Quote1 Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Study Objective. To determine the content of the hallucinogen salvinorin A in a variety of Salvia divinorum herbal products and to compare the content with the label claims of potency and purity. Design. Laboratory analysis. Setting. University-affiliated laboratory. Samples. Five herbal products containing Salvia divinorum. Measurements and Main Results. The samples were purchased from the Internet and local drug paraphernalia shops ("head shops"). Highperformance liquid chromatography and thin-layer chromatography-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy were used for the analysis. All five samples contained salvinorin A, a psychoactive compound found in Salvia divinorum; however, the salvinorin A concentrations we measured were much lower than those claimed on the product label. Vitamin E was also found in two samples and caffeine in one sample. Conclusion. The five salvinorin A herbal products were found to be subpotent, and three products contained adulterants. Any discrepancy between the advertised salvinorin A concentration and their actual concentration may pose a potential risk of both misuse and overdose. These concerns, and the recently reported teenage suicide that could have been related to salvia consumption, underscore the need for practitioners to become familiar with the signs and symptoms of salvia use.
PMID: 16945049 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16945049&query_hl=15&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Hmmm: "Signs -n- Symptoms" :roll: ...... Guess I better watch my wearing of a peacefully contented smirk :wink: :wink: ---- sal
I find the opposite, serrate leaves that are sprouting from my neck (which has become hollow and square) to be the most telling sign of Salvia use!
What a disappointing study.
It doesn't tell you what samples they tested, or what websites they ordered off of.
The may say in the full paper. I only have access to the abstract.
I put in a request with my library for a copy of the full article. I will post the vendors (edit: and samples) here when I get it.
Thanks. I tried to order the article, it is suppose to let you for $6. But I couldn't do it without signing up for a full year or something. I seems like an interesting journal. There have been several interesting articles from them lately.
Got your 10x coffee here. PM me for details...
-TM
oh, awesome..
I'm really interested in seeing the full results of the study :D
Okay, I got the article. Unfortunately the authors do not mention the internet vendors (there were three, the other two vendors were head shops), but they do mention the samples tested. I suppose we could email them and ask?
This screenshot shows the only info they had regarding the vendors and samples (forgive me, but I'm a little wary of uploading/emailing it since my uni recently caught me filesharing, so I'm only going to post a screenshot rather than uploading the entire article).
(//http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i17/cp225/screenshots/completescreenshot.jpg)
Wow the salvinorin content of all the samples was very low. Makes one wonder who their samples were from. Without identifing the source it makes the whole study suspect. Where these really representitive samples of what is on the market?
I wonder if some jerks are selling the leaves that were extracted to make the enhanced leaf.
A result there would there would be some real enhanced leaf and 4X-19X the volume of worthless leaf.
I agree, TSTT and winder: those concentrations are surprisingly low.
It also makes me wonder if there weren't some errors in the paper's analytical methods. It is surprising that someone could sell "50X" that is actually lower than the normal range of salvinorin reported in the literature for plain leaf. I realize that this is a peer-reviewed journal and all, but it's still surprising. I'd like to see the experiment replicated.
Also, one pretty fatal flaw in the study -- which won't be corrected, I'm sure -- is the lack of following the Hefter protocol. :) Seriously, it would be easier to accept the result had they followed it.
A part of me feels disappointed by the findings.. that the content is that low.
It's hard to be disappointed though, because whatever it is I'm ACTUALLY getting, it still blows me off my feet :P