Talk:Phenibut

New section

This article seems to have been lifted from a website which sells this compound. I'll work on it a bit. Fuzzform 02:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under muscle relaxants as well (assuming the bit about its similarity to baclofen is true)? 98.197.248.244 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think so, though many anxiolytics fall under the same category. Phenibut is baclofen with a hydrogen instead of a chlorine on the 4 position. The two drugs have nearly identical effects, acting on GABA_B metabotropic receptors. Fuzzform (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of redirection needed

I don't know how to do this myself, however someone might come along who does. Gabatropin is the marketed name for Phenibut, so I think a redirection link would be useful.

 - Check out:http://www.supplements101.com/Gabatropin_p/erggabatropin.htm
   for confirmation of my claim  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.246.237 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 

Personal experience

Since there isn't much to this article, I thought I would add some of my own personal experience with phenibut. I use it occasionally for insomnia. In my opinion, it is not a long term solution for insomnia. Tolerance develops for me within three days of consecutive use. I have never had a problem with withdrawal, but I have heard that is possible, but not life threatening, just uncomfortable.

Phenibut does has a long half-life so usage should be spaced out. I would recommend a maximum of one day usage according to label instructions, then a minimum of two days off. One use a week would be preferable.

It does work well for insomnia, and tends to produce vivid dreams, which is interesting, but its usage should be carefully monitored.

When used as directed, I have heard of no major side effects. It will increase the potency of sedatives, so that must be kept in mind. Don't mix with alcohol (alcohol is a drug).

I see no danger in this remaining a legal supplement, as it does work well for short periods of time, and has an awful sour taste to it, thus preventing any drugging of unsuspecting people. It takes hours to begin working anyway, so that wouldn't be an issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WickedEncyclopedia (talk • contribs) 03:21, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I am in the long process of selling my house and moving so my Merck Index is packed away, hopefully when I find it again I can give some real pharmacokinetic data on phenibut.

This is just my own personal experience, hopefully more people will add to the discussion. WickedEncyclopedia 02:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the section on addiction and withdrawal based on recent unpleasant personal experience. I found it very good for insomnia for several weeks until I lost the bottle - and then withdrawal was miserable. I searched the net and found many other anecdotal reports of people getting addicted, so I thought it was important to add that section. Sorry to not have any firmer data sources than these anecdotal reports. - Patri Friedman, 05 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.189.225 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Many if not most users would not become addicted due to tolerance and the headache/hangover one gets from overuse. If you need phenibut to break you out of an episode of anxiety, you can't use it regularly. It just doesn't work well at all after so many days. And what good is a supplement that does not work? Phenibut seems to work best when used on occasion. It is most effective if you take it a few times a week. If you take phenibut every day, you may be wasting the supplement, quickly building complete tolerance, and setting yourself up for addiction. We should also note that many people found withdrawal to be a negligible downside. Despite those claiming addiction, many feel no or very mild withdrawal effects after chronic use. I figure phenibut may have a milder potential for addiction that most prescription anxiolytics.

Plagiarism

This article is entirely plagiarized from an article by David Tolson on bulknutrition entitled "Phenibut Science" http://www.bulknutrition.com/?ingredients_id=64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.190.121 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit [1] removed the bulk of the offending COPYvio, while still leaving minimal, useful information in the article. --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article still has info lifted from bulknutrition? I thought this plagiarized info was edited out long ago... bah. I mentioned its presence over a year ago (see top of this page). Well, when it's fixed completely, please remove the tag. Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would bother altering it, as I know somebody will just reverse my alteration but the line "Phenibut is a daytime anxiolytic drug which does not exert a sedative effect." in my experience all depends on dose. When I take 5 grams at once on nights I can't sleep, a bomb could go off outside and not wake me. That's pretty sedating if you ask me... Propagandamachine (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to me interesting, essential, balanced. Thanks.79.40.238.46 (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This section about plagiarism seems definitely overcome, please allow its removal. The job seems quite correct. 79.7.42.87 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

PEA receptor antagonism

A specific phenylethylamine receptor has never been identified, as far as I know. Thus, this information is misleading. I tried to change it once but someone reverted it. Seems to me that if anything about PEA is going to be mentioned, it should probably be said that Phenibut antagonizes the effects of PEA as opposed to it being an antagonist at a receptor that, unless I am misinformed, is not known to even exist. 74.80.58.186 (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Different phenethylamines have different receptors, and it makes no sense (to me at least) to claim a drug as a "phenethylamine receptor antagonist" unless it truly did antagonize all the different phenethylamine receptors, which I find immensely implausible. Bobber0001 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I just found a link to a study which found that phenibut did not have any effect on PEA induced anxiety in mice. Somehow I don't think there is any direct interaction as is implied in the article. See study here: "The anxiogenic activity of phenylethylamine in the social isolation test on mice" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1804703

Phenibut enhances dopamine levels

I read this claim in the article and thought this was very interesting. The cited source was only available to people with an Ohio state university login, so I asked the Redditors on /r/ohio if someone could not help me locate the article. A person kindly uploaded the article here for everyone to access. I promptly read through the article, and while it was very interesting to read about various experiments done on rabbits, nowhere was there mention of phenibut enhancing dopamine levels. It says it has an affinity for GABA_B and (at higher levels) GABA_A receptors, has anxiolytic and muscle relaxing properties etc. etc., but no mention of dopamine. A search for the word "dopamine" in the cited article in fact yields 0 results. I think the claim might have been added by an online vendor who wants to boost sales, since phenibut, in my experience, is a somewhat common recreational drug sold on the internet, and it is well-known that wikipedia is a huge knowledge base regarding recreational drugs. It therefore seems likely to me that a seller of phenibut would alter the article to say that it enhances dopamine levels, since this is linked to feelings of euphoria in many people's minds.

