Jump to content

Talk:Ephedrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"Overdose can lead to death, although the approved dose is not likely to cause severe reactions when used as directed.

Ephedrine can also lead to damage of the brain receptors over a period of high usage; this is because of its constant action on the neurochemicals. It also leads to high increase in blood pressure which over time can lead to damage in the blood vessels."

"Overdose can lead to death" needs to be revised; the LD50 via oral route is 600 mg/kg. This is several hundred times greater than the 150 mg dosage suggested. The statement is redundant and adds nothing to the article anymore than "Caffeine overdose may cause death" belongs in the caffeine article.

"Ephedrine can also lead to damage of the brain receptors over a period of high usage; this is because of its constant action on the neurochemicals."

Ephedrine does not act upon neurotransmitters. Nor does it damage "brain receptors"; Rather it may cause down regulation of the receptors it acts upon. There is no evidence that ephedrine "damages" "brain receptors".

Much of this article is unscientific and many of the claims made are unsupported speculation. The article even admits as much

"formication (may be possible, but lacks documented evidence)"

The article lists a side effect which it admits "lacks documented evidence"; Wikipedia is not a place to post original research about theoretical undocumented effects that may possible occur in some people.


Also the article seems biased by superfluous commenting that adds nothing to the article. For example "Ephedrine (EPH) is a sympathomimetic amine similar in structure to the synthetic derivatives amphetamine and methamphetamine" Why were amphetamine and methamphetamine mentioned and not another substituted amphetamine?

"As with other phenylethylamines, it is also somewhat chemically similar to methamphetamine, although the amphetamines are more potent and have additional biological effects."

- you mean ephedrine is a substituted phenylethylamine, ephedrine ISNT an amphetamine, you could say its related in that they are both substituted phenylethylamines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.68.100 (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ephedrine is a substituted amphetamine; this sentence seems to imply that ephedrine is not in fact an amphetamine. "it is also somewhat chemically similar to methamphetamine" The chemical difference between ephedrine is a single oxygen atom; "somewhat" and "similar" are very vague descriptions of an unvague chemical structure.

"In mice, stereotypical behaviour was both easily induced by administration of ephedrine and it's primary alkaloids and reversed when serotonin antagonists were administered." WTF does this mean?

"Promethazine manages nausea and ephedrine fights the ensuing drowsiness. Commonly referred to as the Coast Guard cocktail, ephedrine may still be available for prescription for this purpose." ephedrine *is* available without prescription; this sentence seems to suggest that ephedrine "may" be availible by prescription and/or is a prescription drug.

Also please note that citation 4 is referenced in the following sentence "ADRs associated with ephedrine therapy include:[4]" However that citation does not support most of the listed side effects; The side effects listed should each have their individual citations as the article now misleadingly implies that the list of side effects presented is supported by the work cited.

"Wellbutrin is an example of an antidepressant with an amphetamine-like structure similar to ephedrine. It has a similar action but also releases serotonin from presynaptic clefts." Why is this random statement nested in the second paragraph of the "Contraindications" section?

"Ephedrine should NOT be used at any time during pregnancy unless specifically indicated by a qualified physician and ONLY when other options are unavailable.[7]" The capital "NOT" and "ONLY" are unprofessional. The citation given is also incorrectly formatted and most likely not appropriate as a reference.

Except for "Legality in USA" and possibly some of the "Chemistry" section, this article needs to be completely re-written with factual --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agalmic (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) "Furthermore, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine (which are found in various legal over-the-counter drugs) can be manufactured into methamphetamine, a dangerous illicit drug that is growing in popularity due in part to the availability of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine".[reply]

This contribution seems very anti drugs. Saying that its dangerous is subjective, and growing due to the availability does not make sense either. Demand for drugs is there, and availabilty of illegal drugs is there. It has nothing to do with drug stores.

