Talk:3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate

Jacob's Ladder

"BZ was referenced in the Vietnam War film Jacob's Ladder, but the effects depicted in the film are not accurate. No evidence exists that BZ sends people exposed to it into a homicidal frenzy, as the film suggests." Is it safe to say this? This sounds more like an opinion, but I could be wrong. I haven't seen the movie but it doesn't sound particularly infeasable to me. I am getting the impressino that the 'studies' on BZ thus far (at least the ones that are public knowledge) have taken place in controlled clinical settings. If BZ were administered during a war scenario, I imagine that the delerium and hallucination in combination with an environment of intense mortal danger wherin you can be killed at any momemnt would be more than enough to cause otherwise sane people to engage in indescriminate acts out violence out of confusion, especially if, as the article says, moral and social conventions often deteriorate and result in otherwise impermissible behavior. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No way

On 7 Aug 2005 much earlier medical materials about folie a deux, etc. were removed. These hinted at the possibility of telepathy, shared visual hallucinations. I have replaced these older materials, because I think they may have great value. User:Kazuba 27 Aug 2006

```Hhmm the page says that BZ was never used by the US army. Isnt this disputed by some?

Yes, it has been disputed, much because of the movie Jacob's Ladder, which in the end stated that the hallucinogenic and psychoactive drug that was given to the main character Jacob was BZ and that the pentagon denied ever administrating it to anyone in the Vietnamese war. Jacob's Ladder is supposedly based on a true story. --Chemiclex 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So its the true story of a man who hallucinated just before he died? Would you perhaps like to step back and explain how such a thing would be possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.97.227.219 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Cleaned up Signs and Symptoms

Just did a major cleanup of the signs and symptoms section, many of the listed signs/symptoms were either repeated or didnt convey an actual symptom. --Chemiclex 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Added a link

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, but I thought the following was relevant.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002000.html

its about the supposed abuse of BZ by Iraqi fighters before battle. Worth mentioning?  ?

I'd say it's definitely worth mentioning. Good job. --Chemiclex 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Similes

I returned the removed similies: they're commonly used mnemonics in medicine, and help to convey a message of specific symptoms. – ClockworkSoul 16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought it was weird to have 'Blind as a bat', 'dry as a bone', 'mad as a hatter', etc added in brackets and speech marks after each symptom. Do you think you could include an explanation in the article, so that people know what they are and why they're there? Otherwise it looks like someone added very strange comments to the article.

Thank you. 11:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

I found the constant similies early in the article to be distracting, odd, and actually somewhat irritating. I'm not sure why they're there—it's not exactly a common encyclopediac convention or even, in its persistence, an English language one! RobertM525 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Perhaps move them to their own paragraph? There you could group each simile, i.e. "A person is sometimes said to be 'dry as a bone' because of symptoms A, B, C, etc." — 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur - these folkisms have no role or value in an otherwise fairly well-written article. Unless there is a documented history of referring to BZ symptons specifically by these names then I find them superflous. (Lawson) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.82.110.4 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm for their removal as well. I thought them so odd that I checked this discussion page to see if others felt the same. They are really strange and confusing.

Agree with all above who object to these silly distractions. Burn at the stake editor who added them. — Xiong熊talk* 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreational use

Why is recreational use of this drug inconceivable if the side effects included euphoria, relaxation, etc? It sounds like multi-person acid, which I know a lot of people would try. A lot of the effects sound terrifying, but anyone who has ever had a bad trip knows that mushrooms, acid, DMT, etc. are very capable of incapacitation and inducing fear.