Unless someone can find the claim references somewhere in the article, proving that I simply missed it, I think the statement should be removed from the article. Bobber0001 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was skeptical about this as well. Yet this article, which is cited for the information about PEA, seems to support the dopamine claim. Scroll down to "activation of dopamine metabolism." 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

I fixed cited source to the correct 2001 Lapin article.

Hack

The role of gaba and glutamate may have been completely overstated, in the interpretation of both the anticonvulsants' therapeutic action and related issues; focusing on the ion channels blockade and related consequences seems much more promising... The widely accepted model of the command and feedback between receptors and ion channels is consistent with most of the clinical evidences.

This is a sample about the serotonergic action of a ion channel blocker:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776325 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1572811/

The clinical effect depends on the individual balance: monoamine oxidases and monoamine transporters and neurotransmitters levels and receptors exposure. The person with relative exposure deficiency of 5HT2 under 5HT1 receptors experiences mainly inhibitory effects; the person with average and balanced exposure of 5HT2 and 5HT1 receptors experiences both excitatory and inhibitory effects depending on the actual brain state; the person with relative exposure excess of 5HT2 over 5HT1 receptors experiences mainly excitatory effects...

The FDA provides with warnings (about effects which may be explained with the serotonin release model together with ion channels block): http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm100190.htm

phenibut seem behaving as a ion channel blocker and a distributed neurotransmitters releasing agent; gabapentin in comparison seem behaving as a ion channel blocker and a releasing agent exclusively of hydroxytryptamine.

Tested legally on a rare patient with important ascorbic acid deficiency, reporting motivation increase and wakefulness and marked serotonin increase. cyproheptadine used as hydroxytryptamine release blocker and alternatively cyclobenzaprine used as a hydroxytryptamine 5HT2 receptor blocker.

The patient consistently reports immediate amphetaminoid effects and a subsequent prominent CNS inflammatory reaction (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16402109). Inflammation may be partially explained by increased amounts of hydroxytryptamine non conjugated with platelets, which metabolizes into hydroxy-indol-acetaldehyde, in its demolition path ending in hydroxy-indol-acetic-acid. Another explanation may be an agonist action at Toll-like receptor 4, triggering inflammatory autoimmune response. The patients reports the same effect with gabapentin and pregabalin but without any gain in physical energy.

Testing in a complex case together with antihistamines and monoamine reuptake inhibitors... providing with detailed information does not fit though.

79.7.42.52 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 79.31.237.192 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC) VICVONWIKVIT (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) VICVONWIKVIT 08:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity

I am interested in any medical providers and their experience with toxicity of phenibut. I work in a physician assistant that works in an emergency room. Yesterday I had a woman that had been using this supplement for insomnia for about a week. This woman purchased this without adequate instructions off ebay and was taking (best that I can tell) large quantities. She was experiencing hallucinations, paranoid behavior, agitation, bowel and bladder incontinence. Unlike baclofen, phenibut has a long half life. This patient ended up getting admitted after 12 hours of observation and supportive care. Best guess, patient's last dose was 24 hours prior to her arrival. At approximately 36 hours post last dose, patient was still quite psychotic, confused, exhibiting some hypersexual behavior, and agitated. Her bowel and bladder incontinence was improving and had eaten. Patient did not exhibit any sedative effects from phenibut. Pawhocares (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is possible it's the body's own biogenic amines in the wrong amount and place being toxic, not phenibut itself. If there was a direct toxicological issue, something similar must fit all the gabapentinoids, which are widely accepted, possibly because of their patents.

It behaves as a balanced neurotransmitter releasing agent both at CNS and periphery levels. It is not a sedative but an anticonvulsant instead. It tends to accumulate if dosed in excess. It seems more balanced than gabapentin and pregabalin and less toxic than carbamazepine. It is counteracted with ease by means of (TCA) sympatholytic antihistamines like cyproheptadine or quetiapine (CAUTION).

It requires prudential titration possibly with periodic analysis of plasma levels.

It must be considered as a drug in all respects. I cannot investigate beyond though. In doubt refer to amphetamines profile for caution. 79.20.12.122 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 79.31.238.217 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 79.40.235.79 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 79.7.41.165 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for any mistakes made while trying to help out with this article three people recently overdosed on phenibut so could be of some use if added to the article. It could be added to known effects of overdoses it also states that it caused bradycardia within the three people. http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/three-in-perth-a-e-after-legal-high-overdose-1.372723. 82.39.39.94 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Those blokes took 50 grams of the substance which is an absolutely insane dose. The daily amount recommended by sellers actually ranges from 0.5 to 2 grams. Also, the problems they had may have been caused not by phenibut alone. 80.7.87.151 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is interesting for adjusting and confirming the data already provided. The instruction sheet of the pharmaceutical phenibut is also very accurate! The bulk sellers of phenibut are just filling a gap, because the pharmaceutical companies are selling their analogues instead, which could be patented. The vendors of generic drugs do not address the costs for registering the missing ones. 79.20.9.18 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I know one of them and it was phenibut alone none of them had taking any other drug that night to suggest all three had bradycardia after taking a very high dose of phenibut then say it might not have been caused by it seems a little strange to me would it have been different if it was five users come on. 82.40.126.7 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Having an overdose from phenibut sounds rather ridiculous, as well as calling it a "legal high". You need to really try a lot to have any negative side effects from it. Where did they get their phenibut from? This substance seems to have been well researched in Russia and hence have quite a bit of scientific literature on it. No need to cite newspaper articles. 80.7.87.151 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. It seems sharing the same safety profile of the other gabapentinoids. Please do not be apprehensive in order not to burden this section... Thanx for the article. Cheers! 79.7.41.165 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And you, Sir, please do not make edits to previous messages as you seem to have done today. --80.7.87.151 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for I did just try to keep the section organized 79.21.30.48 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just in case it's useful for people working on this article http://phenibutsource.com/phenibut-adverse-events there's a list of published phenibut related case reports, one of them is a death of a 60 year old with unknown other drugs involved. Citations are included.