The clinical information, regarding contraindications and actual way to administer the drug iv is not accurate. Whilst it is not a preferred drug, it can definitely be used in the delivery room or during caesarean sections. It is used with caution in patients receiving SNRIs but as far as I understand this has not been listed as a contraindication - as opposed to MAOIs which IS a contraindication. The legality, availability issues need to include the rest of the world, as it seems to me that some people forget that what happens in the US does not apply elsewhere.Hsinfu (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that ephedrine is banned in OTC supplements and will probably soon be a controlled substance, lets all switch to synephrine.

Ephedrine was never banned in OTC supplements. Ephedrine alkaloids were. Ephedrine HCL has always been legal and is sold in many OTC supplements. Check your local Wal-Greens. Ephedrine HCL will never be banned because it is controlled by super power drug industries. :) Once the Ephedra ban went into effect, many "bodybuilding" supplement companies just started making Ephedrine HCL products like the big drug companies have been doing for years. Volksgeist 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between ephedrine and "ephederine HCL"?

I believe that means Hydrochloride.
Is this form legal? I've seen it advertised. The article isn't very clear about the legality issue.
Yes, check out "Bronkaid" at your local WalGreens. They are numerous other OTC Ephedrine HCL products. On the internet, products such as VasoPro are popular as well. Volksgeist 19:39, 26

March 2006 (UTC)

By many drugs you need Hydrochloride for the preparation. It is a kind of carrier. More it is not. It does not change the effect of the drug. --Fackel 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the hydrochloride form is legal; just along with the freebase form, or whatever other forms there are. When drugs are illegal, it's the actual drug, not the form it comes in. --Ddhix 2002 20:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but don't forget the analog law, which got all the research chemicals off the market despite their legality . . . --Heah 20:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What's the "analog law"? Techelf 10:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the ephedrine ban has been struck down in the US. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/04/15/national/a013653D58.DTL

Further, there are two optical isomers of ephedrine with roughly the same effects; D-ephedrine and L-ephedrine. D-ephedrine is the only one that can be used to make meth, and it was NEVER sold in the US; most of the world's supply goes to meth production in Mexico.

L-ephedrine, the kind you buy here, cannot be made into meth.

Also, HCl means it's a salt / solid.

Actually, either kind can be made into meth.
To elaborate - The Levo-Ephedrine isomer can be structurally reduced into Levo-Methamphetamine (like that found in Vicks Vapor Inhalers), while Dextro-Ephedrine can be reduced into the Dextro isomer of Methamphetamine (the active, 'fun,' isomer). So, technically, yes; they can both be structurally reduced into methamphetamine (but the Levo isomer is inactive, so you can't get high from it). However, there is a trick called racemization. Assuming one has L-Ephedrine (otherwise useless in clandestine laboratories), it can easily be put through a racemization to obtain the racemic Dextro,Levo-Ephedrine (D,L-Ephedrine). This can be applied to both Ephedrine & Pseudoephedrine. Check it out for yourself: Chemical Abstracts, Volume 23, Pages 3452-4 (1929), or US Patent 2,214,034 for another racemization. D,L-Ephedrine (or D,L-Pseudoephedrine) can be structurally reduced into D,L-Methamphetamine - which is plenty active. So, yes, it can be made into meth. :) --Ddhix 2002 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something I forgot. The D,L-Methamphetamine (racemic methamphetamine) is weaker, and produces a different 'high' than straight D-Methamphetamine. D-Methamphetamine is much more potent, and prefered among methamphetamine addicts above the racemic mixture. If one were to convert L-Ephedrine into D,L-Ephedrine, and then into D,L-Methamphetamine, then one could also separate the D-Methamphetamine from the L-Methamphetamine so that there is the pure optical isomer of D-Methamphetamine. Don't believe me? See: GB Patent 508,757 - Process for the Production of Optically Active Phenylisopropylamines by T.H. Temmler. Have fun:) --Ddhix 2002 12:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New effects

[edit]
  • User 155.245.123.4 decided to add a whole load of stuff to the sidebar which doesn't seem verifiable to me. Side effects of ephedrine apparently include:

"Increased thoughts tingling sensations (positive) plesurable goosebumps massive increase in music appreciation full stomach feeling (erradicates your appetite increase cognition [...] happiness intense euphoria increase cognition speed increase in creative ideas"

I've not ever heard of any of these side effects... "massive increase in music appreciation"? Sounds more like cannabis to me. Thoughts?

