead: unable to laugh at British comedy and all your jollies coming from pride for your country's past attempts to subjugate the world (failed attempts at that!) and all the millions tortured and slaughtered. For your information, Japan did attack Australia, bombing Darwin and torpedoing Sydney, but last time I looked out the window it was still there. But my cousin isn't - he went down with the HMAS Sydney. So, you be proud of that and all the other deaths, and I'll be proud that we kept our sense of humour. The repetition in British humour is one of the keys to its success; your repetitive nationalism and empty threats are extremely distasteful and boring, so I recommend you stop dreaming about another takeover attempt and pull your head in.   --David from Downunder (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The young generation is back to square one in Germany. So history will have to repeat itself again and again every 70 years, when the previous experience has been forgotten. They don't want to learn from history. This is indeed incompatible with normal intelligence and higher education. I had expected that kind of mindset in people with a slightly subnormal intelligence.

A joke for goodson: Two peanuts are walking down the street. Says one to the other: I feel persecuted. 70.137.153.209 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 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)


 * I've just scaled the length and breadth of this discussion page and am wondering what can be done to the article. I personally feel its a bit wordy, and thought that to get the ball rolling again I might ask others (if anyone's still interested) what sections of the article they feel are most relevant to temazepam and what sections of the article perhaps belong more to another article. I don't think any of the information on the page should be removed entirely- its just that I feel readers are served better by concise information that pertains most critically to their search. If I may suggest, the Abuse Epidemic section may be better collated with sections from other articles to produce a page of their own- I notice there's a somewhat largish section on crime in the Benzodiazepine article, and the article on Drug Trade contains only a small amount on temazepam, linking to here instead of what I feel should be the other way around.


 * I don't want to step on anybody's toes though- I'm new to this, and I don't want to offend anyone here who have put their care and attention into this article. Its just that, despite being 3AM here and it being the night before a pharmacology test (nothing major, only worth 10% really), I had Basil Poledouris' 'Klendathu Drop' playing before and something in it inspired me to do something (other than study :P). Adolon au (talk) 17:05, 21 May 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 Wikipedia 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 |undefined /  C ) 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. Wikipedia 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)
 * Erm... right. Excuse me, but what does the Avesta have to do with this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For a detailed discussion of the above mentioned iron he-boar look up wp "Wonder Warthog" and read the comix "Wonder Warthog and the invasion of the pigs from Uranus". Comp[are that to above Avesta text. Its funny. 70.137.157.151 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you see what I am up against. I am having to spend 3 - 4 hours a day baby sitting this guys deletions and edits. It has to stop. I ain't saying I am the perfect editor but my goodness at least I am rational and at least I cite sources. Sorry I am just kinda pissed that no one from wikipedia staff is doing anything about this guy and stopping his deletion crusade through all of the benzo articles. I have been complaining for 3 days now. Please help.--Literaturegeek (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Literaturegeek wrote: "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?" See above. And if I want to spend the "remaining 10 yrs of my life" bickering like that. No, we don't take sedative hypnotics in the retirement home. We are never asleep, always awake;-) And I find his question insolent, like many of his remarks it is ad hominem. I would be "irrational" etc. I would have a hidden "agenda", "working for the pharm industry" etc. I have not used this kind of attacks. "Baby sitting" is also insolent. I think I had a valid point to make to start a discussion. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok guys, everyone just take a breath and calm down. I know that editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating due to our personal points of view/opinions. First things first. Huge wholesale changes to an article, any article, really need to be tackled on the talk page. Gutting the article and then casting aspersions/barbs at one another isn't going to solve anything except to inflame the situation. I suggest that someone makes a request for comment to open up discussion. If it's not done, I'll end up doing it myself, but since I only monitor this article, I'll leave it to the main editors first. In the event that this is ignore and user's revert one another, WP:3RR might be the way to go. I make one request though. Please, do not remove cited material without discussing it first.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89: More important that we don't include such cited material without a discussion, making sure that the citation says what the text says, that the citation has to do with the matter at all, that the citation has relevance for the topic at hand and that the citation is not spurious, loosely associated, tangential or anecdotal. We have to have a fundamental discussion of the encyclopedia level of evidence vs. arbitrary speculative research, found sometime, somewhere. Virtually everything has been suspected or speculated or investigated sometimes. The unchecked inclusion of an assortment of such speculations makes the associations of the article completely arbitrary. This may lead to an arbitrary amount of disinformation, e.g. arbitrary associations with cancer, brain damage, testicular shrinkage, sperm damage, disfigured babies, abuse, addiction, depravity, crime, police records, and the coroners office remind me a good bit of Anslingers anti-drug campaign. I guess this is all only a coincidence. I am also in the opinion, that such material should not take an important part of the article. Old people in a retirement home will suffer a stroke or need counseling after learning that their sleeping pills are MKULTRA drugs from the KGB and CIA arsenal, also used to torture Russian prisoners and turn them into vegetables, that they are the favorite of Nepalese junkies and mainly found in the pockets of criminals in the morgue. Furthermore that they cause cancer, braindamage and testicular shrinkage and turn them into criminals in a Jekyll and Hyde manner. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some references to human studies which showed brain damage, similar to but less severe that that seen in chronic alcoholics. Studies were performed in therapeutic prescribed dose users. Here is ref one. and here is ref two. The FDA has classified benzodiazepines as potentially harmful to babies. The benzo articles contain both the benefits and the negative consequences of usage as do the opiate wikipedia articles. Wikipedia reports on the facts. It does not report on only the positive or only the negative aspects of any drug class. You need to start using citations for your arguments and not just your POV. You have been filling up the benzo talk pages all over wikipedia and making harmful deletions to multiple articles and have never once produced a citation to back up your actions.--Literaturegeek (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Both refs anecdotal, N=17, N=20, both biased, collective=psych ward patients, and reviewers of the scan. Study with related result, blind http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10653201 I may remind you that in similarly biased collective studies {prison, juvenile hall, racial mongrels(!), jews(!), gypsies(!), political dissidents(!), alleged sociopaths) similar findings have been reported and faithfully supported with statistical evidence. Such reports have been the basis of unimaginable depravities of science, like eugenics, apartheid laws and the recognition of "dissidence" as a treatable mental/neurological disease = "querulatory psychopathy". 70.137.178.160 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy rating by FDA, agreed. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom what about my views
Wisdom, I am sorry but I have to question your "wisdom" lol. Don't take offense you have been very good at trying to handle the situation and I would vote you for being admin if it ever came up. Your suggestion is that we get people to comment on the article for myself and the anon user. Now what good is that gonna do? Nothing! How am I meant to reason with someone who is obviously mentally unwell, perhaps in some sort of psychosis? Look at this edit. and this edit. when trying to have serious conversations and "mediate" and "resolve conflicts". Everyone is addressing the anon's "conerns". Well what about my concerns? I want to know why an anon user has been allowed to run amok and out of control all over wikipedia deleting, editing harmfully, causing mayhem, who obviously is not playing with the full deck. I am not impressed at all with how administrators have handled this situation at all. I don't like to post my feelings and perhaps hurt the feelings of this anon user but enough is enough already! Obviously beating around the bush is not doing any good. The wikipedia admins handling of this situation in my opinion has not been good and appropriate action has not been taken. Enough is enough! Wisdom this is what you should be doing is putting out an assessment on whether this anon user needs permanently banned or not. This experience has been and is hell for me. I feel I have been wronged that this person hasn't been banned yet. I have contributed a lot to wikipedia, in peace and quiet for over a year. Once this anon user has gone away might then be a time when serious editors can discuss pruning the temazepam article. I have had enough of this and I am getting increasingly frustrated with the minimal admin action. Sorry. No offense to any one particular admin. They have been nice people when I have delt with them on a personal level. So for a change can my concerns be addressed, why has this person not been banned yet? How much longer am I going to be tortured on here for?--Literaturegeek (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not aimed at anyone in particular.... I am sick of hearing "mediate", "conflict resolution", "request comments on the article". We already got a commenter from wiki pharmacology to comment on the chlordiazepoxide article. Did that satisfy the anon user, nope, so comments on articles does not help deal with this individual. So comments on the article does not seem to shut this anon user up. They keep doing what they are doing and going on and on like a broken record in talk pages and running around deleting stuff like crazy. It is never gonna end. The problem is a crazed user talking gibberish and running amok on wikipedia!!! That is the problem, so what is wikipedia's solution gonna be? Please oh please no one reply with "talk to the psychotic person and mediate". I think I will explode. The person is psychotic and causing mayhem, deleting huge chunks out of multiple articles adding nonsense with no citations produced even once!!! I am just depressed and frustrated. I don't like to be a troublemaker, I try to get along but this is really really testing my patience! I deserved none of this at all and have none nothing wrong. When is this gonna end?--Literaturegeek (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On a general note, accusing people of "impaired judgement due to chronic sedative hypnotic use", "psychosis", "not playing a full deck", "running amok", being "pro-drug", "working for the drug company" etc. is not nice, is ad hominem. I cited a verse containing "sleepless, always awake" as a wind up in response to the "impaired judgement due to chronic sedative hypnotic use". And: No, not all people disputing the article are crazed sedative users. This is no psych ward. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You started personally attacking me by attacking my nationality. and this edit. Prior to these edits, I really tried to resolve the dispute and was nice to you. I even tried ignoring you and told you I wanted to more contact with you but you then started personally attacking me and dragged me back onto wikipedia to defend myself on talk pages. I can't escape you unless I leave wikipedia. So quit your lying. I resisted sinking to your level for quite a while and tried very hard to resolve this but I have had 4 hours everyday and 6 hours yesterday for almost a week now of listening to and replying to your nonsense and trying to stop you flying around damaging multiple articles, I care no longer. I have been doing the work of administrators and it is hard without any powers. I want you to go away so I can continue contributing to wikipedia in peace like I have been for over a year now.--Literaturegeek (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of having an agenda, working for the drug company. What agenda?? Tried to figure out if this is maybe a cultural difference of UK vs. the old west. Or could it be a generation problem? Or is it a hint of Mosley? How could I know? 70.137.178.160 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea maybe because you gutted and damaged many benzo articles! You are a troll and the sooner admins properly investigate your behaviour on here the better because I am sick of your trolling!--Literaturegeek (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * - Literaturegeek - the Anon did not personal attack "me by attacking my nationality" here and this edit here. Also he does not seem to have "some sort of psychosis" and he is kidding you about the nursing home. Over half the page is devoted to abuse potential, which was never the purpose, and this is supposed to be a dull encyclopedia. Why don't you relax, this is clearly not even a super-important drug, and for you the argument is 99% personal. I have nothing to do with Admin here, and in fact have bad relationships with the medicine Admins, but you are so clearly irrationally wound-up about this, you must eventually lose. On the other hand, if you can get it out of your head, it becomes ridicolous.io_editor (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To this Anon editor
I have received complaints regarding your bias and disregard for scientific studies and results. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to provide readers with accurate and unbiased information. The fact is, temazepam was one of several drugs which were used in the research of mind control and mass-scale social engineering by Secret Intelligence agencies, including the KGB and the CIA. Temazepam was used by the CIA under codename MKSEARCH. It was utilized as a truth serum and experiments on human subjects were conducted to see if temazepam, in combination with other substances along with psychological methods can be utilized to brain wash humans.