Tips

This content is provided in the hope of avoiding the common problems reported, which may lead to an excess of alarm or awe; probably it is necessary until the mechanism of action will be proven, giving an explanation to the various apparently mysterious phenomena.

Integrate with titrated dosages of acetylcysteine and possibly abundant dosages of ascorbic acid, for improving the metabolism of hydroxytryptamine and related hydroxy-indol-acetaldehyde into hydroxy-indol-acetic-acid. I also recommend integration with specific antihistamines for receptors' protection, as well as in the usage of any serotonin releasing agent primary amine. Try integrating with cyproheptadine or clotiapine or olanzapine or zotepine (CAUTION) if necessary, if CNS or peripheral inflammation and aggressiveness are a persistent issue. Integrate with fragments of acamprosate for moderating the glutamate transmission if mental thrust goes beyond the necessary, or if weird anxiety arises. I guess threshold dosages of hydroxyzine and even therapeutic dosages of cetirizine are not protective enough. I have patently missed the target with doxylamine and I have no experience with diphenhydramine.

Avoid risky combinations with vasodilators and prominent calcium channel blockers (cinnarizine manidipine dihydropyridines ethanol etc) and any potential serotonin releasing agent (amphetamine carbamazepine valpromide etc). A combination with the other gabalins should be safe adjusting the respective dosages, but seems to me a nonsense. I still do not see an absolute incompatibility with valeric acid and valproic acid, at least from a toxicological point of view...

79.7.41.228 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 79.31.237.161 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC) 79.7.41.165 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) 79.40.238.91 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 79.21.30.48 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 79.40.235.7 (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Remarks

You guys are all seeing things from lenses of perception of a certain kind, but other layers of reality exist.

Every person is different, every genome. No medicine or natural substance is intrinsically "evil." Modern medicine and modern people are stupid, frankly, and do not appreciate the fact that people who overdose on a billion grams of this or that stigmatized substance, would act so with ANY substance - the contingent accidental substance in newspapers etc. then typically is treated in a dualist-Manichean attitude, when what is really underlying matters, in all these cases, is the following: the ADDICTION- and ABUSE-predisposed individual is the active causal factor of the moral enormity. These things have been practically scientifically verified these days: the brain polymorphism amphetamine-abusers possess genetically, those who actually benefit from its utilization therapeutically, whether as adjunctive anti-depressant augmentation or whatever, well, the "euphoria" is not a shared experience because genetically impossible in the literal sense as the tested beneficiaries of amphetamine therapy, not by accident, LACKED in their chromosomes, almost eerily, to a person almost, the hidden micro-genetic material productive of chaos in others, what made amphetamine "evil" in the case of others -

What the ADHD people say, in their silly identity-martyr politics, about how Adderall or Dexedrine calming them down, actually, makes total biological sense, I have realized, any intelligent person if analyzing the case, shall realize... The statistically average individual possessing the more common genetic type, indeed, shall experience psychopathic and schizotypic effects in using amphetamine, probably, even if all ingested is minor, a crumb... Therapeutic dosage the FDA well knows is arbitrary and individually-determined, but what I am saying, is, the ABUSER PERSONALITY preceded in existence the accidental catalyst of its own ABUSIVE NATURE - a CRUMB microscopic of Adderall, give to your average Joe plebeian, and the fellow might as well have taken 5 grams of street speed - what first, chicken or the ego?

The type of human person who shall be abusively oriented, shall be abusively oriented. Objectively, the drug elevates instead of debilitates, a significant number of unusual affliction-bound (usually) people. To deprive them in demonizing the medicine, is equivalent to felonious armed robbery, morally.

At this point in Western cultural degeneracy, I am not opposed to para-fascistic measures directed against individuals of amoral or extreme immoralist bent preventing them from getting their paws on things HEALTHY SANE SOUND adults use reason to gain benefit from in utilizing - for sure, this caste or stratum of people should NEVER be allowed 100 miles within grabbing distance, never be given the opportunity to abuse what cannot uplift them - so, sure, Phenibut is purely toxicological in this perspectival angle... But safely lassoed and prevented so, this extends to EVERY SINGLE medicine, heck, EVERY "THING" (GLUE-SNIFFING?) whatsoever for persons of dispositions involutional.

Has any American toxicologist sadly reviewing bodies of American teens and youth dead due (externally) to "Phenibut-related" causes, realized, in fact, what is being presented, is not the demonological essence of any drug or aid, but the way of life of nihilistic anomie enshrined nowadays as itself the norm-less norm...? Is Phenibut really scientifically viper venom, as imagined?

We cannot pathologize Phenibut because the minority of upraised people do not deserve to be thus slighted and degraded and illicitly dispossessed, all basically because...what?...tons of idiots exist in the world with pleasure-centered natures and idiots numerically predominate over non-idiots...? How can we punish them so, in viewing Phenibut purely negativistically? An undeserved indignity various sufferers do not merit. Already oppressed with uncommon pain-based issues and syndromes, why tax them doubly again and diffuse through the culture the notion Phenibut is a thing of riffraff, disordered folk only?

The way Phenibut helps people, in particular, with super-rare varieties of headaches, by talking to neurologists and others, I find astounding. But of course if given to some hedonistic herdling with no condition within Phenibut's range of remediation, they'll go nuts with it - but ANY drug or medicine they would mega-dose in overkill madness with, however, that's what you guys under-appreciate... I thankfully do not have these cerebral punishments, but I have seen eye-witnessed in several cases, face to face, how Phenibut truly helps rarer medical ailment sufferers... How cruel can I be, to countenance depriving them of what allows them a little break from hell, punishing them because most human beings are already psychopathic?

All reality is holarchic, the same principles outcropping in different contexts.