Whoever it was that added that information is obviously an ephedrine user (and a rather dumb one). Everything is verifiable, but it is not encyclopedic in the very least. It could be added in much better terms - but this is not erowid.org, so something a bit more scientific would be nice. Increased thoughts - yes, its a stimulant. Tingling sensations - yes (it's a entactogen - they tend to do that); pleasurable goosebumps are a part of it, along with hair being raised; it increases feeling and touch, simply put. Full stomach feeling - ephedrine is a stimulant, they tend to have an anorectic effect. Increased cognition - stimulants tend to (temporarily) make you think more clearly. Happiness - ephedrine increases dopamine levels. Intense euphoria - dopamine levels. Increase cognition speed - ephedrine is a stimulant. Increase in creative ideas - ephedrine is a stimulant. And for your last concern, the one about music, yes it does increase an appreciation for music. But it's not an actual 'music appreciation,' not like marijuana would cause. Music increases dopamine in rats (Brain Res. 2004 Aug 6; 1016(2): 255-62 from Sutoo D., Akiyama K) - anything that increases dopamine even more while you are already on something that increases dopamine is going to be pleasurable. Smoking a cigarette, having an orgasm, and listening to music would all increase the pleasure of ephedrine, as they all tend to up the dopamine in one's brain. 'music appreciation' is simply a bad descriptor, its more like 'more pleasure from music.' I hope these explanations help whatever decision is made about this. --Ddhix 2002 12:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dopamine levels? No. Serotonin might be related to euphoria. Perhaps endorphins. But dopamine does not produce pleasure. As for ephedrine's effects people must be taking crazy doses to get all those enumerated above. Listed study about music and dopamine in the brains of rats makes no mention of pleasure, only improvements in blood pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.65.54.41 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can actually find an explanation of ephedrine is, what it will do and what it is used for at www.ephedra.cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.90.70 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ddhix, thank you so much for your help - you evidently are far more knowledgeable than me! I've added your corrected (side-)effects to the drugbox on the page - do take a look and make whatever changes you see fit. Your comment about the compound effect of dopamine is very interesting - I wasn't aware of that. Thanks again for your insight. --henryaj 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Under "Adverse Effects", it lists "anorexia" as an Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR). I am going to delete that, as Anorexia Nervosa doesn't really qualify as a "drug reaction". If the original author was referring to the anorectic effect of the drug (as opposed to the disorder), the reference is redundant, as "appetite loss" is already listed as an ADR. Unless there is a reference somewhere indicating that use of the drug actually leads to Anorexia Nervosa, I think the use of the term "Anorexia" in this section of the article is misleading and confusing. -- Cat 12:05, 8 January 2007

Anorexia means loss of appetite, it doesnt specificaly refer to anorexia nervosa or any other disease. Saying that ephedrine causes anorexia is quite correct 121.209.49.58 (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Jonathan, Adelaide, Australia[reply]

Changed the Molecule Picture

[edit]

The old one was ok, but I changed it for a differently designed molecule.

The current one in use (the one I just made): File:Ephedrine.PNG

The old one:

They are the same molecule (obviously), but the old one looks much different. The old one would due just fine, but the one I just made (and used to replace the old one) is more visually related to other phenethylamine articles. See amphetamine, methamphetamine, cathinone, methcathinone, etc to see what I am talking about. This is the preferred way to look at these molecules, as it makes more visual sense when comparing them. I am going to go through some other articles that are similarly visually confusing, and create more molecule pictures that will make more visual sense when comparing certain chemicals (like say, comparing ephedrine to methcathinone), See?.--Ddhix 2002 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

[edit]

This article doesn't explain the effects of the substance on the body in plain language. Ephedra is described as stimulating the brain, increasing heart rate, causing nervousness, constricting blood vessels, and expanding bronchial tubes.[1] Are these effects attributable to ephedrine? -- Beland 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