Temazepam is classified as a hypnotic benzodiazepine. This group of benzodiazepines have been consistently shown to be more reinforcing, not just in lab rats, monkeys or chimps, but humans also. This ultimately means they have a higher dependence liability. Hypnotic benzodiazepines have also been proven to be more damaging than BZD's such as alprazolam, clonazepam, bromazepam, etc.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what controlled, scientific studies have proven. Read this:


 * '''Abrupt withdrawal after long term use from therapeutic doses of temazepam may result in a very severe benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. There are reports in the medical literature of at least six psychotic states developing after abrupt withdrawal from temazepam including delirium after abrupt withdrawal of only 30 mg of temazepam and in another case, auditory hallucinations and visual cognitive disorder developed after abrupt withdrawal from 10 mg of temazepam, 5 mg of nitrazepam and 0.5 mg of triazolam. Gradual and careful reduction of the dosage, preferably with a milder long-acting benzodiazepine such as clonazepam or diazepam, or even a milder short to intermediate acting benzodiazepine such as oxazepam or alprazolam, was recommended to prevent severe withdrawal syndromes from developing. Other strong hypnotic benzodiazepines, whether short, intermediate or long-acting are not recommended.[37] Antipsychotics increase the severity of benzodiazepine withdrawal effects with an increase in the intensity and severity of convulsions.[38] Depersonalisation has also been reported as a benzodiazepine withdrawal effect from temazepam.[39]


 * Abrupt withdrawal from very high doses is even more likely to cause severe withdrawal effects. Withdrawal from very high doses of temazepam will cause severe hypoperfusion of the whole brain with diffuse slow activity on EEG. After withdrawal, abnormalities in hypofrontal brain wave patterns may persist beyond the withdrawal syndrome suggesting that organic brain damage may occur from chronic high dose abuse of temazepam. Temazepam withdrawal has been well known to cause a sudden and often violent death.[40]

Temazepam is a powerful benzodiazepine. It's abuse epidemic and the fact that it is the only benzo that is illegally manufactured and distributed by organized crime syndicates and the fact that the illicit trade is rapidly growing is another thing.

What I suggest to you, "70" (or anon user), is to stay away from this article because someone who argues against an article which is well referenced by scientific sources is obviously clueless. I will report you if you continue with your silly rants and unsubstantiated claims. TheGoodSon 11:17, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

The Anon user said:


 * Old people in a retirement home will suffer a stroke or need counseling after learning that their sleeping pills are MKULTRA drugs from the KGB and CIA arsenal, also used to torture Russian prisoners and turn them into vegetables, that they are the favorite of Nepalese junkies and mainly found in the pockets of criminals in the morgue. Furthermore that they cause cancer, braindamage and testicular shrinkage and turn them into criminals in a Jekyll and Hyde manner.

