Talk:Botulinum toxin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spam warning

Is the spam warning still needed? I checked the external links, and I don't see any that aren't either references (e.g., the Good Morning America appearance) or to non-commercial sites. Eggishorn 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it.Mmoneypenny 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Old, unsections comments

-What is the point of having this article have links to Botox if Botox redirects to this article?

Why Botulin Toxin. As some one who has worked on it in the lab, it is always Botulinum toxin. Shurley Shome Mishtake? Bassophile 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This page could really use some information about its current popular use as a cosmetic; more than one small sentence, anyway. --Fastfission 20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - I have made an addition on the topic of side effects. Let me take a closer look at the structure of this topic, and - if people approve - make this article more fact-based and less controversial.--BrianWalker 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh...do we want to have accurate information for making Botulin on Wikipedia? What about inaccurate information? Who knows the difference? I'll let someone else figure this one out... --- Mike 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it. For reference, the text that was added (without source) is below. Pakaran 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

THE PRODUCTION OF BOTULIN IS EASY AND SIMPLE. THE SPORES ARE IN THE EARTH OF YOUR GARDEN, JUST DIG 10-20 CM. ADD A TEASPOON TO HALF A POUND OF GROUND MEAT. CAN THE MEAT IN A JAR. (HEATING IN A WATERBATH FOR 45 MIN. AT 90 C.) COOL, LET STAND A WEEK. THE CONTENTS WILL TURN BLACK AND POISINOUS. BOTULINUS TOXINE IS A PROTEINE, WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED BY HEAT.

So why not? Info is info. Use it tou your gain. Anyway, this informations can be found in any libary. It is not the gun that kills, but the person behind it.

---

Anjail Says: "BOTULINUS TOXINE IS A PROTEINE, WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED BY HEAT." I don't who posted this but this ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Botulinus toxin IS a protein but CANNOT be "killed" by HEAT (the protein can be brokedown with heat). But the bacteria that create it must be killed by heat AND PRESSURE, only an autoclave like apparatus. The toxin will break down at room temperature BUT if you do not add pressure, the bacteria will still be alive and produce more toxins (either in the food matter or in the stomach, neither which is fun). So don't think because you heat that "jar" of poison you create that it's non-lethal anymore, cause the bacteria is still alive and will replace that toxin rather rapidly.

--Anjail 23:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Experimentation on politicians?

Excerpt from the article: Throughout the 1950s, the toxin was used experimentally in the medical cosmetic treatment of politicians. Then actor-turned-politician Ronald Reagan is rumoured to be one of the earliest patients of this microexpression-concealing procedure.

While performing toxin experiments on politicians does sound appealing, I'm assuming that the procedures performed on Reagan et al weren't experimental in nature, but rather applying a technique without necessarily proven results? (Ie, I wouldnt think people going in for penis enlargement surgery would be referred to as volunteers for human experimentation) GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Illegal in most countries!

I miss a bit of NPOV in this article. The use of Botox for cosmetics is prohibited in most countries outside the US. And for each production unit, about 60-100 mice must be killed to adjust the right (very low) concentration. The glorious wonders of this substance should be described a little more differentiatedly (does this word exist?). --Lode 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was going to ask for a source, but it wasn't hard to find quite a few: [1] As for the "banned in most countries" I also found sources about British celebrities using (or being accused of using) it. It appears to be banned in Spain. So yeah, feel free to add it. -- Pakaran 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How do the Clostridium bacteria themselves profit from this poison?

Hello,

a question to those knowledgable: what's the use of the toxin to the Clostridium bacteria themselves? Or is it simply "garbage" left over by their life processes? -- 145.254.129.135 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just a waste product, as you said a garbage left over by their life products, it is of no use to the bacteria.

---

That is not true at all. The toxin is not DIRECTLY usefull to the bacteria, but very much so indirectly: it kills the host organism that then serves as fermenter for bacterial proliferation. This also reflects the evolutionary drive for the bacteria to produce an effective toxin, which has resulted in Botulinum Neurotoxin being one of the most effective toxins around. Without the toxins, the hosts immune system would just swiftly kill the bacteria - end of story.