With those who really benefit from Adderall, I notice, and who I know for a fact are not abusing it, the exact opposite behavior elicited from the drug of what is seen in the stereotypical average person, is manifested: amphetamine, supposedly only a creator of mayhem, does nothing but utterly tranquilize and tear off the nihilistic edge from these people. Whatever psychopathic primitivism they might have had, is exponentially decreased almost wondrously. And I also know, first-hand, eyewitness, those people I have certainly known to have used amphetamine abusively, first of all, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, already possessed characterological traits not far from berserk psychopathy. What their system evidenced was intensification of the chaos pre-existent. So, give a person whose gene pool tends to amoral or hedonic pulsatile pastimes or whatever, a bit of Adderall, what happens? Their psychopathy is magnified; the drug treats nothing, and in the context, is evil. Only in the context though... Give a bit of Adderall to a person who is sincerely stating they are benefiting from Adderall, with a certain cast of cognition we over-simplify in "ADD" categorization, and LIKE MAGIC, they are living wholesomely on the medicine, revitalized in the most peaceful way. A friend of mine who is prescribed Adderall of similar description, when I know she is on the pill or under its influence, exhibits hyper-intellectualism, refined mannerisms, cultural delicacy, "euthymia" of the most ideal kind, no "manic" hyper-focus, simply polished human high-cultural qualities - how she was before certain sicknesses wore down her mind and body. In other words, no dissociative centrifugal danger - according to the INDIVIDUAL, shall it be centrifugal or up-building.

People who should NOT be given amphetamine, become manic under its influence, you see? - the absolute polar contrast of what we think of when we cognize the mass cultural stereotype of what a user of amphetamine is like - it is those who are ALREADY running amok, already berserk and wild, who slip into schizophrenia and other extreme states with amphetamine... I did not believe the ADD people at first, about how something so chemically similar to cocaine like Ritalin or Dexedrine, "calmed them", to the point, literally, of having a more even, slower heartbeat and pulse as it metabolized into them... Machines do not lie though... I used to think all of it was hogwash and venal big pharmacy exploitation, the only possibility not considered being these folk self-identifying as "ADHD", are actually telling the concrete truth, whatever language of the moment used...

Personal level: I was given a small dose (2.5 mg) of "Adderall" as augmentation to my anti-depressant therapy. I have a doctor-grade BP monitor inside my room, and my vital signs are notably more calm, sedated, when I ingest the medicine. I simply experience lessening of the crushing depression, no "MANIC EUPHORIA", simply relative reduction of the psychic pain, and, I notice, Adderall has seemed to make me read Immanuel Kant more... I mean, that's as humanly psychopathic as it gets, right?

The genomic individuality must be the explanatory factor, what else? We are blind to this in our false surrogate religion of pseudo-messianic egalitarian utopianism.

Our idiotic ideological egalitarianism is holding back medical progress, I swear, criminally. Platitudes about linear homogenized monochrome human nature, the facts increasingly force even Marxist scientists to retreat in militancy. O and I surely am "racist" for bringing up the fact, genomic-genetic inter-individual uniqueness, and personalized treatment proceeding therefrom, is where medicine has no choice to go if medicine wants any greater understanding... Well, the Soviet anti-heredity freaks are dead-wrong as the African and Aryan supremacist buffoons, sorry. "Race" is the least important, most unrevealing element medicine shall be learning about in the "genomic era" - science is going to have to work with the reality of not being able to rest upon generalities of empty quantitative metrics, and to dig deeper, far deeper the differences shall be revealed, far deeper than what we think of as "race" especially...

I hope reality offends all delusive Marxist fruitcakes. If racial differences, so-called, offend, wait until you learn about the greater differences in store Nature has for modern utopians. Start boycotting the cosmic order, ontological level, egalitarian levelers. Curse the Sun.

I wonder if there is an objective universe beyond my individual ego and its paltry identitarian games, hmm? Nah...

Phenibut from the perspective of a person dealing with those who have PERSONALITY DISORDERS (or whatever terminology is preferred) who, by genetic inclination (not mechanical inevitability - potentiality is that, only potentiality - free will is real still), hedonistically exceeded all rational sanity in their mega-doses so obscene, self-victimized themselves, cannot be one-dimensionally targeted as the single, lone factor in these pitiful emergency room scenarios...

The albino fish have shown us, our specific differentia as non-identical entities as human beings, our individuated natures, case by case, are the real "culprits"... The fact that some people are hedonic-minded fools, others are not. Let's protest the galaxy, yeah...

The old, arthritis-plagued ladies in Russia and fibromyalgia-tormented, or anxiety-ridden, or migraine-afflicted, people in America or wherever, probably lack certain polymorphisms, or, alternatively, enjoy certain polymorphisms, in their genetic substance, allowing them to benefit from Phenibut as reasonableness suggests - in a limited, moderate way giving them palliation of pain, none of us can lie and pretend we have felt, we can only use empathetic imagination...

I know an old lady, utterly rational, who, with no issues, and in collaboration with her "prestigious" psychiatrist, figured out Phenibut was one of the only things giving her unusual brain migraine syndrome, a bit of relief... Feel free to reprimand her because human beings of lesser capacity of self-governance and different makeups, happened to stumble upon what relieved her pain and urge her to feel psychotically guilt-ridden. Fight legislatively for Phenibut to be exterminated from the earth, because, idiots of brutal nature indeed exist in the world and normal people must pay the price for their lack of rational principle... It would be more logical to simply sterilize the human beings possessing animalistic traits, really - THESE are the types who made a drug like amphetamine "demonic", manifold in its applications of medical value (AMONG NORMAL SANE PEOPLE) - these atavistic personalities are evil, not this or that drug - ANY DRUG THEY WOULD ABUSE - barbarian-natured people, I learned in school, shockingly, sniff glue, and other cases of madness, and get hospitalized, overdosing on glue - so let us ANNIHILATE GLUE, right? - heck, implement non-coercive eugenics of humane kind, rather: no natural substance on earth is somehow innately "demonic"...