Encyclopedia's report FACTS. Encyclopedia's aren't concerned about what "old people in a retirement home will suffer a stroke or need counseling after learning that their sleeping pills are MKULTRA drugs from the KGB and CIA arsenal, also used to torture Russian prisoners and turn them into vegetables" think - the fact is the vast majority of readers aren't "old people in retirement homes". In anycase, most people know that temazepam is a habit-forming drug, so your argument is not just silly, but downright comical and stupid. Wikipedia exists to report facts, not worry about what people might think or old people having strokes. If they don't like the facts about temazepam's history, well then there are other medications to help them sleep, like estazolam, quazepam, zopiclone, or ambien. TheGoodSon 11:37, 05 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not touching this article with a 10 foot pole because it's simply garbage for the most part. This is not such a notable drug that it needs such a long and detailed article detailing all the infamy surrounding a drug. If this were the article for morphine or heroin then yes. Not temazepam. And yes, I know that it's quite probably the benzo with the highest "likeability" in tests, and about the potential dangers of all hypnotic benzodiazepines. It still doesn't deserve this much extrapolation. One section with 2 paragraphs at most on it and then stop. More is not always better for an article, regardless of how much time a single Wiki user has put into it. Schicksal (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To Literaturegeek, Wisdom and the rest who are battling this trollish anon user
Wherever you guys see destructive edits without citations or references (reliable references) made by this anon user, quickly and mercilessly revert them without discussion because frankly, I think this is a troll who has serious issues he/she needs to resolve. TheGoodSon 11:21, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodson, I would appreciate if you were a little less loud, and would not threaten me like an idiot. If you have read my concerns well, then there is a difference between encyclopedia-level established facts and the level required for inclusion into peer reviewed journals, for e.g. anecdotic (case) reports, speculative investigations, model investigations etc., which frequently need decades to reach a level of established factuality. Above I sent a link which disputes brain damage by benzodiazepines. And don't call my concerns silly rants, that is inappropriate and loud. Don't call them unsubstantiated claims. It is really disputable if a huge proportion of anecdotal, loosely associated, tangential, speculative and contradicting research references to damaging effects, obscure and illegal uses of the medication has reached the level of factuality and relevance for inclusion in this article. Don't call me trollish, that is inappropriate. Besides, for deleting a reference, I need no contradicting reference, but equally well will do if the reference is incorrectly cited or the text draws overly general conclusions from it, which exceed the scope of the reference. This is not a loose leaf collection of unfinished research. To the withdrawal: It is known that benzodiazepines can cause a withdrawal, therefore slow reduction of the dose is indicated. Anecdotal reports of this are unnecessary. Abrupt withdrawal from alcohol or hypnotics may be life threatening, thats why gradual reduction is performed. All known and not particular to temazepam. As the article reads now it is "Temazepam, as seen by the forensic toxicologist and the Soviet, CIA and KGB psych warden". This is one aspect, but not the whole truth. The question is which proportion of the article should be reserved for such fringe aspects. At the moment the article is overly centered on this. Feel free to report me with this opinion. I believe WP is consensus based and the advice to simply exclude my part of the discussion or ban me is therefore inappropriate. The MKULTRA and MKSEARCH stories are certainly interesting in the framework of such uses. They are however not particular to the substance. So they don't belong here, if you don't want to clutter every article about strong tranquilizers and hypnotics with it, including the veterinary ones. So I advise to keep that in a separate conspiracy article for the interested. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please: Goodson and Literaturgeek - Don't allow yourself further to call me a troll, who has serious issues to resolve, coo-coo, psychotic, Pro-Drug, "impaired by chronic hypnotic use", clueless and other derogatory names. I am highly impressed about your ability to not only know everything better than the killer-FDA but to also diagnose remotely all kind of mental ailments. To both: There is a difference between encyclopedic work and investigative journalism. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You cite a reference to a possible opioid mechanism of the medication. In the fineprint it is nothing than that aspects of rat behavior under nitrazepam are antagonized by a mu-antagonist. But sounds good, w.o. imo being relevant to pharmacology, good pretext to bring opioids in association. As I said before you can construct almost arbitrary associations in that manner. Must have to do with endogenous opioids. Std abusability algorithm (NIDA etc.) on rats: (with a grain of salt :-) 1. Try to demonstrate self-administration / positive: Abuse potential. partially works with raisins or chocolate... worse: After they are saturated, they stash the raisins or chocolate in some corner, under some cloth, like real junkies! 2. Try to demonstrate aspect of behavioral modification (locomotion, exploration), which is antagonized by mu-antagonist / found: Claim opioid-like mechanism suspected. Rather suggestive. Suggestion: Effect RELATED to OPIATES. Probably works also with raisins or chocolate. 3. find some DA related pathway involved in above experiments. Finished. Criticism: The endogenous opioid system and DA system is involved in almost every behavior that has anything to do with liking and appetite. A far field for experiment design of biased experiments and conclusions which possibly exceed the scope of the experiment. Consequently such results to be taken with skepticism of experiment design and over-interpretation. Even if inconclusive, it is kind of "guilt by association": X does Z; Y does Z; -> X == Y! Raisins equivalent to heroin! Guilt by association is a fallacy. Example: Hitler was non-smoker; I am a non-smoker -> I am Hitler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.190.187 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 70.137.178.160 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1.Please delete all references to cloak-and-dagger books, the evening news, sensationalist investigative press reports and police statements. 2. Delete urban legends, which are around since 1970 as part of a scare campaign. Example: The addict, going blind after injection into the eye balls is around since at least 1970, happening at various places, with various substances. Nobody does that. It is an urban legend of the kind with the LSD star tattoos in the schoolyard. And it has, like many such legends, made its way into the literature, being cited on and on in a circular fashion. It has taken on a life of its own. Another similar legend is the joint dipped in embalming fluid from the funeral home. Delete the whole source, it is full of anecdote and BS. 3. Delete shoddy animal experiments with unclear relation to clinical pharmacology. 4. Delete cognitive behavioral therapy. This is a how-to avoid substance use, not pharmacology. 5. Delete brain damage from 2 references. I sent a reference contradicting it. It is not agreed fact. 6. Delete anecdotal reports and conclusions 7. Discuss that with some medical reviewer. We have to avoid, that WP becomes a link in circular citations of that kind of science. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

8. The sentence about cross tolerance with barbiturates is gibberish. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did a lot of conflict resolution on clonazepam, chlordiazepoxide articles today for you ok, see the talk pages. I am not going to be the first to comment on several of your requests because they are goodson's additions and will let him reply first to your views. The cognitive behavioural therapy piece is in its own seperate section. It is not in the pharmacology section of the article. So your reasons for wanting it deleted are invalid. See this is the problem that I am having, you attack the article without understanding of the subject matter that you are talking about, eg basic pharmacology/psychopharmacology. Barbiturates are cross tolerant with benzodiazepines. The mechanism of action of benzodiazepines and barbiturates are very similar. Both drugs modulate the GABAa receptor complex by increasing the amount of chloride ions which enter the receptor unit which alters the polarisation of the receptor. On a GABAa receptor, there are subreceptors which include a barbiturate, benzodiazepine and neurosteroid and ligands for these receptors such as benzodiazepines, barbiturates, corticosteroids, alcohol which are agonists all enhance the chloride ion channel function and share cross tolerance. Benzodiazepines increase the frequency of opening of the ion channel and barbiturates directly gate the ion channel making it stay open for longer periods of time, which is why barbs are more dangerous in overdose. You don't seem to understand the basics of the pharmacology of GABAergic drugs, their mechanism of action and you don't seem to understand the mechanisms of tolerance. Why do you think phenobarbitol is used in detox centers to get people off of benzos? Also the study cited was a human peer reviewed study. So how is it gibberish? Sorry, I am not trying to be argumentative I am just being honest.--Literaturegeek (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) It is gibberish because YOU say Barbiturates can be substituted FOR Temazepam. REF says Barbiturates and Methaqualone can by substituted BY FLURAZEPAM. You have cited imprecisely. I don't doubt the cross tolerance. Don't accuse me of not understanding the subject matter. You are too quick and too LOUD. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 70.137.178.160 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon...where is your sense of humor gone, you used to be quite funny...at least LG has put time into this, and read carefully his conclusion, he asks: "So how is it gibberish? Sorry, I am not trying to be argumentative I am just being honest" - what he is saying is that he admits there is a limit to his understanding of the topic. So please propose a remedy, instead of pointing out what is wrong, say what would be right.io_editor (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Laugh on because actually it wasn't me who made the edit it was goodson. I am telling you, I had very little input into this article temazepam. Here is the edit by thegoodson.  Ioeditor I would appreciate that you took a more neutral approach to this dispute. I have been very curteous on other talk pages today trying to resolve this dispute and you are not helping in conflict resolution. This temazepam article isn't even an article I have done much editing to. You will have to wait for thegoodson for his views on that edit. I assumed I had done it because I have done a few edits on wiki about cross tolerance with barbs. You will have to wait and see if he has the fulltext as well.--Literaturegeek (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it actually io_editor, if this conflict is to be resolved that you stepped aside because you are making things worse and you are not being neutral. You say that you contribute to the neuroscience project, do you not know that flurazepam is a benzodiazepine and has the same properties as temazepam? What I said still stands and anon user did not need to be so confrontational with me.--Literaturegeek (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you totally miss the point - my comment was clearly and entirely addressed to Anon, not to you - I asked him to act, not you. I told him he was going the wrong thing by being negative, and not positive.io_editor (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, fair enough io_editor. I take back what I said about your neutrality. I just read your response on the chlordiazepoxide and see that you are trying to be neutral and honest.--Literaturegeek (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ok. text says barbiturates can be substituted for temazepam. ref says flurazepam can be substituted for barbiturates, which is the other way around. Find a clinical reference for "barbiturates can be subststituted for temazepam" or state it the other way around, like in the ref. Actually for the cross tolerance both ways have to be referenced, it is not perfectly symmetrical, because barbs and benzos act by a different mechanism, as you explained. So they don't fully overlap. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to complain about the confused, belligerent and arrogant manner, in which factual discussion topics are handled. All I have heard so far are arguments like: You don't understand this, stay out, I report you, troll etc. Obviously the discussion is impossible, if the opening is a defamation of the opponent as an idiot. This is not the way of handling a dispute. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about Pharmacology, not forensics in some hicktown Glasgow. Follow guidelines. We know they have no teeth and huff gasoline. Whats wrong with them, labor government,no money for whiskey? Damned commies. Thanks god we are in the US. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a family member who is from glasgow. One side of my family is of scottish descent. Maybe anon it was how you introduced yourself to me. Do you not remember? You announced yourself by making deletions to numerous benzo articles concentrating most of your efforts on mainly Roche pharmaceutical benzos, not wyeth pharma benzos and the like and followed up and introduced yourself to me by sending me a confrontational private message. Not satisified with notifying me by private message and not willing to wait for a reply,brazzers account free password you followed up and publicly trashed me on the clonazepam talk page Talk:Clonazepam and numerous other benzo talk pages all over wikipedia even on articles which I had done very little editing to with the same provocative long message copied and pasted onto the talk page. If I walked up to you on the street where you live and introduced myself to you and infront of your community the same way, how would you react? I have had plenty of my edits reverted altered or deleted over the years, never made a big deal about it, just thought, oh well that ref didn't pass the test and left it at that. You are not the first person to have edited or deleted one of my edits, I have been here a long time on wiki. You are the first person I have gotten into a fight with. Perhaps it is your social skills that you should be looking into and how you approach people rather than looking at other people's social skills and criticising everyone all over wikipedia. Also why are you on down under's talk page bashing the UK and trying to socially engineer a friendship with him and then invite him to look into the temazepam page?User_talk:David_from_Downunder You want to make a group of friends so you have an "army" of people to back you up? I know you are an acedemic and have a research interest in either pharmacology and or chemistry based on how you talk, things you know, you aint a lay person,  you are highly intelligent and have a keen interest in sedative hypnotics and defending them. Strange an academic spent 6-8 hours a day fighting over benzo pages. I know why you are investing so much time in the benzo articles though... Never known an acedemic who would devote such huge amounts of time and determined effort to benzo articles. So do tell me anon, why when we had all chilled out are you starting the argument back up, yet again?--Literaturegeek (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore you are being very hypocritical by claiming that I opened up with a defamation. It was you who defamated me in my online community. Whether some of my edits were not perfect it was out of order doing that. I let the topic drop but you don't wanna let it drop obviously. TheGoodSon has dropped the argument as well so even if your comment is at him, and not me you are still trying to reignite the argument and conflict.--Literaturegeek (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you well observed that I was arguing about the article and its references, and commented on that? Have you well observed to be careful with attributes like "irrational, lunatic, impaired in judgement due to sedative use" And who is stalking? 70.137.190.187 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I don't make friends. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As now there is no ongoing discussion any more, please take a look at the few open comments, for which there was no reply. Maybe I can take a look in 1-2 months at one article again. And: No, I don't get paid for that. But the claims made my hair stand on end, so I edited the worst ones. You called that vandalism and reverted, and I took the effort to discuss it out. Hope it helped. But now I have no time any more, so I go away. You guys don't want to discuss anything, o.k., I really don't get paid. Do what you want. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
The following statement sounds a bit outlandish:
 * Temazepam is believed to be the main contributing factor to crime waves in Argentina and Peru.