Minor edit notes

Change of BTX-A to BTX-B approval for dystonia obtained from http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic585.htm#section~botulinum_toxin_type_b_for_dystonia MeekMark 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I disputed the neutrality of this article. Portions dealing with the therapuetic use of Botox read as if they have been crafted by the public relations department of a pharmacuetical company. The article speaks in glowing terms of the benefits of Botox therapy without any mention of side effects or the much-discussed controversies regarding the cosmetic use of Botox (e.g., whether Botox lessens the emotive expression of the face). Moreover, the hyperactive use of trademark registration symbols is needless. Newspaper stories and Wikipedia articles are generally written without them. Using the circle-R for some brand names and not others creates inconsistency, creates bias, and is jarring to the reader. They should be removed. Flarper 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be toned down a bit, and maybe not keep using the ® after the first use. There is research to back up most of the claims, I believe, but the side effects (difficulty swallowing, painful injections, etc.) should also be pointed out. If I have time I'll pull up the prescribing information and get a little balance. Another concern is the high cost of the medicine, and the difficulty getting insurance reimbursement for valid medical conditions due to the common use for cosmetic reasons. MeekMark 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed some Breathless! Marketing! Speak! from the article, and put the ® in the first use only. Needs some more work, but it's better at least. — ceejayoz ^talk 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with putting a {POV} banner. The "medical use" section definitely looks like an ad and is almost the size of the whole article (including "medical uses other than cosmetic" which, if neither off-label nor totally minor, should be listed in a simple sentence, not in large bullet lists), while using this commercial product has several known not-so-minor side-effects. (besides, a more generalized usage of "Botox(r)" instead of just "Botox" seems sound) Even a cosmetic-center webpage or another webpage from a one website apparently promoting the drug look more balanced... not counting what a "botox danger" google search immediately yields.--Camcom 09:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree now - seems perfectly neutral to me. What I think should happen is a rewrite of the article to make it flow better. There are big issues in looking at the glowing "pro" and "anti" comments in the press and web. Huge "anti" comments seem, on closer reading, to be preliminary to obtaining huge sums with the aid of litigation lawyers. Clinical practice - Confession - I am a doctor who uses Botox - has shown that the dangers are very limited, and restricted to the cosmetic implications of poor technique. Huge "pro" comments to the cosmetic use are just that - advertising the effects which are pretty good. One could argue the morals and ethics of fooling yourself into appearing younger, while maintaining a poor lifestyle. But that would not belong in an encyclopedia entry

uh...

...recently added text:

In the Journal of Dermatologic Surgery, Eric Finzi claims to have treated clinically depressed patients with botox. On Good Morning America, he explained that by taking away the ability to frown, he was also taking away the ability to feel depressed. [1]

...seems to give undu weight to what seems like a rather odd use of a paralysis inducing neurotoxin, also I recall from microbio that there's a rather complex reaction cycle for the botulinum toxin itself, which seems to be omited in favor of more comercial® interests--70.107.115.168 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The parent company of ABC News is Disney, and if Disney owns some pharmaceutical company that produces botox, then that should've been disclosed in the broadcast. But I don't recall such a disclosure. Cholerashot 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, two seperate questions, didn't mean for them to both get mushed together--70.107.115.168 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. But thanks though for putting in the extra measure of skepticism I should've put in in the first place. Cholerashot 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous??

I'm about to use botox for my hands for my suffering of hyperhidrosis. Just tell me, please. What can happen to me in worst case?

Why would you ask strangers instead of your doctor?Cloviz 02:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctors are not the only source of reliable information. Also, this is a good way for people who have had the procedure for botox-hyperhidrosis treatments to comment on its side-effects, as well as people who are planning on having the same procedure and already have information to share on the subject.

Removed opinions to here

I removed the following edit to the main article to here, as it seems to be an opinion, not related to the article:

The German physician and singer Justinus Kerner called botulinum toxin "sausage poison", as this bacterium often causes poisoning by growing in badly handled prepared meat products. He first conceived a possible therapeutic use of botulinum toxin. In 1870, Muller (another German physician) coined the name botulism, from Latin botulus = "sausage". (This is a commonly repeated factoid about how the product got its name. It is certainly true that C. botulinum can grow in inadequately preserved meat products. (Although it has also been reported in badly preserved beans, mushrooms, yoghourt and even honey.) However, it seems far more likely to me that the name is derived from the shape of the bacterium itself: C botulinum is a rod-shaped bacterium which often appears to be slightly curved under high-powered light microscopy. In other words, it is the bacterium itself which resembles a sausage - hence Clostridium botulinum = 'the clostridium species which resembles a sausage'.) In 1895, Emile Van Ermengem first isolated the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. In 1944, Edward Schantz cultured Clostridium botulinum and isolated the toxin, and, in 1949, Burgen's group discovered that botulinum toxin blocks neuromuscular transmission. Throughout the 1950s, the toxin was used experimentally in the medical cosmetic treatment of politicians. (This seems like a highly dubious statement - no evidence is offered in support of it. Scott (see below) is usually cited as the first person to deliberately administer toxin to humans.)

