Posted by linkadge on August 30, 2005, at 8:30:38
In reply to Re: Neurotoxicity is a pretty sketchy term, posted by utopizen on August 29, 2005, at 20:12:04
>I'm not sure if it could actually be proven that
>this is why Parkinson's disease is somehow
>worsened, since the disease itself is incredibly
>and rapidly degenerative as it is.
A drug that has been proven in rats (and in humans) to selectively cause morphological changes to the dopaminergic system should be avoided in a disease where dopaminergic neurons are sparse.
>Whether you give an amphetamine or not, it's
>going to worsen either way. Isolating that to
>amphetamines is not any task I'd like to prove
>if my life depended on it.
Smoking during chemotherapy for lung cancer ain't going to make things any better.
>A lot of things, for a lack of a more precise
>explanation, don't havbe a more precise
>expanation than we'd like to isolate them to.
>That's just the way life works. Most things are
>a result of multiple factors-- even taking a hot
>shower will help to decrease inflammation caused
>by amphetamines. So, to what extent does this
>alter anything? Who cares?
I care. I try to gather the factors, and alter the ones I am capable of altering.
>If you can manage your life without
>amphetamines, I applaud that.
If it is not a factor that you can change, then so be it. For my best friend, taking a stimulant is not somthing he can change. Snorting it is something he can change.
>But if you feel your life is impaired, let's not
>make neuronal salvation into a religion, and
>don't worry about it.
Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean somebody isn't watching you.
>Seriously, I have serious doubts about the mere
>association being placed on the use of
>amphetamines and the increased risk (is that
>what is being suggested??) of Parkinson's.
I wasn't saying that amphetamines caused Parkinson's. I was saying that many doctors now theorize that ADD/HD has nothing to do with a lack of dopamine, but rather an issue related to lack of functionality of the dopamine receptor (like in Parkinsons's). If this is true, than amphetamines are not the ideal treatment, as in animal models they do not appear to be friendly to the integrity of the dopamine receptor.
>There's enough people who eat meth in place of
>food each day to know this simply is not true.
I won't even bother to respond to that.
>Certainly not anything to lose sleep over if
>you're taking low doses like ADD meds are
You are right. Loosing sleep won't help anything.
>I might also remind folks they've found oral
>Nizoral effective at Stanford for cocaine
>cessation in rats. So effective, they felt
>convinced it would work in humans.
>The humans were found, in controlled trials, to
>increase their use of the coke.
Science can make mistakes. Does that mean we tune them out completely?
>So I don't worry about my life's future based on
>how rats-- the only means to research just about
>anything in neurology to the depths we're
>discussing here- bear any signifigance of merit
>whatsoever. It's nothing to do with you, it's
>just the rats. I hate rats. =)
If only that were true, the research would be easier to shrug off. You'd be surprised the number of brains of deceased drug addicts make it into scientist's labritories. Well, because unlike other human beings, those who eat meth instead of food, tend to not live very long.