As to pharmaco-dynamic interrelation speculations, well, I don't need to speculate, but can state absolutely, because I have taken, through the years and in different (NON-ABUSIVE) ways, Phenibut, doctor-approved and all; I learned about Phenibut from my Russian-born doctor - his only problem with Phenibut in America and elsewhere, is the chemical impurities sometimes messing up a pharmaceutical-level medicine mercantile companies of the "BODYBUILDING STORE" variety get away with... Americans are so silly, resolve the cognitive dissonance: Phenibut is "good" and "doctor-stamped" in Russia but "of concern to the DEA" and a drug of lowlife trash only, pure and simple, in America. How to reconcile? The FDA is legally feudal superior to all foreign nations, their laws, civilization: the foreign leader Putin, is oath-bound to report like a good Boy Scout to the FDA and DEA weekly, or bi-weekly, isn't that in the Constution?

I happen to not hate Russians prejudicially, even if American, so sorry fellow Americans! I even learned the cosmonauts had a few things in their space-kits, more advanced than all American stuff: THE HORROR. Phenibut does not possess noxious interactive toxicity, I know more than first hand as ingesting all this stuff in my gut, with the following: no necessary negative interactive relation (or, how to phrase this?, 'for those not handicapped with hedonic apelike traits of personality, it is safe to use Phenibut with the following'...?) with Gabapentin, Valerian, Baclofen, Sertraline, Effexor, Cymbalta, Citalopram, Clonazepam, Diazepam, "Depakote", nor even co-administered literally at the very same moment, with something like Amphetamine enantiomers. That's all I care to list right now. HOWEVER: that is MY genomic differentia. What is yours?

I do observe, forthrightly, those with PREEXISTING SLEEP-RELATED MEDICAL PROBLEMS, people, for whatever reasons, biologically out of entrainment with the planetary turning, have SHARPLY SIGNIFICANTLY distinct experience with Phenibut and its cousins. I imagine "PUBMED" (GOD OF GODS) has junk about how Phenibut is a pseudo-hypnotic and stimulator of insomnia blah blah. Well, curtly, NO - but those people already screwed-up like that, then taking Phenibut in a wrongly conceived way, sure. So, once again, are we going to blame Phenibut or this or that medicine, for everything, or realize the equation is more than multi-factorial...?

Picamilon is on Amazon.com, these compounds are so "mainstreamed" today, with hundreds of positive reviews - the same chemical, self-same. Why aren't we hearing horror stories about Picamilon? All Picamilon is, is Phenibut commixed with a B vitamin. Seriously. Ponder - why no Pik/camilon tales of horripilation?

Is it possible, personalities Dopamine-genome wired to be likely abusive in relation to drugs or medicine, play an underemphasized yet vital role in screwing up their own lives from their own bad choices? Could human personality factors and even cultural factors, be playing a role in all this, hm...?

You have to dip into each person's genomic individuality if really wanting to know stuff. Chromosomes encode what an individual shall experience as either "good" or "bad", medicinally, to a significant extent; and Marxist foolery is not removing human inter-individual variation any time soon, so modern medical professionals need to be intelligent and start incorporating the genomic differentiation variable into things... Generalities of old, just don't do anymore...

Attitudinizing away and trying to guilt-trip whoever benefits from Phenibut, taking the medicine responsibly, and acting like simply because the FDA-DEA clowns in good ol' America don't quite know what to make of Phenibut, as it transcends their Manichean simplistic world-view, and is "NOT APPROVED", pretending all this superficial tissue of social conformist "concerns" is justification for pathologizing a whole sector of humankind, those who might be remedially benefited from usage, - this does not fly. I wish more universalistic-minded people edited Wikipedia - American-Israeli fascist socialist imperialist hubris gets old quick - why are not we seeking qualified Russian and other authorities of legitimacy to improve this article? All the article does is pander to irrelevant junk, mainly.

On Wikipedia's "GLUE" article, let's talk about the LETHAL DOSE of glue, and glue-sniffing, the solution to this problem, being, naturally, totally outlawing the sale and merchandising of glue. Anyone follow...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How it's sold in Russia

The lead section of the article states that "in Russia it is sold as a psychotropic drug." However, if you look at a leaflet of any phenibut product approved for sale in Russia at the State Register of Medical Products, it would be labelled as:

(1) (in most cases) a nootropic (ноотропное средство) or in the most recent instances as a stimulant and nootropic (психостимуляторы и ноотропные средства) by its Russian "pharmacotherapeutic group";

(2) N05BX (Other anxiolytics) by its ATC code.

Does it all warrant saying it's sold as a psychotropic drug? --PhGamma (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

Could we possibly come up with a better introductory sentence (and the lead in general) than the following: "Phenibut[note 1] (contracted from β-phenyl-γ-aminobutyric acid) is a central nervous system (CNS) depressant and derivative of the naturally occurring inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)"?

I'm referring to its definition as a central nervous system depressant. Surely it is, but it's an incomplete and somewhat inaccurate description of the substance, given, e.g., its certain stimulant effects and ability to improve cognitive functioning. Even the website at the "External links" section gives "Central Nervous System Stimulants" as one of its classification codes. --PhGamma (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like all of the claims of nootropic effects come from Russian journals. I don't consider Russian pharmacology journals to be reliable sources -- articles in them commonly involve massive conflicts of interest. More reliable sources appear to treat the drug as a GABA analog and CNS depressant. Looie496 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What sort of a conflict of interest (I suppose you mean a commercial one) would bear articles dating back to the Soviet era? --PhGamma (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Soviet era. Currently it is not uncommon for articles in Russian pharmacology journals to appear with advertisements for the products that are examined, and it is very common for the authors to be associated with groups that sell the products. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind, Americans and our Israeli brethren are racially superior and inimitably possessed of all authority - especially concerning intellectually demanding topics. I am almost certain that is also official Wikipedia policy, almost certain... Anyway, I did not even know the poor besotted Slavic Gentiles had even learned how to write and read, that's beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to denigrate Russians or other Slavs, I have worked with a number who are brilliant. But the unfortunate fact is that, for a variety of historical reasons, most Russian medical journals are low quality. See http://www.ete-online.com/content/5/1/15 for an account written by two well-informed Russian doctors. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No mention of addiction?