MeekMark 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to Botulinum toxin. —Centrx→talk • 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty far off medical and scientific literature if it calls the neurotoxin produced by Clostridium botulinum by the name "botulin toxin". A Google search for "botulin toxin" yields 27800 hits, a search for "botulinum toxin" yields 1 470 000 - that is, for every one reference to "botulin toxin", one could produce 53 references for "botulinum toxin". For the more specific term "botulinum neurotoxin" (which describes exactly which toxin one is talking about, is abbreviated BoNT or BTX, and differentiates this toxin from the non-neurotrophic botulinum toxins - see below) the figure is 138000, while for "botulin neurotoxin" one can find a total of 42 references - i.e. the "botulin"-containing phrase is outnumbered by a multple of 3000! If one argues that the word "botulin" is a suitable scientific word used to refer to the protein toxin of C. botulinum, then adding "toxin" to it is tautology; it is like using "fibrinogen protein" as a title for an article. I believe that the naming is not really a matter of opinion; as used in this article (and as changed at some time in the Botulism article) it not consistent with the general scientific English usage. Lastly, the C botulinum organism produces toxins other than just the neurotoxin, for instance the C2 toxin is a cytotoxin (ref: Ohishi I, Iwasaki M, and Sakaguchi G. Vascular permeability activity of botulinum C2 toxin elicited by cooperation of two dissimilar protein components. Infect Immunol (1980) 31: 890-895.). In reading the literature on human botulism, it seems as if most of the writers are not even aware of the fact that C. botulinum produces anything other than a neurotoxin (they mention A to G, and seem to think these are all neurotoxins). There is no need for WikiPedia to follow such an uninformed terminology - this encyclopedia can help improve even the scientific literature. I therefore propose that the article gets renamed to Botulinum neurotoxin.

I corrected the reference to Kerner as a "singer". Did that mistake come from a computer aided translation of the word poet? --Seejyb 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support alternate Botulinum toxin which has more Google hits and has hits that look just as legitimate. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to "improve even the scientific literature". —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Single Drop Killing 50,000?

Removed the sentence, "A single drop is capable of killing 50,000 people."

I'm guessing that no one has ever tried to kill 50,000 people with a single drop, so it could be said:

"It has been estimated that a single drop is capable of killing 50,000 people."

Although it would still be ambiguous. Does this mean that if you put a drop in the water supply 50,000 would die? Or that there are 50,000 people in the world who would die if you made them drink a drop of botulin toxin?

But if you put a drop in the water supply, and so everyone was exposed to the same amount of toxin, why would only 50,000 die?

Bantosh 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, It means that the toxicity of one drop(imprecise size) if divied evenly to 50,000 people all of them would die. Phöénix 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. But how does one divide a single drop of anything into 50,000 discrete parts and deliver it to 50,000 different people? I'm saying that this sounds awfully like a "fact" that someone just made up to impress how powerful botulinum toxin is. Bantosh 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

With an LD50 estimated at 1ng/kg, and taking 80 kg as an average mass for a person, we have 80 ng to kill half the individuals exposed. 100,000 x 80 ng = 8 mg. If we take a drop to be 20 uL, that gives us a concentration of 400 mg/mL, which is helluva concentrated. I wonder whether the author of that comment maybe just took a drop to mean 20 mg? Of course, even then, you'd have to dilute it accurately to an appropriate concentration, and dose the people accurately. Maybe we could get Josef Mengele to do the experiment? --Slashme 11:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FIX THE FREAKING REDIRECTS

WE HAVE SOME REDIRECTS 4 LEVELS DEEP, AND ONLY ABOUT 10 PAGES LINK PROPERLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.83.132 (talk • contribs) .

First, is your "freaking" keyboard broken that you can't fix them yourself?! It took me all of two "freaking" minutes to do all eight of them. Second, there wasn't a single "freaking" redirect more than two deep. Third, I'll thank you to maintain some "freaking" civility. Fourth, sign your "freaking" talk page posts. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his freaking keyboard is, in fact, broken: The caps-lock key is stuck. This is problem for fixing freaking redirects, as Wikipedia is freaking case-sensitive. Depth perception is altered in some freaky drug-addled states, which might account for why he mis-estimated the depths of the freaking redirects. --Slashfreakingme 11:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

bio or chem

I think it's fine to have this in both cats. I've added Category:Biological weapons per the definition found at Bioweapons. Feel free to revert if you find it twisting your knickers. ... aa:talk 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Myobloc and Treatment Section

Added blurb in medicinal section on Myobloc (Botulinum Toxin - Type B). I also clarified and added to the treatment section as it was a little misleading and oversimplified. We are talking about the most deadly substance known to man - it is 15,000x more lethal than VX nerve agent[2]and the way it was presented made it sound like botulism was nothing to be concerned about so I added some facts and reworded it a bit. I also added the information about the antitoxins.

DMR418 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually removed the mention of Myobloc: there is no indication that this commercial product is the single one to achieve this, and as such, this looks like plain advertising (especially considering the discrepancy between this information and the rest of the section...). In addition, the external link to myobloc . com is simply a reference to a website that seems to primarily advertise the molecule and sell the drug (I thus removed the link as well) (see Links normally to be avoided e.g.).

It seems the best attitude here to discuss specifically the effect of "Type B Botulinum Toxin" would be to link to a scientific article proving or explicitly mentioning its effect; especially considering that the effect of the toxin with respect to cervical dystonia had already been mentioned in a bullet-list in the same section, a little bit before in the text. Otherwise, there is no reason to think this is not advertising. If myobloc is the only product to do this effect on the market (?) (-> citation needed), it could perhaps be mentioned in this list but should not receive much more attention. --Camcom 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)