Is it supposed to be sourced to "BINLEA, 2006" as the rest of its section? What exactly is this reference to—some sort of report? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, but are you drawing your own conclusion that Temazepam is believed to be a main contributing factor to crime based on those facts, or has somebody else proposed the link?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

naltrexone useful in Temazepam addiction?
Should the opioid antagonism carry over to useful human pharmacology, then it would mean that e.g. Naltrexone could be promising in the treatment of Temazepam addiction, like it is in the case of alcoholism. And then probably by a similar mechanism. Does that work? 70.137.190.187 (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Anybody has supporting material for this? Then maybe it would be worth including. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The story about injecting in the eyes has been claimed since the 70s, with various substances, at various places. Is an urban legend, made its way into propaganda 70.137.190.187 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda is a strong word and I think that you overuse that word here on wikipedia. The injecting of temazepam into the eye incident did happen and it was first reported, with a picture of the eye injuries in the British medical journal. I wouldn't call the BMJ propaganda but I guess it is possible to call anything propaganda.--Literaturegeek (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thompson JL, Honeybourne D Ferner RE (1993) 'Minerva'. British Medical Journal, 307, 1434.--Literaturegeek (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the reference against earlier reports of the same event at various places, since the 70s at least. This seems to be a recurring event with the April editions of the peer reviewed journals. Really do it. Its an urban legend. Besides pls check my discussion on the clonazepam page about brain damage in a baby autopsy. The findings match a certain storage disease. Look that up. 70.137.183.147 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 70.137.183.147 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My goodness you're right, the British Medical Journal prints propoganda and fake, urban legends, and so do all of the the other peer reviewed journals! April is a funny time of the year, thanks for reminding me, april fools joke n all. I replied to you on clonazepam talk page.--Literaturegeek (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodson
Will you not undo my edits without a discussion. Reverted. Please read description of my edits and discuss. And don't dare to threaten "you will not edit after I'm done with you" again Please follow protocol 70.137.159.55 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodson
Will you not revert my edits without discussion again. Admin declined protection and pointed you to the discussion. So follow protocol, finally. 70.137.159.55 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what? The article stays the way it is if there is to be a discussion. Only when we settle through a discussion and if I make any concessions, then we change things. Now it stays the same. I am not challenging you, you are challenging me. TheGoodSon 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have proofread the article against the sources and applied appropriate changes. You have reverted without discussion. You don't do that without giving reasons, according to protocol. I have given reasons for every edit. Please respond in detail, edit by edit. This is not about challenging. 70.137.159.55 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion will only take place when you quit editing. TheGoodSon 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this, a new special Wikipedia rule for Goodson and by Goodson? 70.137.137.130 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon drug company
As I have been saying for some time this anon 70.xxx.xxx.xxx user is paid by a benzo manufacturer to sit on these articles. See this edit where they admit to 35 years in R&D (research and development). R&D Research and development of drugs. What drugs and for which drug company? Declaration of interest,,,,,??? :=)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not saying every edit the anon makes is bad but most edits have an agenda in my honest humble opinion. My problem is that I feel every edit I agree with them on earns them financial bonuses or whatever which is not a good atmosphere to be wikipedianing under.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the information is correct (and you agree with the edits...) then it shouldn't matter if they're being paid or not. · AndonicO  Engage. 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Andonic, the problem here is that we disagree with anon 70 about 99.9% of the time. His edits are extremely controversial and disruptive. For example, he is questioning the integrity of a worldwide authority on benzodiazepines, Dr. Ashton, by claiming that Dr. Ashtons citations of scientific research is not valid or "isn't enough" and then demands links to the original research which Dr. Ashton cites. If that isn't absurd, then I don't know what is. An example is the fact that a severe and desperate temazepam addict who had lost his limbs and as a result went on to inject the drug into the eyes. This was cited by Dr. Ashton and was reported by the British Medical Journal. However, anon 70 claims this is an urban legend that found its way into propaganda.


 * The story about injecting in the eyes has been claimed since the 70s, with various substances, at various places. Is an urban legend, made its way into propaganda 70.137.190.187 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Here is the link

Exactly what proof does anon have to contradict the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and Dr. Ashton? Here is what Dr. Ashton website says about this particular incident:


 * Figure 1. A complication of temazepam injection. A man aged 40 who misused drugs and had had a leg amputated after ischaemic damage from intra-arterial injections presented with blindness of recent onset. He was blind in both eyes. The left eye was ophthalmoplegic, with corneal clouding and no pupillary reflexes. This was the result of his injecting gel temazepam into the inner canthus. This substance is known to cause vascular occlusion (with permission from Thompson et al. 1993). The link is here with a picture aswell

I don't know about any of you, but I trust that both the British Medical Journal and Dr. Ashton to have verified this before reporting it. I certainly trust both over a paid employee of a pharmaceutical company.

