Talk:RTI-31

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about RTI-31.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)ProfMadProfmad (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) RTI-31:- The material acquired was from a reliable source. The supply quickly went quiet? 250mg was tested over a 24 hour period. It had little, to no anaesthetic quality. Effects noticeable at 5mg doses, and extrememy euphoric by sublingual ad. A longer t1/2 than Cocaine, and preferable! I doubt it will reliably reappear, since, it is a highly habituating substance. Some forums suggest the materials tested was not RTI-1, with 'peculiar' recounts, since its effects are potently obvious. 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)ProfMadProfmad (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

This article is very technically written (and at some points clunky in grammar) and needs language softening for general readability. An expert in pharmaceutical chemistry will need to do this. I cannot. Grammarpolicealpha (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]