BZ is a deliriant, not a colorful psychedelic like shrooms or LSD. It is like atropine found in deadly nightshade and jimsonweed. Its effects would include stupor, extreme confusion,and very realistic hallucinations (not like the illusions seen on acid) plus anticholinergic effects like extremely dry mouth, eyes, and throat, and difficulty swallowing. These are the reasons why recreational use may be inconceivable, but I know there are people out there that would try it nonetheless.--Metalhead94 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm not going to ask how you "know" there are "people out there" who would want to sample BZ recreationally; do you personally know anyone who has tried it? Ever heard a credible report of someone trying it? More to the point, do you have a verifiable source of information that meets wiki inclusion criteria that states, or even suggests, that BZ has ever been used recreationally, by anyone, anywhere? If so, by all means write it up. If not, the presumption that recreational use of BZ is virtually nonexistent seems valid to me. R0m23 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

...Uh, thats practically what I was saying in response to the comment above mine.--Metalhead94 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I could have worded the latter part of that first comment better though..--Metalhead94 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you got it spot on. WP contributor User:Reid Kirby has published some information in the Army Chemical Review that might be relevant. The U.S. military documented some of its tests with human subjects pretty closely. That's probably about as close as you can get to "recreational use", I doubt there is any verified instance of someone using this substance recreationally, it's pretty nasty sh*t. I would feel sorry for anyone who has tried, but don't because it would be infinitely stupid to do so. In conclusion, I concur.--IvoShandor (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is too funny ... So to get high with something about as fun as a psychotic trip on atropine, someone is going to synthesize a complex chemical using rare feedstocks at a cost higher than chemically synthesizing cocaine from chocolate. Guys, it's a chemical warfare agent that no longer exists in any declared stockpile, and is highly controlled to minimal research quantities by the CWC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.212.58 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us here readily realize that. It seems the person who started this section opened a discussion of sorts on the subject, however speculative it may have been.--Metalhead94 <sup>T C</sup> 04:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The effects seem somewhat similar to someone who's really drunk. Is this a right interpretation or am I missing the point here? 93.125.198.182 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In some ways yes, a few of the effects may resemble that of being heavily drunk. But bear in mind there are plenty of additional effects that I mentioned above stemming from the fact that BZ is a very potent anticholinergic (precipitating deliriant effects like hallucinations and delusions).--Metalhead94 <sup>T C</sup> 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If people use deliriants like datura, dramamine, DPH, and deadly nightshade recreationally, you can bet your ass there are people out there who would be more than willing to try BZ. Hell, there are people who use chloroform recreationally and there are people who are dumb enough to take PMA. Recreational use of BZ is non-existent because... well... it's not exactly easy to find.--76.106.246.229 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lethality

I had mistakenly assumed the Lct50 of BZ was 200,000 mg.min/m3 form amny years. Dr. Jim Katchum, a military surgeon with first hand experieince in the program called me on this and after investigating it I found I could not find a supporting reference. However, the Joint CB Technical Data Source Book on BZ states the LCt01 (for 1% fatalities), is 3,800 - 40,000 mg.min.m3. Dr. Katchum's experieince indicated that a figure around 4,000 mg.min/m3 was appropriate. I believe the 200,000 mg.min/m3 estimate came from erroneous extrapolation of animal model data - specifically Randall, L. O. et al. Spasmolytic action of bicyclic basic alcohol esters. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 104: 284-90, 1952, which infers a 1,000 fold difference between ICt50 and LCt50, which when applied to an East German figure for the ICt50 of 200 mg.min/m3 from the 1960's produces the figure mistakenly stated today.

Reid Kirby 16 January 2007

development and military use

in this section of the article the following stuck out: "certain tranquilizers like ketamine or fentanyl" ketamine is not a tranquilizer in the technical sense, rather it is a dissociative anaesthetic. afaik 'tranquilizer' does not have a specific medical definition differing from the generic 'sedative', so it may be more accurate to refer to it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3dom (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Fentanyl isn't really a tranquilizer either - it's a narcotic. 129.97.79.144 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, Fentanyl is a synthetic opiate.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Which delivery systems was this agent installed? 143.232.210.150 (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks copied from somewhere.

Towards the end it starts to use inferred second person and almost turn into an instruction set! I don't know if it was written up that way or if it was swiped wholesale from some source, but it definately fits the cleanup tag someone added. 68.39.174.238 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a mumbled "The original version of this page is taken from the public domain source at [1]" in the "Return to duty" section - the link is dead, but this seems to be a copy of it. I'll template it up. --McGeddon (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's Been Having Fun

Just removed another blatant irrelevancy:

(Although the phrase "mad as a hatter" is commonly believed to refer to poisoning from mercury formerly used by hatters on felt,[2] it can just as well serve as a reminder of CNS effects from anticholinergics.)