[edit]

While the article states that ephedrine is legal in the US, this publication from the DEA seems to suggest otherwise (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/2-chem.htm). The listed threshold for ephedrine and "salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers" is 0kg for domestic use. The page has not been updated since 2001. Can anyone provide more info?--24.16.148.75 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Ephedrine HCL is sold over the counter under the names Vasopro, Bolt etc. Depending on the manufacturer.[reply]


Why just 'Legality in the US'? Wikipedia isn't a site just for Americans. Wilston 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True we should also be refrencing the international commuminity. I am not sure wikipedia just translates the same article throughout all languages it serves. If it did I can imagine alot of bored people worldwide on this and many many articles. To get to the point of legality though someone should update the new legislature (I cant find but heard on the news?...strange but I cant seem to find it in search engines, perhaps someone else can) that Ephedrine's United States position has just changed to legally 10 MG of ephedra alkoloids per dose etc etc. I cant seem to find this but sure enough it was on the news! My informant didnt bother to record it for me since I have been a regular ephedrine user since I lost 86 pounds with a personal trainer and dietician in 1996 before the ban was mucked up by the supreme court. My local dealer (completly legal) and pharmacudical company I purchase from also confirms this but I cant get documentation to show for it. Also there are quite a few conspiracy theories to this drug that should be entered into the article regarding the possibility of pharmaceudical intent to monolpolize the drug because of its effectivness that should also be invoked for proper article faction. -Tabooooooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.0.16 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced sources

[edit]

The "Neurotoxicity of ephedrine" section of the article does not have any references at all. Take this sentence, for example:

Depletion of dopamine levels were roughly 25% with ephedrine, whereas dextroamphetamine reduced levels by nearly 75%.

That means absolutely nothing. It doesn't mention timescales, or permanance – nothing. In fact, the entire 'illicit use' section fails to cite sources. I'll put a notice up to this effect. --henryaj 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no such thing like neurotoxiticy of neither ephedrine nor amphetamine. Adderall has been prescribed 37 million times in 4 years as you can read in the Adderall article. So please help to stop this fudding. I therefore would suggest to remove the whole section "Neurotoxiticy" --134.155.99.41 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoephedrine?

[edit]

The article states: "In traditional Chinese medicines, the herb ma huang (Ephedra sinica) contains ephedrine as its principal active constituent." I note that the site "Herbal Medicine Materia Medical" [[2]] says:

"When studies were done using the whole plant, only a slight blood pressure elevation was found. This led to the discovery that pseudoephedrine, another one of the alkaloids present, slightly reduces both heart rate and lowers blood pressure, thus avoiding the side-effects that often accompany the use of ephedrine."

It goes on to say that pseudoephedrine is just as effective as a bronchodilator. In that case, would it not be correct to say that pseudoephedrine is yet another "principal active constituent" (since the whole plant is used to prepare ma huang)? In that case, this sentence should perhaps be amended to include pseudoephedrine? As I am only checking sources myself, I have no ax to grind here, but I would like to know the facts, unbiased by either side of any sort of debate. (I do note that the Wiki article on pseudoephedrine does confirm that its source originally was indeed ma huang although it may be synthetically produced now.) NaySay 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethedrine?

[edit]

Is Ethedrine the same drug? I've found this spelling in a UK book so is/was this the spelling in the UK?? Could someone please clarify, thanks. Malick78 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ethamphetamine, I believe, if you follow the naming system. Mephedrone >> Ephedrone, Methedrine >> Ethedrine. Enix150 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of medications that still use Ephedrine or Pseudoephedrine

[edit]

