Talk:BDTH2

CAS number doesn't work

A recent edit added all sorts of useful info (thanks), but the newly added CAS number 351994-94-0 doesn't work for me: it generates a URL to a non-working page. I assume that 351994-94-0 is a CAS number that isn't published at commonchemistry.org? If so, is there some way to give the CAS number without the (useless) URL to a non-working page? Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The CAS number is correct. However, the chembox currently automatically links to Common Chemistry, which only has limited listings. There is discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Preparation section

(Moved here from my talk page.)

Hi there

I was wondering about your expansion of the "preparation" section - it seems a little too detailed? At WP:CHEM/CHEMISTRY, we've been trying to move away from cookbook-style instructions. That's why I phrased it the way I did: the use of cysteamine as the hydrochloride, the choice of solvents is probably due to convenience than chemical considerations. The isolation is also routine, and does not deserve such elaboration. My point is, with a little less detail, the gist is still there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to simplify the preparation section, but also please bear in mind that the audience for this particular page includes parents of autistic children, who can't be expected to know what would be routine to a chemist. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But we're not expecting them to use our WP article to go prepare their own BDTH2? Unlike the experimental section in a paper, which is written in sufficient detail that experiments are reproducible, we're simply trying to outline what reactants you need to get the desired product here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Even the longer version of BDTH2#Preparation doesn't give them enough detail to do that. For example, it doesn't advise people to use a separatory funnel. The point is not to give every detail; it's to give even a non-expert enough detail to see what's typically involved. It's helpful, for example, to show to a non-expert that the compound is relatively easy to make, but not something you'd be able to make at home. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, File:Preparation of BDTH2.png results in terrible layout for the preparation section if the browser window isn't wide enough: the infobox causes the image to float down a long ways, leaving a huge white space. Is there some way the image could be made narrower and taller? (And, while I'm at it, can it be turned into an SVG image? Might as well ask....) Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look around the chemical articles... we don't really talk about evaporating solvents with a stream of nitrogen or other relatively trivial things...? But I'll let others comment here. With regard to the image. Of the many images I've prepared, this is hardly the widest. I originally set it at 500px, which you have subsequently tweaked. The WP:CHEMMOS says it should be legible at 450px to give space for the chembox, and right now it is 400px for me. I suppose I could split it into two lines, but some editors are not fans of that. SVG? I don't do them. Try asking Fvasconcellos. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, for the clarification, and the pointer to WP:CHEMMOS. As you can probably tell, I'm new to all this. Eubulides (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like academic spam

This article reads like an advert for some research team's claims. No problem writing about some specialized chemicals, I do it all the time, but the claims that this material is somehow useful would require verification by some source outside of UK. The article is somewhat misleading.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

As an employee of the company developing NBMI, I have a conflict of interest. However, I also have intimate knowledge of the subject matter, and this article is not correct in several places as follows.

1. The BDTH2 title of the article is accurate. However, it is not the name most commonly referred to, and it may be more helpful to refer to the compound as either NBMI which is an abbreviation of the IUPAC name or Emeramide which is the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN or generic name) of the compound assigned by the World Health Organization for drug use. For confirmation of the INN, please see page 15 of the PDF at http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/druginformation/innlists/PL112.pdf?ua=1  Done

2. The statement in the introduction, "Due to its lipid solubility it appears to be of limited use" is not correct. The scientific dissertation at Reference 3 (in its full non-abstract version) states that the compound saved the lives of rats exposed to multiple lethal doses of mercury. It is because it is lipid soluble, and thus membrane passing, that it is able to reach mercury which has partitioned to lipid areas of a mammalian body including the brain. Done

3. The compound was sold as an antioxidant from 2008-2010 not 2006 (see Reference 6 for confirmation of this fact). Done

4. The last sentence in the introduction, "The compound is banned in the US as a treatment of autism, despite a marketing campaign aimed at parents of children with this disorder" is not supported by the reference. The Chicago Tribune article referenced clearly states that the seller’s Web site referred to OSR#1 as an antioxidant and that, “the compound has been promoted to parents on popular autism Web sites.” There has never been a marketing campaign aimed at parents of autistic children. Furthermore, the compound is not "banned in the US as a treatment of autism." It was never sold or marketed as a treatment of autism, and the FDA warning letter makes no reference whatsoever to autism (see Reference 13). Therefore, the statement, “The compound is banned in the US as a treatment of autism” is not correct, and no marketing campaign has ever existed.

5. In the Clinical Use section, the statement that the NBMI-Hg complex “is not excreted” is not correct. Reference 3 states (in the full version of the document) that the complex is not excreted through urine, but it is excreted through the feces as would be expected for a lipid-soluble complex. Done

6. In the Clinical Use section, the statement, “BDTH2 is lipophilic, as opposed to DMPS and DMSA and thus cannot enter tissues” is not correct as supported by Reference 3. This sentence is also contradicted by the sentence which follows it which is correct and properly referenced. This sentence should read, “BDTH2 is lipophilic and can thus enter tissues, as opposed to DMPS and DMSA which cannot enter tissues.” Done

7. In the Clinical Use section, BDTH2 was not “approved by the European Commission as an orphan drug.” It is designated as an orphan drug. In drug development the word “approved” suggests that the drug is available for sale and has obtained “marketing approval.” This is not the case as the drug is under development. Done

8. In the end of the Clinical Use section, please add reference to the fact that the FDA in April 2012 also designated the compound as an orphan drug. See reference at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/OOPD_Results_2.cfm?Index_Number=367312 Done

9. In the Dietary Supplement and Controversy section, the first sentence is not supported by the reference to the Chicago Tribune article (see edit request number 3 above).

10. In the History section, the paragraph completely misquotes the C&EN article (see Reference 6). It should say, “Boyd E. Haley licensed it…” References to Atwood after this sentence are incorrect and are not supported by Reference 6. They should read Haley, not Atwood. DoneAnglican444 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

11. I am new to editing so I figured I would start here in the comments before making an actual change. The original marketing of BDTH2 as an "oxidative relief supplement" ended with a ban by the FDA. Atwood's laboratory turned to Europe in hopes of getting the compound approved. I would like to point out, however, that there is an extensive research article on the clinical trials on rats that I have not seen posted. This article provides a lot of the missing citations for the excretion notes above. I will note that my copy of the pdf is of the manuscript. It has since been published. The citation I have provided for convenience. Jliles24 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Will take some time to verify and correct, initially after rechecking the C&EN article. Thanks for the info and the good taste is disclosing the COI. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my request. I have a copy of the C&EN article if you need it, but I do not know how to get it to you. I do not think the link shows the actual article. Also, the dietary supplement issue is obviously the most controversial. I would only like the Wikipedia article to reflect what the text of the Tribune article actually says. The headline (as is very common) is misleading. Thank you again for your independence and for approaching these edit requests with integrity.Anglican444 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing request (initial request has been idle for 8 months. Reopen if there are still pressing issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BDTH2. 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:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.forresthealth.com/osr-1-30-100mg-caps.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20101223175448/http://www.forresthealth.com:80/osr-1-30-100mg-caps.html on http://www.forresthealth.com/osr-1-30-100mg-caps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203153631/http://www.usawaterquality.org/conferences/2009/PDF/Rural-poster/Blue09.pdf to http://www.usawaterquality.org/conferences/2009/PDF/Rural-poster/Blue09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)