I still have a lot to say, especially regarding the nature of Anon's work. Anon 70 is paid by a major pharmaceutical company to distort facts about these drugs here on wikipedia. The motive, for both Anon 70 and the pharmaceutical company, are obvious and I will discuss this at a later time. Literaturegeek and myself have been dealing with this person for quite sometime now, and we know well his motives and his intentions. TheGoodSon 2:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this particular example you've put forth is relatively simple. 70... should find (preferably several) reliable source(s) saying that it is an urban legend, first of all. Second, the BMJ and Dr. Ashton's claim should be kept, with a note that it is disputed. · AndonicO  Engage. 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If he cannot find any sources, then we keep the current phrasing. · AndonicO  Engage. 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not "working for drug companies"/ Andonico: Why is the list of my proof reading not relevant of helpful? 70.137.137.130 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied here. · AndonicO  Engage. 12:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is not a single edit in the (now redacted) list of the anon's changes that was disruptive or even remotely fitting our definition of vandalism. The only inappropriate edit before the edit war started was this blatantly threatening edit summary by TheGoodSon. I propose that the article be reverted to revision 220193402 and we proceed with (still badly needed) cleanup from there. Some concerns raised by 70., such as the use of references that don't concern the subject of the article and altered reference titles (whether accidental or intentional), clearly have to be addressed sooner rather than later. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you feel that's a preferable revision, please go ahead. I would have preferred productive discussion before changing the current version, but apparently that isn't happening. · AndonicO  Engage. 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto :( I couldn't find the BJM reference for the above example on PubMed, will try to track it down. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, first of all I'd like to point out that you are being unfair. You have not been dealing with anon 70 the way I have, or Literaturegeek has. You still don't know a lot of the history behind anon's edits and objections to the articles which we have created. His motives are obviously still unclear to you, so I would recommend that you either stay on the sidelines and observe what has occurred over the course of several months or be less biased in your approach. Anon's concerns are not about truth or facts, it's about profit for pharmaceutical companies. He has repeatedly slammed the work on the articles, asking "what would old people on these medications think"? or people will be scared to know that their sleeping medications were used by the CIA and blah blah". Here is a quote of Anon found here:


 * 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)

So it's regrettable that you are not considering this conflict of interest and approaching this in a biased way.

Second, The BMJ report of this incident is here.TheGoodSon 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, what matters here is improvement of the article—the motives behind it are of little consequence until they start manifesting themselves as bias, and I still don't see how any of 70's recent edits made the article worse or less neutral. You'll notice I haven't restored the article to its pre-edit war version yet; I'm not unwilling to do my homework on this one, and fully intend to do so.
 * "Anon's concerns are not about truth or facts, it's about profit for pharmaceutical companies." Do you have any evidence to back this up?
 * From your quote above—"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." The anon isn't wrong on this one, although what constitutes an "appropriate fraction" is obviously subjective.
 * This article is still in need of much improvement, and it is suffering from a lack of outside input; it needs third, fourth, fifth opinions on its content, its focus, and the quality and applicability of references. Unfortunately, no one seems up to it. Back in January, an editor requested WP:PHARM input for improving this article (showing concerns somewhat similar to those of 70.), several sweeping changes were made to the article, and you summarily reverted them, basically stating that the article was fine the way it was, and responded to the WT:PHARM post with "you and I will be able to improve it by ourselves". That's not a constructive attitude, and I am concerned you may be trying to enforce "ownership" over this article (and others) due to the hard work you've put into it.
 * Thank you for the Minerva reference, by the way. I don't object to that statement remaining in the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

injecting in the eyes, teasing maggots with bacon strips, improving cancer by religion
If you open the Minerva reference, you find that the article is 5 lines long. It appears together with other news from the medical world on one single page. These news include reports of Teasing maggots out of furuncles by application of bacon strips and Religion improving the odds of colon cancer and Spontaneous recovery of atrial fibrillation after accelerating the patient to 450g (!!!) on an air carrier I don't count this as peer reviewed scientific reports. Take a look yourself, open it. I don't want to see such references, you must be kidding (Also not the newspaper, the evening news etc.) 70.137.137.130 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't count this as peer reviewed scientific report? Whatever. You are really desperate, aren't you? Let's weigh this out: British Medical Journal vs Anon 70's opinions? Hmm.... TheGoodSon 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop being childish, both of you. 70., it's a simple communication, not evidence of an established practice but certainly a valid reference for an appropriately-worded factoid in the article. (The bacon fat thing has actually been cited in several later articles on myiasis, by the way :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will immediately go home from the Roche Laboratory to apply bacon strips to my behind, to prevent maggot infestation. I will also become religious and have myself accelerated with 450g as a precaution against cancer and heart ailments. Sorry, just kidding. I thought I can improve this stern discussion by a little humor, such that we continue to cheer up. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Early history of anon
When anon started their antics on wikipedia and I tried to convince the admins that their intentions were not good and got ignored "because the anon had some valid points" etc. During the first explosion of drama I took note of their edits as evidence but never presented it anywhere before. This is only out takes mostly of a short period of time. There are numerous other examples. I believe that the admins were looking at my complaints in isolation and not part of the wider picture and a pattern. The following is just a small out take of their edits. Anon's very first edit to wikipedia I think was a diversion before they dived into roche benzodiazepines. Why would someone from america, an old retired man be looking at clobazam, a drug which is not available in the USA but yet anon 70.137 lives in california and that few USA doctors unless they work or have a special interest in benzodiazepines or epilepsy would likely be looking at that page? It was the first benzo article that was edited by anon. Was it to divert attention from the benzos that they really had an interest in? 

Why did 70.137 not want it be known that clonazepam was a nitrobenzodiazepine and is in the same benzodiazepine sub drug class as flunitrazepam (Rohypnol)? Is it because clonazepam is a big seller and rohypnol has a bad name? This is a repeated edit which anon has tried to silence this encyclopedic facts. and more recently they re-deleted it.

Anon 70.137 presented themselves initially on wikipedia as an old man who was distressed to read that his sleeping pills were harmful etc and was concerned about his fellow elderly friends reading this literature but yet we soon learn that whoever this anon person is they have an extensive knowledge of chemistry and pharmacology which is evidenced throughout the benzo talk pages.

Your knowledge of benzodiazepine's molecular make up sounds a bit more than what your average person or even chemist would know.

A quote by anon showing extensive knowledge of the chemical make up of sedative hypnotics which would show perhaps they were involved in research and development of these drugs. Doesn't sound like your average "concerned elderly citizen". Here is a quote by anon. There are many more. "And quinazolines look a little similar to benzodiazepines, by having two nitrogens in a ring, attached to a benzene ring. This is a six-membered ring however. And you can make derivatives, similar to benzodiazepines from that system. Thats their relation. However, that is not relevant to the pharmacology of benzodiazepines. It is relevant to structure/activity relationships of compounds, having a nitrogen containing ring attached to a benzene ring. So to say, the activity of Qualuude is not relevant to the pharmacology of Librium and doesn't belong there. This is what I call a spurious association."   

You claimed at one point to be old where you have no or few living family members etc but then you claim to have a grannie who "munches benzos"? If you are that old then how come your granny is still alive and "munching benzos"? You also claim that you are in a retirement home for the elderly. Why did you want me to think that, to get more sympathy to win the sympathy argument?

   

What is wrong with readers being warned of the dangers of abruptly stopping their benzodiazepine medication? Convulsions during benzo withdrawal can be life threatening. Why did you not want readers to be aware of the risks of this? Even the patient information leaflets warn of this. 

You weren't just rude to me but to others as well.  

You kept causing mayhem months back marking articles after other established editors or admins reverted your edits as POV, article after article after article. Even diazepam which is a pretty well written article but not good enough for Roche.      

I get in trouble for referring to anon's edits as vandalism but yet they are the ones that initiated the accusations on multiple talk pages. You posted over and over again how the articles had been vandalised. Here is an example on the diazepam talk page. Here is an example Talk:Diazepam/archive1.

You falsely accused me on the temazepam article of various things when I contributed very little to that article and said all of my user names to make sure all readers would think bad of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temazepam&diff=prev&oldid=203143944 You recently made up the lie that I was treating other editors the same way I was "treating you". I asked you for examples which the anon user could not provide me as the anon editor is the only editor I have ever had issues with ever on wikipedia.  

Anon 70.137 cleverly adds their views above an old finished conversation to make the page read as if several people had agreed with him and gave the conversation a new title - encyclopedia. 

You removed edits from temazepam which reported on temazepam's usage for brain washing techniques and the like. Why did you not do the same for LSD's history? Also as with other edits there was a strong motivation to remove anything which linked the benzos to abuse, despite the high abuse potential in many countries being a well known fact both to the public and medical community.