Would such a list be useful added into this article? Or do you think adding such a list would be unethical? Greggor88 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be unethical although if you need some to add to the list there is bronchial inhibitors such as primatine mist, bronch-eze (ehedrine). There is Advil Cold and sinus, allergen products and sinual products (pseudoephedrine). Notice you need to present Identification now to purchase regular pharmacudical drugs as these now to monitor how much you are buying and who is buying in a certain time frame. This is importnat because yes you can spin these drugs into Meht which is life threatening or someone with an unknown heart condidtion of any kind. All these are over the counter and the two drugs dont work in the same way as you need to research which ailment/energy/weight loss need you are looking for. Some of the the drugs (bronch-exe, blue ribbon etc...) are sold over the counter in your local truck stop (which could contain the unneeded drug guisifimen, used for bronchilation). These use to be known to truckers looking to nbe alert and/or wrestlers looking to drop to their proper weight class over night with the drug and garbage bags, also known as the wrestlers recipe...aka speed or white crosses cause they have a white plus sign engraved into them) are sold at your everyday truck stops and gas station. Some choose not to participate though since the limbo ridden bans by the supreme court. reminding us of course that this drug was sold in ATLEAST 25 MG alkoloids in products by twin labs and ripped fuel, diet fuel, and labled as Thermogenical formulas not so long ago. I can say that at this date and this point most of these gas stations are selling the last of their 12.5 MG ephedrine and 200 mg guisifemin pills because they are forced to sell the small liquid dosage of all caffine no ephedrine bronch-eze and instead of the 24 bubble packets of 12.5 pills (which an average ephedrine taker needs 4 pills twice a day to get the amount of ephedrine they are used to) to bubble packs of 12 which also contain 12.5 mg ephedrine. So technically the cost of ephedrine for the averager user just doubled by decreasing the packaging size by half but no the price. -Taboooooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.0.16 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

This article states the rarity of certain side effects with no citation in many places. I think that it may have been compromised by somebody who either sells or is a fan of ephedra.24.65.95.239 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: The article states, "Ephedrine promotes modest short-term weight loss,[15] specifically fat loss, but it is not recommended for this, and is ineffective in the long term." Someone needs to REREAD the abstract cited at [15] (http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)00288-9/abstract). It says specifically, "the results were inconclusive." There is nothing that says ephedrine--or any other supplement evaluated--was "ineffective in the long term", so this sentence needs to be revised to read more true to the article.

THe study cited was extremely poor and did not fit with the caliber of other NIH studies. It read more like a child's book report than a scientific study. See for yourself. Maybe I'm not special so I can't see the full article, perhaps the reference is there but you know its kind of bull that our taxes fund the research that we then cannot read because we don't have a lexisnexis or university privileged access account. Seems wrong. Long live aaron schwartz. Anyway:

"Evidence of their efficacy in stimulating weight loss is inconclusive at present. Although there are few examples of safety concerns related to products that are legal and on the market for this purpose, there is also a paucity of evidence on safety for this intended use. Ephedra and ephedrine-containing supplements, with or without caffeine, have been singled out in recent alerts from the Food and Drug Administration because of safety concerns, and use of products containing these substances cannot be recommended." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.18.19 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Ingredient in Crystal Meth

[edit]

Some areas of the US describe Crystal Meth production as "epidemic", and ephedrine is a core component to that illegal drug. I could find no reference to this anywhere in the article.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Jonny Quick[reply]

you can make "crystal meth" from different substances with different method. Ephedrine is just one way to make it and not a key substance. Large scale "crystal meth" production is done with P2P and nitroethane not ephedrine. You can find this information in pharmaceutical and medical literature.--DerElektriker (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that in Afghanistan methamphetamine production (mostly for export) has recently (unsure of year) switched largely over to ephedrine sourced from ephedra sinica, since it is a native plant (easily grown?), rather than using 'expensive imported pharmaceuticals' (pseudoephedrine) as a source material, for cost and availability reasons. I could not point you to the source though. It may have been somewhere on Wikipedia or in some news source. 2603:6011:1D00:2C49:314E:CE39:BF6B:B9E7 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism of Action section not working

[edit]

Does anyone know why the "Compounds with decreasing α-receptor affinity" table is not working? Myoglobin (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is a gallery not a table. i played with it but couldn't figure it out. the formatting is definitely messed up per Template:Gallery and Help:Gallery tag. I cut it from there and pasted it here til it can be fixed. Sandwiching with nowiki tags for now.

