Posted by chemist on April 28, 2004, at 22:29:55
In reply to Re: Clarification on what neurotoxicity means » chemist, posted by utopizen on April 28, 2004, at 15:40:40
> . as for neurotoxicity: this is a well-established field, and the crux of the matter is that there are chemicals that can lead to pre-mature cell death (as opposed to apotosis).
>
> by "well-established field," I assume you're referring to neurology. Neurology is a well-established field? Is this what is to be inferred? Please correct me if I am over-assuming here, but we're talking about a field of doctors that pat themselves on the back if they can diagnose a patient... I would consider a "well-developed" field to go beyond giving a patient a diagnosis and providing them with medicore care if at all underdeveloped.
>
> And if it's so well-developed, why would we stil rely on neurotoxins? A developed field of toxicology, if that's what you're instead referred to, would exist only if it actually achieved something.
>
> Like, say, helping researhcers not make drugs neurotoxic when they develop them by exploring how to prevent a drug's mechanism of action from causing neurotoxicity.
>
> >>
> the drugs being discussed inthis forum are more in-line with those that condition certain receptors for enhanced/inhibited uptake of certain neurotransmitters, and the receptors themselves are an entirely different matter....all the best, chemist
> >>
>
> condition? that suggests remission to me, IMHO. Few drugs offer remission to even fewer patients. And amphetamines certainly are discussed on this board a lot, and they are far from achieving the state of conditioning--
>
> after one month of a drug holiday from Adderall, I received the same euphoria for a few minutes I initially experienced when I first went on it routinely a year prior.
>
> And a lot of this is psychosomatic. The distinguishing factors are impossible to separate-- the amphetamine can cause shortness of breath, this causes the patient to feel anxious, causing an greater shortness of breath, causing lower CO2 levels in the blood, causing less CO2 flowing through the brain, causing damage to the brain.
>
> Whether or not cells regenerate, it is clear that anxiety/stress itself, drug-induced or not, will lower IQ (Am. Textbook of Psychophamacology) and reducing anxiety or depression will alleviate much of this, especially through quality sleep and proper nutrition necessary for cellular functions to properly occur in the body.
>
> My point was that neurotoxicity, brain cell loss, and controversies surrounding this are irrelevant, because concern should focus on the reality that much of this is managable, as it is psychosomatic action that plays the most signifigant role in degenerative effects brought on by drugs.hi there....just wanted to point out that there are over 25,000 pubs (refereed) in print that deal with neurotoxicity. that fact that most drugs discussed in this forum are detailed for side-effects and not abrupt discontinuation of life - a euphamism - is telling that the field of neurotoxicity is (in my opinion) a steadily growing and useful field. the complexities arise, as you point out, when variations in an individual's genetic makeup arises. clearly, not all drugs are beneficial for everyone, but we are seeing more and more NDAs in the past 2 years for stereoenantiomers of what were thought to be the best drugs at the time (e.g., lexapro vs. celexa) than ever before. neurotoxicity is also a wide field, extending to topics such as how does chromium (VI) cause damage to brain cells? answer: it crosses as chromium (IV), and is oxidized to the hexavalent species that causes neurotoxic effects - *not* neurodegenerative. in environmental issues, neurotoxicity is one of many foci. haevy metals - particularly transition-state ones such as cadmium, chromium, and mercury - are very well documented in terms of levels that can induce premature cell death and inhibition. the field is not perfect, but people are not dying: if you are experiencing night sweats, tremor, and dry mouth, thank your lucky stars that you are taking meds now as opposed to 30 years ago, when side effects included much more severe consequences. when we develop a new drug, the goal is to shorten lead time (savings for consumers), decrease side effects, and maximize psycopharacological action. neurotoxicity is prevalent in *every* aspect of drug development, from pre-clinical to post-marketing. and as an aside, your receptors can indeed be `conditioned'' to respond in a certain way to certain agonists/antagonists, although the effect is quite usually diminished over time, as you noted with your experience with the mild drug amphetamine (no tongue-in-cheek: amphetamine is nothing compared to synthetic opiate derivatives, for instance, or even methamphetamine). all the best, chemist
poster:chemist
thread:339575
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040423/msgs/341152.html