You frequently use the "poor old people" as a bleeding heart type of effort to get rid of information which shows benzodiazepines in a bad light. You claim that the article should be written with old people in retirement homes being kept in mind despite the fact encyclopedia's report on facts and not politically correct and removal of facts which might "upset" or worry "old people" in a retirement home or similar.  

You then resort to comparing benzo articles which talk about the harm of benzos to nazism and the like but yet you want to COVER UP the fact that benzos were used by totalitarian states and intelligence agencies. Basically you were doing double talk. You were comparing articles to nazi propoganda but wanted to cover up the crimes of such regimes and their connection to using temazepam as mind control and the like. I don't know of totalitarian regimes ever warning the harms of drugs. Infact quite the opposite they would tell people they were recieving a great treatment when they were receiving harmful drugs which took their lives or controlled their minds. Hitler used high doses of fluoride in the water to dumb people down.  

Your requests for deletions of material especially were almost always deletions which showed the drugs in an unfavourable light, such as abuse, addiction and use by inteligence agencies and so forth. You fought quite hard to have any references to cross tolerance to barbiturates being in the article, even arguing to the point that you have to prove cross tolerance "both ways", i.e. that you have to cite studies swapping drugs both ways, benzos for barbs as well as barbs swapped for benzos etc. This is not true but you tried every argument to get that out of the article. Why when in the previous post of yours you said that "you don't doubt that they are cross tolerant", why such an effort on your part? This is something that the drug companies don't use in their promotional literature for their product, is that why?      

You have as throughout but still are doing it even after the argument had settled trying to get people "on your side" and complain about myself and probably also referring to thegoodson and returning to uk bashing again. You attack the labour government trying to engineer a fight, wanting me to fire back with antiamericanism or something in response knowing americans have a high presence on wikipedia and wanting people to turn on me. You have also tried the same trick on thegoodson as well and unfortunately he fell for it. You attacked my nationality on another benzo talk page I think librium as well. I know your tactics and did not fall for them. You know everyone has a degree of nationalism in them and if their country is criticised they will usually respond by criticising the country that the attacker is from.  

You claimed in your "lay opinion", but you are not a lay man. Whoever you are you have an extensive knowledge of benzos, not a perfect knowledge but certainly someone who is from an acedemic background and you frequently talked about pharmacology and chemistry. So I can say that you are either a pharmacist or chemist. I know many acedemics and they simply would not spend 8 - 12 hours literally online every day determined to change information on benzo articles to suit their POV. It is just ludicrous to think that they would and it is not normal behaviour for an average academic to do that. I don't buy into you are just a simple old man upset by content of benzo articles who is "concerned about old people in retirement homes reading bad side effects of benzos". There is something more to it. How do you know about "genetic storage diseases" and how were some of your comments demonstrating an extensive knowledge of chemistry and research type laboratory type of stuff?  

Challenge to anon 70.137
You frequently use nazism and ww2 genocide and other extreme arguments to say scientific research can be distorted and to win the argument. You have presented yourself on other benzo talk pages as someone who is appalled at WW2 crimes and someone strongly opposed to racism and whatnot. I suspect that you are using the tragic death and suffering of millions to win sympathy or win the argument but here is your chance to prove all of my accusations wrong. I have played pretty much fair and been on the defense against you anon 70.137 for sometime now but I think that it is time I now raise concerns about your edits as you have been doing to goodson and my edits. If you are so appalled by WW2, I have a challenge for you anon. I would like you to add this to Hoffman La Roche's wikipedia article regarding Roche's use of nazi slave labour, jews, gypsies and whatnot. ,, , ,. I have made a similar challenge to you before on this page Talk:Clonazepam. You disappeared off of wikipedia for 2 weeks or so after I made that challenge, the first and only time you have disappeared for that length of time.

You slipped up here R&D and admitted to being in research and development of drugs throughout your 35 job career so I think now is the time we investigate you. It is only fair if you insist on putting myself and thegoodson under the microscope.

Also you have been encouraged for some time to get an account but you refuse point blank 70.137. Is this because it makes it harder for admins and editors to track your edits to build a profile on you and review complaints about you because your ip address keeps changing? Every time your ip changes you get a "clean bill of health". I have also caught you page blanking/reverting warnings by admins on your talk page. I am tired of the dirty tricks and the irony of myself and thegoodson being put to the microscope. It is time your edits were analysed.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your only interest
The only benzos anon 70.137 has shown an interest in are those manufactured by hoffman-la-roche, such as chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, clonazepam, nitrazepam. Temazepam is the only exception which I think is not manufactured by roche,,, but I think that the reason you have an interest in this benzo temazepam is because this article talks about the "abuse epidemic" and the use of this benzo as a brain washing/mind control tool by the CIA and KGB. The history of temazepam's abuse epidemic and also its abuse by intelligence agencies runs the risk of tarnishing the reputation of benzodiazepines in general. So I feel anon has been tasked with trying to silence this information or water it down as best possible. You show no interest in wyeth benzodiazepines eg oxazepam and lorazepam nor pfizer benzodiazepines eg alprazolam. I wonder why? Now everyone knows why I and thegoodson have issues with working with this anon 70.137 user. We are both very familiar with 70.137.xxx.xxx unlike most if not all other editors and admins. My reputation has been tarnished because of this anon user, I have had admin action and warnings because of this anon user. It is time to look at this dispute from both sides with eyes wide open.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal status UK
It says on the article that Temazepam is a Class C controlled drug in the UK, and includes a link to the Misuse of drugs act 1971. However on the Misue of drugs act 1971 article, under the Class C drugs heading, it says that both Temazepam and Flunitrazepam are illegal to posess without a valid prescription, making them both Class B. I am trying to find out which it is and will update when i find the answer.

77.102.101.98 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Home Office's cdlist.pdf (quick Google will find it for you), Temazepam is considered 'Schedule 3' which does equate to 'Class C' in this meaning. I'm not sure that 'illegal to possess without a valid prescription' would mean that a substance is covered by the Class system automatically at all, instead it means, as per the Medicines Act 1968 that a substance is 'PoM' (Prescription-only Medicine) which is determined, now at any rate, by the MHRA. Hope this helps, (it certainly confuses me enough still...) Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It becomes class A if it is prepared for injection. I think temazepam is class C but it is subject to tighter controls than most other class C drugs. It has to be written by hand by doctors on a special controlled drug prescription similar to stimulants (ritalin, dexamphetamine etc) and opiates whereas other benzos don't have to be written on a controlled drug prescription by hand and can be typed up and just doc sig like any other drug. Also controlled drug prescriptions have to be locked away by pharmacist and two employees of a pharmacy have to sign the drug and witness its dispensing etc. That is how it works in the UK. Class C refers to criminal classification of a drug but temazepam has been upgraded as far as prescription controls go. I am not an expert in this area though so can't elaborate any further.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's covered by a special exception for Temazepam, in that while it's in Schedule 3 of The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (which probably needs a new article and the Act 1971 is full of crap as well as far as I can tell), it can still be prescribed per Regulation 15 (which does talk about hand-written etc.) which also makes it subject to Regulation 16 (as regards supply by a pharmacist). Legislation could be a little easier I feel...Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The temazepam article is now unlocked. Perhaps you could add this into the article? You seem to know more about this than me. If you have citations, that would be great to for reference.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status Australia
Somehow the article has reverted back to Australian legal status of S8, which it is not. I have MIMS open in front of me and it refers to Temazepam as S4, not S8. Would love to cite a link but you need a subscription to access it. Could someone please fix this for me? Adolon au (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All edits done by everyone got reverted back to a date several weeks ago or so to resolve a dispute. I have no problem with people correcting any data which is inaccurate. You don't need a link to cite sources, although it is preferred. Check out the wiki book citation template Template:Cite_book which you can put between the ref tags The page is currently protected. When protection is lifted I doubt anyone will have a problem with your change if it is referenced.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for Discussion
Anon 70, you're in danger of violating the 3RR policy, I suggest you engage in discussion rather than an edit war. TheGoodSon 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have proofread the article against its references over the course of weeks and applied corrections where appropriate. Note well, I didn't contribute own opinions. I have deleted unsourced statements, citations where the article states different than the reference, citations where the reference is actually about a different substance, but misrepresented by changing the title of the reference (a reference about nitrazepam suddenly becomes a reference about temazepam in your literature list 3 times), furthermore where the reference is a newspaper article, the evening news or a leaflet for children about the dangers of drugs, or a bestseller book or investigational journalism or the BBC news. Furhtermore, where the reference states thing plain the other way around as the article. In each case I have given the reason in the edit. You have reverted all, without a single word of consideration for any reasons given and without any discussion. You state "the article stays as ist is, or no discussion" this is not the way Wikipedia works. I have edited and given reasons for each edit. So to revert this, you have to give reasons as I did, not simply reverting all 50 edits as a block and state "article stays". So please will you take a look at the edits and respond? I have already opened the discussion by giving reasons. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TheGoodson, Literaturegeek and SJP have violated 3RR by reverting a good block of edits without any discussion. Then they have yelled "Vandalism" and had the contributer blocked by admin. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work 70.137.137.130 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete interaction with neurosteroid. This is an experiment with enzymes, at unphysiological concentration, under unphysiological conditions, in a 2.5% methanol solution. No secured pharmacological results are claimed, just conjectures. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete the reference about braindamage by temazepam. This is an anecdotal report about an abuser of NITRAZEPAM (not temazepam), in whom braindamage was suspected. The doctors had not seen him before his nitrazepam abuse. The results are inconclusive, no causality is provided. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete several references, which are investigational journalism, the evening news, the newspaper, a leaflet for school children about drug abuse, some bestsellers about KGB antics. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete references where you represented articles about nitrazepam, flurazepam, phosazepam as references about temazepam, even to the point of using a changed header in your reference list. But if you follow the link the misrepresentation becomes apparent. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete reference about a "british study" without reference. Unreferenced material. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide original reference for the eye injection story by Ashton. She only cites another reference with permission. I want to see the original reference. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain this
Although tolerance to the sleep inducing properties of temazepam develops within a matter of days, so too does tolerance to the residual performance impairment. After 6 days of use, tolerance to temazepam's sleep inducing effects and performance impairing effects occurs.[27]

