Talk:Β-Methylphenethylamine

Untitled

It is described as a designer drug, but this is not true, you find it in this tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_rigidula. So this should be corrected.

If you read this carefully, you will NOT find any mention of β-methylphenethylamine. N-methyl-β-phenethylamine is not the same thing! The findings reported in this article are highly dubious, in any case (see discussion in WP entry for amphetamine).Xprofj (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

amphetamine like activity?

does anyone have a source of any faqs, reviews on this compound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.240.42 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision to article

I deleted the original reference to the presence of β-methylphenethylamine in Texas acacia species because this compound is NOT actually mentioned in the article. Furthermore, this article itself is highly dubious (see discussion under WP entry for amphetamine). I also deleted the comments about β-methylphenethylamine being a "stimulant" drug, since there is no reference in the literature concerning this property. If there is "anecdotal" evidence, then it should be entered as such, with the appropriate citation. Xprofj (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Science errors

There is a scientific error in the line that reads: The β-methyl compound also had ~ 2 x the broncho-constricting power of amphetamine (as measured using the isolated rabbit lung)

It should read:

The β-methyl compound also had ~ 2 x the broncho-dilating power of amphetamine (as measured using the isolated rabbit lung)

Reason is:

Stimulants are vaso-constrictors on blood vessels but broncho-dilators when it comes to lungs. Therapeutic example is ventolin (Beta agonist) and Theophylline a natural stimulant.

I have amended the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.5.188 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)