Now, I don't know a damn thing about BZ; that's why I'm reading the article. But this is clearly a prank -- just barely under the radar ("smooth as a seal"). This is the sort of damfoolishness that makes WP the butt of jokes on the train or Colbert Report.

Is this project still worth anything? — Xiong熊talk* 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The addition doesn't appear at all to be a prank to me, it looks like it was in good faith, the information is true AFAIK, it is just a little irrelevant. The line "mad as a hatter" is mentioned in the atropine article and properly cited as a common mnemonic used for it's effects and atropine is an anticholinergic. Mercury was used by hatters on felt hats to make them shiny, and they did not in those times take proper precautions and many received mercury poisoning from the handling of the substance. So it is clearly in good faith and not a prank, just not relevant to the topic on hand as much as it should be. 67.5.156.225 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical advice!

I don't know about the similes (I didn't see any), but alot of the stuff taken from the DoD has too much medical advice in it. I've removed some, but alot probably remains. 150.250.43.216 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Recreational Use DOES Exist

http://defensetech.org/2005/12/07/insurgents-using-chem-weapons-on-themselves/--76.106.246.229 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That article is far from proof that recreational use exists, it doesn't even confirm that BZ was the culprit in this highly dubious account. In addition, the term "recreational use" certainly doesn't apply if the substance is used in a military context, even if it is used on one's self. A drug that is taken to get ready for battle can hardly be considered "recreational use" and it certainly wouldn't be put within that definition by any reasonable person. IvoShandor (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

N.B. - recreational use of BZ is highly improbable due to cost. Imagine paying a few hundred dollars to feel fighting drunk for a week without any recall of where you have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.215.193 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pharmacological Tool

QNB, especially in radio-labeled form, has been used for years as a tool by pharmacologists for studying the binding of ligands to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Please try to adopt a broader perspective on chemical substances, and try to make Wikipedia useful to as wide an audience as possible. Concentrating on the military and recreational aspects of agents like QNB distorts and polarizes the public, who might otherwise learn that chemicals have all sorts of properties, some of which are used just to extend our knowledge of how nature works. Xprofj (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108133544/http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlistchem-category.asp to http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlistchem-category.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805145324/http://fhp.osd.mil/CBexposures/pdfs/tall_timber.pdf to http://fhp.osd.mil/CBexposures/pdfs/tall_timber.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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216122928/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002000.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002000.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iprit.ru/chemical_agents/details/3005

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per [{WP:BURDEN]] please do not restore without finding reliable sources per WP:MEDRS or WP:RS as needed, checking the content against them, and citing them.

(from lead)

BZ is a glycolate anticholinergic compound related to atropine, scopolamine, hyoscyamine, and other deliriants. Dispersal would be as an aerosolized solid (primarily for inhalation) or as agent dissolved in one or more solvents for ingestion or percutaneous absorption.

Acting as a competitive non-selective blocker at postsynaptic and postjunctional muscarinic receptor sites in smooth muscle, exocrine glands, and the brain, BZ decreases the effective concentration of acetylcholine seen by receptors at these sites. Thus, BZ causes PNS effects that in general are the opposite of those seen in nerve agent poisoning. CNS effects include stupor, confusion, and confabulation with concrete and panoramic illusions and hallucinations, and with regression to primitive, involuntary behaviors such as floccillation and disrobing.

Physostigmine, which increases the concentration of acetylcholine in synapses and in neuromuscular and neuroglandular junctions, is a specific antidote.

Mechanism of action

The agent BZ and other anticholinergic glycolates act as a competitive antagonist at postjunctional muscarinic receptors in cardiac and smooth muscle and in exocrine (ducted) glands and (2) at postsynaptic receptors in neurons. As the concentration of BZ at these sites increases, the proportion of receptors available for binding to acetylcholine decreases, leading to clinical effects reflective of understimulation of end organs.