Among nootropics enthusiasts, this stuff has a rep for requiring dosage increases beginning within a few days of regular use, and for being highly addictive, with withdrawls as bad as benzodiazepines or barbiturates. I was kind of surprised to not see that mentioned in the article, even though it's well documented. See, for example, the (free) article 'Phenibut dependence'(Samokhvalov AV1, Paton-Gay CL, Balchand K, Rehm J.) here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23391959

There are also 'Phenibut yielded withdrawal symptoms and psychosis. Drugs for cosmonauts--now marketed as dietary supplements online,' 'Withdrawal symptoms after Internet purchase of phenibut (β-phenyl-γ-aminobutyric acid HCl),' and other articles covering the problems... 'Phenibut, the appearance of another potentially dangerous product in the United States,' 'Acute behavioural disturbance associated with phenibut purchased via an internet supplier,' etc. All peer reviewed.

No coverage of even a single bad thing about Phenibut? 173.228.54.27 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Designer drugs

Please, pardon my ignorance, but how does phenibut fall under the designer drug (a synthetic analogue of a legally restricted or prohibited drug, devised to circumvent drug laws) category? --glossologist (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the people who "abuse" Phenibut, as the article says, do not use the prescription version. It's openly sold in powder form on the internet, "not for human consumption" to avoid certain laws, just like hundreds of other designer drugs. Sadly the Designer Drugs wikipedia article is in a horrible state right now and needs a full overhaul. Many (most?) designer drugs were originally explored by pharmaceutical companies but never marketed and later reinvented by gray market vendors. A few prescription but (in some/many countries) unscheduled drugs like etizolam and phenibut are sold in exactly the same manner. Aethyta (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, are the any sources labelling phenibut as a designer drug? If not, it can be dismissed as original research.

Second, to my knowledge, phenibut is not sold or marketed online as "not for human consumption". At least not among vendors based in the English-speaking countries like the the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. I believe in Germany and Poland, where it's gained some popularity, it's the case as well. If ordering in bulk from China (where apparently most, if not all, of phenibut powder is produced), it's sold as a human supplement as well. Moreover peer-reviewed articles documenting some of it's use mention it being sold precisely as such. Its sale isn't in any way circumventing any laws and is done in the same legal manner as with other dietary/mood supplements like L-tryptophan, caffeine or vitamin B. No involvement in the black market.

Third, phenibut simply doesn't fall under the very definition of a designer drug. It was devised in the Soviet Union as a mild anti-anxiety/depression drug (that while perfectly doing its job doesn't bear any meaningful side effects) and by its actions is not an analogue to any illegal or even legal drug. A drug being officially (in practice often not) sold within Russia by prescription and in the rest of the world freely without prescription doesn't make a case for it being labelled as a designer drug. For instance, piracetam is being sold as a prescription drug in the UK, but in the US it's freely available online. Does it make it a designer drug?

Forth, there isn't enough evidence to label phenibut as a drug of abuse. In the scientific literature, there's a number of case reports and anecdotes, but no actual study on the matter. The article indeed mentions its misuse, but if you look at the source, you'll find a a person who took 30 g of the substance, which is 10 to 20(!) times more than its recommended daily amount.

I strongly believe that the category should be removed, as well as its mention in the list of designer drugs. --glossologist (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In some countries Phenibut is a unscheduled prescription only drug and yet sold online in powder form as not for human consumption to avoid the law. Also black market != gray market. As Wikipedia is not limited to the USA and Phenibut is definitely sold in a similar manner to designer drugs in other countries, I strongly disagree with you! In Germany, an example you wrongly listed, Phenibut falls under the Arzneimittelgesetz if sold for human consumption and is often seized at customs. The more you know! Aethyta (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't commented on the fact that phenibut is not a modification/derivative of any restricted substance devised specifically to circumvent the law and thus doesn't fall under the definition of the subject. Neither there were any sources supporting the claim that "in some countries Phenibut is a unscheduled prescription only drug and yet sold online in powder form as not for human consumption to avoid the law". I personally can't think of any instance. I've seen German websites selling phenibut in the same manner as it's done in the US, UK, Australia etc., but would appreciate to learn about its status in Germany if I'm given any links.

That all being said, we would still need sources specifically listing it as a designer drug. Otherwise it's original research. --All the best, glossologist (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

DOI: 10.1111/dar.12356. " Phenibut (β-phenyl-γ-aminobutyric acid) is a GABAB agonist that is used as an NPS." and "Phenibut is readily available in the UK from Internet sites selling NPS." - novel psychoactive substances and designer drugs are the same thing, as you surely know. Aethyta (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It merely says that it's used as an NPS for its effects and it's available on websites selling NPS, which doesn't make it an NPS as such according to its definition. It's a Russian pharmaceutical drug derived from a naturally occurring and legal substance GABA. Inclusion of the category is not fully warranted. It can be mentioned as the authors' opinion at most. --glossologist (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) --glossologist (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You asked for a source, I delivered one. Your personal disagreement with the very reputable source is of no importance. Aethyta (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the definition of NPS used by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is not exactly the same as in the designer drug article. (A new psychoactive substance is defined as 'a new narcotic or psychotropic drug, in pure form or in preparation, that is not controlled by the United Nations drug conventions, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions.) It's a broader term that concerns any uncontrolled potentially harmful drug that has newly appeared on the market. Moreover, if you look, e.g., on this EMCDDA report, on page 4, you'll see that NPS are divided into for groups: designer drugs, legal highs, food supplements and medicines (human and veterinary), with phenibut being placed under the "food supplements" group. The same goes for another EMCDDA document (page 3): four groups—designer drugs, legal highs, non-controlled medicines, dietary supplements—of which phenibut is put under the latter.