Opening the reference: The effects of six nightly doses of temazepam (20 mg), nitrazepam (10 mg) and placebo on saccadic eye movements, critical flicker fusion threshold, choice reaction time and mood were studied in eight volunteers. Performance was measured on nights 1 and 6 of each treatment. Nitrazepam produced a residual performance impairment on night 1 that disappeared by night 6, despite higher serum concentrations of the drug on the sixth night of treatment. Temazepam, with a shorter elimination half-life, produced no significant performance impairment on night 1, but by night 6 a significant impairment of saccadic eye movements (p less than 0.05) was seen 1 hour after drug intake. We conclude that tolerance to the sedative action of nitrazepam developed over the 6-night period of the study. No evidence of tolerance was seen with temazepam. No residual effects of temazepam (20 mg) were seen the morning after the night-time drug administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.137.130 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are being petty about the wrong citation being put in the wrong place. You are also cherry-picking these little references. Do you deny that with regular use of temazepam, tolerance develops? I don't want double speak, I want a yes or a no here, since this is straight-forward and I can provide a mountain of evidence which point out tolerance is a consequence of regular use of temazepam, just like all benzodiazepines. Do you deny that with regular temazepam use, tolerance develops? TheGoodSon 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article says no tolerance to performance impairment was observed, so it can not be used to support the claim that tolerance occurred; I'm sorry, but this is not cherry-picking, it's just how citations work. I would be inclined to agree with you that tolerance develops, but you're going to have to back that up with a study which actually says so. Until then, Anon70 is right to remove the reference in question. St3vo (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tolerance to temazepam:


 * "Performance measures were compared to the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) as indices to assess tolerance to the residual effects of benzodiazepine hypnotics during repeated nightly administration. Twelve healthy, normal sleepers received flurazepam 30 mg, temazepam 30 mg, and placebo for nine nights in a repeated measures, Latin-square design with 19 nights of recovery separating the treatments. As compared to placebo, both drugs altered sleep stage parameters in the early (nights 1-2) and late (nights 8-9) phases of the study. Hypnotic effects were found for both drugs in the early phase, but diminished for both in the late phase. The subjects' performance the next day was disrupted following treatment with flurazepam, but not with temazepam, during the early phase. Mean sleep latency on the MSLT was reduced by both drugs during the early phase. During the late phase, flurazepam did not disrupt performance but still affected the MSLT. Temazepam affected neither index the next day during the late phase." Here

and...


 * "If changes in thermoregulation mediate sleepiness induced by sedative/hypnotics, then a reduction in the soporific efficacy (tolerance) of these agents may be accompanied by a concomitant reduction in their thermoregulatory effects. We compared the thermoregulatory and soporific effects of acute temazepam (30 mg at 1400) in 11 young male subjects before and immediately after 7 consecutive days of temazepam (30 mg). Subjects lay supine (0800-2030), while foot (T(ft)) and rectal (T(c)) temperatures were recorded. Sleep onset latency (SOL) was measured hourly using 20-min multiple sleep latency tests. Relative to placebo, temazepam significantly reduced both T(c) and SOL (-0.31 degrees C and 14.1 min) while increasing T(ft) (3.39 degrees C). A significant tolerance developed after the week of temazepam, with a mean reduction in soporific efficacy of 4.0 +/- 0.8 min. This was accompanied by a concomitant attenuation in both T(c) (-0.16 degrees C) and T(ft) (1.44 degrees C). Furthermore, SOL was temporally related to T(ft) and the maximum rate of decline in T(c) before and after tolerance. Together, these results indicate that the thermoregulatory system may be functionally involved in the regulation of sleepiness."Here TheGoodSon 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * These are excellent citations for the claims of tolerance to hypnotic effects; do they mention tolerance to performance impairment in the articles themselves? The original contested article actually discusses this issue as follows:
 * "...the disparity between plasma accumulation and clinical evidence of sedation suggests that appreciable tolerance occurs in the central nervous system of young subjects, which compensates for any increase in effect due to the rise in plasma concentrations.21
 * The results of the present study show that many elderly inpatients show little tolerance during accumulation of the drugs. Surprisingly, the overall effect of the two drugs was similar despite the differences in the degree of accumulation that occurred."
 * (Cook et al 1983, pg 102)
 * Hence the disparity. St3vo (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain this
ref [36] Chronic high-dose temazepam dependence 123I-IMP SPECT and EEG studies. Kitabayashi Y, Ueda H, Narumoto J, Iizumi H, Tsuchida H, Murata N, Nakajima S, Fukui K. et al.

Opening the reference:

Chronic high-dose nitrazepam dependence 123I-IMP SPECT and EEG studies. Kitabayashi Y, Ueda H, Narumoto J, Iizumi H, Tsuchida H, Murata N, Nakajima S, Fukui K.

Department of Psychiatry, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Japan.

A patient who took 50-100 mg nitrazepam per day for 25 years is presented. (123)I-IMP SPECT (autoradiography method) and EEG were performed sequentially on the subject during and after the withdrawal syndrome. Severe hypoperfusion of the whole brain on SPECT and diffuse slow activity on EEG were demonstrated during the withdrawal syndrome and subsequently remarkably improved. However, the hypofrontal pattern on both early and delayed images in SPECT was unchanged. The changes observed on SPECT and EEG reflect the pathophysiology of dependence and withdrawal. Additionally, the hypofrontal pattern remained unchanged suggesting that organic brain damage can develop as a result of chronic high-dose benzodiazepine abuse.