Production of BZ is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997.

Toxicokinetics

BZ is dispersed as an aerosol. It may be micropulverized for dissemination by a disperser (90% dissemination efficiency), or mixed with a pyrotechnic burning mixture for dissemination in burning munitions (70% dissemination efficiency). Alternatively, it may be dissolved in a solvent such as DMSO to enhance percutaneous absorption, though experiments before this proved unsatisfactory for military purposes.

Bioavailability via ingestion and by inhalation of particles 1 micrometer in size approximates 80%, and 40 to 50%, respectively, of a parenterally delivered dose of BZ. Percutaneous absorption of BZ dissolved in propylene glycol yields, after a latent period of up to 24 hours, serum levels approximately 5 to 10% of those achieved with intravenous or intramuscular administration.

Following absorption, BZ is systemically distributed to most organs and biological tissues of the body. Its ability to reach synapses and neuromuscular and neuroglandular junctions throughout the body is responsible for its PNS effects, whereas its ability to cross the blood–brain barrier confers upon it the ability to cause CNS effects. Atropine and hyoscyamine both cross the placenta and can be found in small quantities in breast milk; whether this is also true for BZ is unclear.

Metabolism of BZ would be expected to occur primarily in the liver, with elimination of unchanged agent and metabolites chiefly in the urine.

Detection and protection

In the field the only immediate indications of its use may be the white smoke emanating from delivered weapons. Though detection methods have been developed for BZ, these have not been standardized for field use and are limited to laboratory analysis or specialized monitoring in industrial facilities.

Protection from BZ means blocking it from entry into the body. At dosages adequate for a lung effect there is little risk of absorption through the skin or contact hazards from aerosols that have settled out onto surfaces. The amount of BZ that may settle out on surfaces from an aerosol is too small to represent a hazard from secondary aerosols. Therefore, the most appropriate protective response is to don a protective mask with a good quality aerosol filter. Even improvised respiratory protection (e.g., several folded pieces of cloth over the nose and mouth) may render BZ employment ineffectual.

There is the possibility that BZ could be employed for a skin effect by adding to a skin penetrating solvent, or used for a secondary aerosol through contaminating terrain with bulk micro-pulverized BZ. However, both of these employment schemes are unlikely owing to the high cost and uncontrolled dose (potentially lethal). In any situation where BZ is present in liquid or bulk powder form, adequate skin protection with impermeable protective clothing and gloves is warranted.

-- Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Zakblade2000 - about this, see above. WP:BURDEN is policy Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Skripal poisoning

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-trace-of-western-made-nerve-agent-seen-in-uk-samples/2018/04/14/c76a8b30-3ff7-11e8-955b-7d2e19b79966_story.html http://www.dw.com/en/russias-sergey-lavrov-claims-sergei-skripal-was-poisoned-with-western-bz-nerve-agent/a-43390589 https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/04/14/world/europe/14reuters-britain-russia-skripal-lavrov.html https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985243574123057152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.69.215 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there has to be a mention of that with enough reliable sources — even if these contradict previous statements, these are still decent claims. Besides, original OPCW report never mentioned „Novichok“ or any other substance directly; they just said about confirming «previous British statements» about the «nerve agent» without detailing which one they meant. So, «‎Alleged use» is exactly the right section to put this in. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that BZ was administered as an antidote, which would account for traces of it appearing in the blood samples. It's chemically very similar to atropine, the more familiar treatment for nerve-agent poisoning, but much more powerful. Because it counters the effect of Novichok, it could not have been part of the actual chemical weapon. This would explain why it did not figure in the final report, since the OPCW's task was to identify the weapon. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

BZ itself is a toxic agent and a CW. Is there any proof that it was actually ever used as an antidote for more toxic CWs? Is it possible to detect the sequence of administration (what went in the blood first)? Meanwhile, the counter-statements keep on coming: 'Novichok' Creator Says OPCW Report Proves Skripals Poisoned With Another Agent . Tacit Murky (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)