Bottom line: NPS is a broad term pertaining to different substances including designer drugs. Phenibut is mentioned as an NPS, but not as a designer drug. It's a problem of the designer drug article, which misrepresents the European definition, basically equating the terms. --glossologist (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See also

I would like to know who is removing the links to the strictly related compounds in the see also section 79.40.235.7 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe someone who's aware of the following Manual of Style guideline:

"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

--glossologist (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a shrewd policy because this way average visitors are misdirected 79.21.30.78 (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (bend the status quo step by step following your common sense; do not get carried away from the flock; keep your eyes wide open; otherwise we are going to be ready to support any myth and any Moloch; at least when building a living creature and not a zombie)

I may suggest a polite way to say the same... Please see the guideline. Are you sure is it still necessary to keep the links in that section?

That said, I believe it is advisable, the pages of a same group of molecules do match the same style 79.21.30.78 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Adverse reactions

I've undone the recent edits in the Adverse reactions section. We can't compile a number of individual case reports and create an overdose or withdrawal symptoms profile from it. There should be major clinical studies done for that matter and the effects should be listed in general medical literature. Moreover, the articles cited present cases where the fact of phenibut's use was not medically established by testing and is based on what the patients claimed. Additionally the alleged withdrawal symptoms are based on reading Internet forums; for instance, Phenibut Withdrawal – A Novel “Nutritional Supplement” says "A search of the literature did not reveal any reported cases of withdrawal, but there are numerous reports of withdrawal symptoms on Internet blogs."

The section now lists "agitation, confusion, and loss of consciousness" as overdose effects, but it's based only on one report about one patient, and there is a number of considerations that should be done about it: First of all, there was no testing done for the presence of phenibut in the system. Second, it talks about the symptoms that were reported in the morning after taking phenibut before going to sleep, that is, after most of it had already left the system, since its half-life is only 5 hours. If you take phenibut before sleep, you shouldn't feel its effects the morning. Third, before going to sleep he took a dose of one tablespoon (20 ml), which is about 15-20 grams of the substance (or even more, since it says it was a large tablespoon, plus it doesn't specify how heaped it was), while the normal recommended dose for phenibut is 250 mg three times a day, which if you sum it up is at least 10 times less than what the patient had administered. The phenibut overdose is defined as going over 40 mg/kg. Thus for an average person of 70 kg that overdose would start at 2.8 grams, therefore it's very misleading to take adverse reactions from a case report of someone taking 15-20 grams and listing them among the common overdose effects. In addition, the article reports that prior to that the patient regularly took 3 teaspoons of phenibut, which the article mistakenly says is "~500-1500 mg". In reality one teaspoon having the volume of 4 ml contains at least 3 grams of the phenibut HCl powder and if heaped even more, thus he must have taken at least 12 grams as a regular dose, again huge overdose.

Another article (Psychotic symptoms during phenibut (beta-phenyl-gamma-aminobutyric acid) withdrawal), talks about a patient, who "has a history of mixed substance abuse, predominantly benzodiazepines and opiate addiction" and bought phenibut to "relieve benzodiazepine cravings". It also reports that he had "one relapse of benzodiazepines about 2 weeks prior to the present admission." Regarding his phenbiut use it says that he used it for two month taking the amount of "more than 10 times the recommended dose". Again, an extreme case where a patient was suffering from benzodiazapine withdrawal and took and was taking exptremly high doses of phenibut. Additionally when withdrawing from phenibut, he "tried to self-medicate with pregabalin" and one day was "gabapentin, promethazine and levomepromazine", which could have been the cause of the aggravation with his withdrawal symptoms. --87.110.94.159 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Russian register of medicines says the following about the side effects and overdose effects of phenibut:

Side effects

Usually phenibut is well tolerated. During initial administrations or under overdose one can observe sleepiness.

<..>

Overdose

Symptoms: pronounced sleepiness, nausea, vomiting.

The original Russian text:

Побочные действия

Обычно фенибут хорошо переносится. При первых приемах фенибута или при передозировке может наблюдаться сонливость.

<..>

Передозировка

Симптомы: выраженная сонливость, тошнота, рвота.

--87.110.94.159 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of material; reverted

Today an IP editor removed a substantial amount of material, using the edit summary, "The resource this comes from admits that all of it's information comes is "GREY SOURCE" literature and reports that cannot be cross referenced, recreated or measured, nor use any scientific method. It is also HIGHLY disputed by the authors peers". Possibly that is true, but the source in question, PMID 26693960, seems to meet the MEDRS criteria, so I think this deserves some discussion. It definitely doesn't feel right to me to completely ignore the underground use of this substance, as the article would do if the removal goes through. In any case, I have reverted the removal for now. Looie496 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I also saw it, but you beat me to reverting. I agree with your assessment. What did "It is also HIGHLY disputed by the authors peers" refer to anyway? Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

US legal status

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.