I don't need to explain, that you are misrepresenting the reference to the point of changing the title! 70.137.137.130 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have continually objected the fact that long-term abuse of hypnotic benzodiazepine agents cause brain damage. You have provided no evidence of your claims, while we have put forth one research paper after another. You are cherry-picking little details, you are not seeking the truth, you are trying to distort the facts and attempting to discredit myself and literaturegeek. That is deplorable behavior, and your motives are clear. But brain damage is a consequence of long-term hypnotic benzodiazepine abuse:


 * "Despite some neuropsychological improvement in a group of 30 patients who had been hospitalized for primary abuse of sedatives or hypnotics 4-6 years earlier, the prevalence of intellectual impairment was still increased and about as high as before. As in alcoholic patients CAT scan of the brain showed an increased prevalence of dilatation of the ventricular system, but unlike alcoholics not of widened cortical sulci. Field dependence and visuo-spatial skills during treatment predicted abuse status at follow-up. Patients with improved drug habits had less pronounced withdrawal symptoms during treatment and a better social situation at follow-up than patients without improvement of drug habits. The results suggest that despite some neuropsychological improvement cerebral disorder diagnosed in patients abusing sedatives or hypnotics is often permanent through the years and that neuropsychological status is linked to long-term prognosis." Here


 * Another link


 * "Twenty participants with self-reported long-term benzodiazepine use (mean 108 months) who had previously withdrawn from medication (mean 42 months) were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests. Each long-term user was case matched for age, sex, and education to two control participants who reported never taking benzodiazepines (those with and those without anxiety). The results indicated that long-term benzodiazepine use may lead to impairments in the areas of verbal memory, motor control/performance, and nonverbal memory but not visuospatial skills and attention/concentration. The length of abstinence (> 6 months) indicates that these impairments persist well beyond cessation of benzodiazepine use. However, observed impairments in the area of nonverbal memory were not solely attributable to benzodiazepine use and may be influenced by the elevated anxiety levels present in both the case and the anxious control group. (JINS, 2005, 11, 281–289.)" Here

Anon, exactly why do you object to these facts? TheGoodSon 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Both refs are anecdotal, N=17, N=20. They use a biased collective=psych ward patients. They use biased reviewers of the scan = doctors of the psych ward. It is not a blind study. Biased collective studies are notoriously unreliable.

A blind study with related result comes to contrary results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10653201

Long-term benzodiazepine therapy does not result in brain abnormalities. Busto UE, Bremner KE, Knight K, terBrugge K, Sellers EM.

Biobehavioural Research Department, Addiction Research Foundation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Studies on the association between long-term benzodiazepine use and brain abnormalities have yielded conflicting results. The computed tomographic (CT) scans of 20 long-term users of benzodiazepine (65% men; mean age +/- SD [range], 42 +/- 12.1 years [23-59]; mean daily benzodiazepine dose [diazepam equivalents], 19.5 +/- 16.2 mg [2.5-70]; mean cumulative benzodiazepine exposure, 55.2 g [1.8-198]) were compared with 36 age- (+/-3 years) and sex-matched controls. Controls were prospectively recruited from 96 patients attending a neurology clinic and were interviewed to screen for alcohol and substance use disorders and other conditions possibly leading to brain atrophy. Three neuroradiologists blindly assessed each CT scan for atrophy and measured ventricles (V1, V2, V3), sulci, fissures, cisterns, and folia. Reliability among observers ranged from 0.92 to <0.1, in which case deleting one observer increased all reliabilities to >0.45. No difference in atrophy was found between benzodiazepine users and controls. V1 measures were significantly higher for benzodiazepine users than for controls (mean +/- SD, 12.1 +/- 1.3 vs. 11.1 +/- 2.0;p = 0.02), but measures of third and fourth largest sulci were significantly higher in controls than in benzodiazepine users. Right third and fourth largest sulci (mean +/- SD), respectively, were the following: controls, 0.72 +/- 0.4 and 0.74 +/- 0.7; benzodiazepine users, 0.51 +/- 0.3 and 0.46 +/- 0.3 (p < 0.02). Left third and fourth largest sulci, respectively, were the following: controls, 0.77 +/- 0.6 and 0.65 +/-0.3; benzodiazepine users, 0.53 +/- 0.3 and 0.5 +/- 0.3 (p < 0.02). Long-term benzodiazepine therapy does not result in brain abnormalities that can be demonstrated on CT scans.

So you can not claim your previous references as secured facts. They are contradicted by this study.

Besides, would you please explain your above misrepresentations of references see  Explain this, before we arrive at the next topic or discuss my conflicts of interest 70.137.137.130 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your source states that "long-term benzodiazepine use and brain abnormalities have yielded conflicting results", clearly they are acknowledging that other studies have concluded brain damage, but in their particular study they were not able to detect such. I would also like to point out that the study by the Karolinska Institutet suggests that long-term sedative or hypnotic benzodiazepine abuse causes cerebral disorder. Your reference claims benzodiazepines in general, but no specific group of BZD's or any individual BZD was mentioned. Here is what the Karolinska Institutet concluded:


 * "n a group of 55 consecutively admitted patients who exclusively abused sedatives or hypnotics, neuropsychological performance was significantly lower and signs of intellectual impairment significantly more often diagnosed than in a matched control group taken from the general population. These results suggest a relationship between abuse of sedatives or hypnotics and cerebral disorder." Here


 * Sedative-hypnotic group of benzodiazepines, of which temazepam is a member. There is a clear difference between those benzodiazepines classified as anxiolytics and those which are classed as hypnotics. The difference between the two groups can be clearly noticed when looking at toxicity and overdose rates, for example (and this is just one example). Numerous studies have concluded that temazepam is the most toxic benzodiazepine, and overdose rates are considerably higher then seen with other benzodiazepines. Nitrazepam and flunitrazepam, two other hypnotics, also have a high rate of drug intoxication and overdose. Triazolam and temazepam, despite being considerably less prescribed than alprazolam and clonazepam, are involved in a higher rate of intoxication and drug-related deaths in the United States, as reported by US poison control and is referenced in the article. The Karolinska Institutet in Sweden specifically claimed hypnotics, not benzodiazepines in general.TheGoodSon 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hardly a clear cut case, and there is evidence to support both sides of the argument - all of which should be used to balance discussion of the controversy. We can't just pick and choose which studies to use if they are from reliable sources. Anon70's main point seems to be that these studies are being used to back up the claim that temazepam is particularly harmful, but that upon closer examination many of the citations don't actually support this. I'm most concerned about the fact that article titles were altered to include temazepam. St3vo (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As am I. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the source of one of the nitrazepam->temazepam switches. I would AGF on this one, since I've nearly changed wording of references when I meant only to edit the wording of the text. I believe the source of the problem might be that Thegoodson was copying sections from other articles (eg. nitrazepam), not intentionally trying to mislead. I'm still making my way through the diffs to piece together the story independently. St3vo (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The temazepam article has 122 references, of which only three wrongly included temazepam. It was likely a mistake or a result of confusion. One or two mistakes or some confusion is bound to occur in an article of this size, no? TheGoodSon 22:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not counting the references which were unrelated, or state the contrary of the article. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Karolinskaja study: Biased collective = drug abusers. Biased reviewers = treating doctors. They have not seen the patients before their drug abuse. Causality is not provided by such a study. They conclude: These results suggest a relationship between abuse of sedatives or hypnotics and cerebral disorder. They don't claim causality, and deriving causality from their careful wording is a scientific blunder. Correlation is not causality. I would prefer if you keep their careful and scientifically flawless wording in your citation, and don't jump to your own conclusions. The relationship could equally well be, that intellectually challenged persons have a higher probability of becoming heavy drug abusers. I could believe that, but who knows? Be more precise in your citations. Conclusion is that braindamage is not a secured fact, but at best a disputed claim. The only blind study I found doesn't support it. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To be precise: their work suggests a relationship between mental/neurological problems and being admitted to a psych ward for heavy drug abuse. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased collective studies are notoriously unreliable. I may remind you that in similarly biased collective studies {prison, juvenile hall, racial mongrels(!), jews(!), gypsies(!), political dissidents(!), alleged sociopaths, vagrants) similar findings of brain abnormality have been reported and faithfully supported with statistical evidence. Such reports have been the basis of unimaginable depravities of science, like eugenics, apartheid laws, recognition of "dissidence" as a treatable mental/neurological disease = "querulatory psychopathy", recognition of "vagrancy" as a mental/neurological/inheritable disease with an associated "traveling drive", mainly diagnosed in gypsies. So far the words of caution. In all cases causality has been claimed one or the other way to support political action against members of the collective. The problem is, when you start with a selected group of persons, you can prove almost everything. In the previous discussion it is "patients in a mental clinic for heavy drug abuse". 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 70.137.161.241 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC) If an abstract refers to nitrazepam and not temazepam it should be removed.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Equally, a study on a group of patients who abused multiple drugs cannot be used to state that one of these drugs is the cause of their problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)