<gallery caption="Compounds with decreasing α-receptor affinity" perrow="3" widths="180"> | File:RS-Norephedrine.svg|<center>Norephedrine</center> | File:RS-Ephedrine.svg|<center>Ephedrine</center> | File:RS-N-Methylephedrine.svg|<center>''N''-Methylephedrine</center> </gallery>

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out, kind of, after coming across an example on another page. Couldn't figure out the overall caption or formatting, but cobbled something together, til somebody more competent fixes it fully. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ephedrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are needed

[edit]

User:Glidermaven I agree that the whole article, and after that the lead, needs improving. If you want to improve this, the most solid way to proceed is improve the body with MEDRS-sourced content, then update the lead to reflect the body. I will try to find some time to work on this too. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all my edits and accusing me of edit warring is not inspiring me in any way to work with you.GliderMaven (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removing drugs.com was just silly, and you did so much at once that there was nothing to do but revert. In any case, the body is the place to start. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead is messed up. Mostly this edit caused it: [3]. It wasn't fantastic before that, but it was clearly awful afterwards.GliderMaven (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your removing drugs.com / The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists is exceedingly disruptive. You also need to use high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contains stuff that is not in the body (like decongestant use). The whole article needs work. As I said I will try to work on that, and once the body is good i will update the lead. i won't respond to further dramah but will be happy to discuss the content etc. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The lead fails to define the topic, it contains material not in the article, it fails to summarise major material that is in the article. It doesn't even classify the drug as a stimulant- that should be in the first sentence.
If you want reasonably good examples of leads for comparison check out caffeine or cocaine. Also actually read WP:LEAD. GliderMaven (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added that it is a stimulant to the first sentence. This however is a very common medications unlike caffeine and cocaine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder however if the lede doesn't to strongly imply it is only used in spinal anesthesia? While that would be the most common case, are we sure it isn't used in ketamin-anesthesia of those with severe CVD? Continuous noradrenaline infusion is more common, but is ephedrine not used at all? (Just an example) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not used for severe CVD as far as I am aware. The drugs.com source provides a good overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ephedrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ephedrine and sea sickness

[edit]

I've worked to add a few sentences on the use of ephedrine with promethazine to alleviate sea sickness. Although this remedy seems to be widely used (and indeed is my personal experience) it is curiously hard to find a good citation - google searches turn up links to fishing, boating, and oceanographic blogs, webpages, etc. I write to note that the general lore is that this combination is rather specific - the ephedrine acts with the other drug to alleviate sea sickness, beyond just as a stimulant to counteract the side effects of the other drug. As is noted by some of the informal citations, it is a somewhat magical combination. But I can't find a good citation for this specific result. It is widely known as "the coast guard cocktail"; but seems hard to find a good citation for that specific name and remedy. I am not quite sure I agree with the present phrasing, but recognize the citation problem. Bdushaw (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here for example is a blog entry by a professional oceanographer: Arctic GEOTRACES Week One Irrespective of what the books say, this specific combination is in wide use by oceanographers (but that's hardly a citation, to be sure!). Bdushaw (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have some sources that say it does not add any benefit to other motion sickness treatments.[4]
But yes very little evidence of any quality on this topic. It simple has not been well studied.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational use

[edit]

Why is the recreational use section about the synthesis of methamphetamine from ephedrine? Shouldn't it be about the recreational use of ephedrine? PlasmidPhononKid (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i second that 2603:6011:1D00:2C49:314E:CE39:BF6B:B9E7 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
Not merged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Pseudophedrine should be merged in to Ephedrine. They are different isomers of the same molecule. Algotr (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different isomers means they are different molecules. They have different effects, histories, etc.
Isomers of drugs usually have their own articles. 2601:14F:8300:1FE3:B815:256B:D1AC:EB36 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. These are two different stereoisomers, which results in the two having different chemical properties and pharmacological uses. The extent of study on each of them is substantial enough to warrant coverage separate articles, particularly because the use of these two chemicals is so different and the literature on each is so substantial that each could stand on its own. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ephedrine&oldid=1243031753"