---

Please see the conversation on my talk page with @Vontheri: regarding the change I’m making to the United States legal status InfoBox. Conversation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dogshu#Response_to_question_asked_on_edit_summary Dogshu (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Dogshu and Vontheri: Hi! Thank you for the link, but I did not find it compelling. In your revert, you requested a citation. This is the source that I was quoting:

"Phenibut is a substance that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary ingredient." —FDA.gov

To suggest that phenibut is a "dietary supplement" implies that it meets the federal, statutory definition of a dietary supplement, which came from DSHEA, and is now found in 21 U.S. Code § 321(ff). Therefore, I propose that the legal status of phenibut in the infobox be changed from "dietary supplement" to "Not FDA-approved; unscheduled."―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like the appropriate way to handle it to me. The FDA is the ultimate authority on the legal status of this chemical compound in the United States. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

But it implies that it is a Designer drug, not something sold openly online and in stores. On the other hand [2] that happened in the midst of @Vontheri: and my discussion. However that was a corporate decision, not a US legal change. The FDA can pull it from all store shelves but, thus far, have not. We are talking about *current* legal status. Hopefully it will become regulated soon because it is so dangerous, but the FDA has taken no such action as of yet as they did with GHB in the 90s. It was submitted to the FDA for review just as Melatonin was. I know this is unconvincing, but I find DSHEA#Critisicism unconvincing as well. I know, we have not convinced each other of anything. But it seems to me it it as best unregulated. Hopefully by the time our discussion is over, the FDA will take action and this will be a moot point :) Dogshu (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Just because these products are currently sold openly as dietary supplements, that doesn't change the fact that the FDA considers them not to be dietary supplements. Poor enforcement of a regulation doesn't negate the existence of that regulation. Our difference of opinion revolves around legal status vs de facto status. It should be possible to find wording to use in the article that satisfies both. Personally, I still think "Not FDA-approved; unscheduled" is best for the infobox, but the additional context regarding the current lack of enforcement can be addressed within the text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edgar181, Dogshu, and Vontheri: Thank you for your input, all. I concur with Ed—while I can appreciate the de facto availability of phenibut for purchase, and the illegal packaging of phenibut-containing products in the likeness of a dietary supplement (per the FDA, this is misbranding), it is clear from the aforementioned citation that phenibut is not in fact recognized as a dietary supplement in the U.S. at this time. I agree that it would be apropos to describe these nuances in the Phenibut#Legal_status section. Dogshu and Vontheri, do you concur with the consensus of Ed and I? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In April this year, the FDA issued 3 warning letters to manufacturers selling phenibut as a supplement or dietary ingredient, referenced in the FDA announcement above and here. The warning letter language spells it out: "Phenibut is not a vitamin; a mineral; an herb or other botanical; an amino acid; a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of the preceding substances. Because phenibut does not fit in any of the dietary ingredient categories under section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, it is not a dietary ingredient as defined in the Act. Declaring phenibut in your product labeling as a dietary ingredient causes your product to be misbranded". Stating it is "not FDA-approved; unscheduled" is accurate, as it is not an approved prescription drug in the US either. --Zefr (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saw several articles about various stores taking it off the shelves, looks like they are cracking down hard as we speak, I’m happy about that. But there is a difference between things actually banned by the FDA and just not FDA approved, no? Could that language be improved? Dogshu (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dogshu: Thank you for the question. However, let me clear up what may be a misconception. The FDA has not "banned" phenibut. Rather, the so-called "crack down" is really a technical one; the crime is the misbranding of a product that purports to contain a dietary supplement, but does not. From the same source above:

"Because phenibut does not fit any of the categories of dietary ingredients under the FD&C Act, any dietary supplements that declare phenibut as a dietary ingredient are misbranded." —FDA.gov

Theoretically, I'd argue, phenibut could also be designated as a "scheduled" chemical by the DEA, and a person prosecuted for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, under the statutory definition of a "controlled substance analogue":

"the term 'controlled substance analogue' means a substance...which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II." —21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A)

Strange, from the perspective of a chemist, that U.S. law can designate a chemical as an "analogue" of another chemical on the basis of an effect. However, as I do not have a reliable source for the above legal claim, that would simply amount to original research. Hence my original proposition, which I stand by.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Minor quibble: it's not a benzo analogue though, it's more similar to GABA (inert), Gabapentin, and Pregabalin, none of which are higher than schedule V I believe. Even then, benzos are schedule IV. I'm fairly certain the analogue act only applies to schedules I and II, so it would have to be explicitly scheduled. Dogshu (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Baclofen is not a GABA agonist

hi. it is mentioned in the introduction paragraph that "Phenibut is thought to be a GABA agonist, like Baclofen". I am writing to inform that Baclofen is not a GABA agonist at relevant concentrations. it is a common misconception. instead it is an antagonist of voltage gated calcium channels. 216.15.92.2 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

my mistake, it actually is an agonist. I was under the impression that both baclofen and pregabalin shared this property. 216.15.92.2 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead too complex

The lead should summarise the main issues and main body. This sentence does not belong in the lead:

Subsequent research has found that it is also a potent blocker of α2δ subunit-containing voltage-dependent calcium channels (VDCCs), similarly to gabapentinoids like gabapentin and pregabalin.[8][9]

That is not a summary and is quite meaningless there. Wikipedia targets a general audience. One should not need a medical degree to understand the summary. Could someone with knowledge of the issue place that in context in a main section. Other aspects of the lead are quite technical too. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree and done here. Zefr (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Illegal in Alabama

SSCreader, in a recent edit, you added that it is "Illegal in Alabama" to the infobox with the source:. I looked at that source and it doesn't mention phenibut or any of the compounds in the |title= parameter; there is also a typo ("Conrolled"). Did you perhaps provide the wrong URL, or am I missing something on that page? Kimen8 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-alabama/title-20-food-drugs-and-cosmetics/chapter-2-controlled-substances/article-2-standards-and-schedules/section-20-2-25-schedule-ii-listing-of-controlled-substances

It is illegal there. SSCreader (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that doesn't address my comment though. I said the source you provided does not say that it is "illegal in Alabama". This source you have provided here does say that, so you could simply replace the faulty source in the article with this one. Kimen8 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can do it. I'm too high on phenibut to care for this kind of thing. SSCreader (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked back through the history, and I realized you didn't introduce a new source you simply copied from later in the body into the infobox. What seems to have happened is the content at that URL changes yearly, so I added the archived version that actually does show what it is meant to show, and updated the other reference to use that as well. It should be fixed now. Kimen8 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Good job! SSCreader (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References