![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on November 9, 2005, at 8:17:32
I'm just bored, reading various things online. Came across a pretty lengthy document put together by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services' "Center For The Evaluation Of Risks To Human Reproduction":
http://www.drugintel.com/drugs/documents/Amphetamine_FR.pdf
The first paragraph on page 23 (well, page 14 of the PDF document itself, as indicated by the page numbers on the document; but I'm going by Acrobat's page numbering) states this:
"Amphetamine S-(+)(d-) enantiomers have five times the stimulant activity of R-(–)(l-) enantiomers (reviewed in (27))."
I don't have access to bibliographical references listed on the document, or else I'd check out number 27 myself.
I mean, I take Dexedrine 15mg Spansules (45mg daily) and Desoxyn (20mg total daily) myself, along with other things, and it's indisputable in my case that Dexedrine has shown itself to be far superior to Adderall in the long-run. And I'm not sure that I even dispute their claim of 500% the stimulatory action, seeing as Adderall is 75% dexamphetamine and my current doses of amphetamines work far better than Adderall ever did even when I was at 150mg/day. Desoxyn's about twice as potent as dex, and I'm saying that based solely on subjective experience, so I'm currently taking a rough equivalent of 85mg dex daily....... how is it that Adderall, at a dose nearly twice as high, didn't provide me with even half the benefit? I mean, I realize Desoxyn's pharmacology differs a bit, but even before I added Desoxyn to my regimen and I had just made the transition from 150mg Adderall to 60mg Dexedrine Spansule, I noticed a tremendous improvement in all areas of my life. Now, could this be due to my exclusive use of the Barr Labs generic for Adderall (which I've heard to be notoriously unreliable)? I have my doctor write "Brand Name Medically Necessary" on my prescription so Medicaid will pay for the real deal as far as the Dexedrine is concerned -- I've had disappointing and varying results with the generic in the past (also by Barr -- bottle read "D-AMPHETAMINE SULFATE ER").
Or could it be the use of different salt forms in Adderall... ? Inactive ingredients... ? Is this all in my head... ??? lol
As long as the stuff works, and it sure does, I really don't care what the government says -- I know how I respond to it, anyway. But I'm wondering what their sources were??
~Michael
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 9, 2005, at 8:35:39
In reply to US Govt says D-amp is 5x more stimulating than L??, posted by Ame Sans Vie on November 9, 2005, at 8:17:32
This is a well-known fact, demonstrated who knows how many thousands of times. l-methamphetamine is even exempt from the CSA because it barely even makes a good decongestant.
An organic chem friend of mine (who is about to get a PhD) said that it IS possible to make d-meth out of l-meth, despite what the government thinks. Isn't that a hoot?
d-deprenyl is also a relatively potent psychostimulant with neuroprotective properties that is metabolized into d-amphetamine and d-methamphetamine, incedentally. It would probably be covered under the analog act, though, but I have never heard of a d-deprenyl prosecution.
Posted by Ame Sans Vie on November 9, 2005, at 9:53:03
In reply to Re: US Govt says D-amp is 5x more stimulating than » Ame Sans Vie, posted by Chairman_MAO on November 9, 2005, at 8:35:39
> This is a well-known fact, demonstrated who knows how many thousands of times. l-methamphetamine is even exempt from the CSA because it barely even makes a good decongestant.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I made myself very clear -- I was sort of rushed typing that post. I've long known about the vast difference between D-meth and the crappy L-meth in the Vicks Inhalers. Apparently they're trying to make up for the obvious direct marketing to speed freaks via the bold, italic words that used to be on the front of the box reading "Levmetamfetamine", as I noticed fairly recently that now all of the sudden they've changed the name of the drug on the box to "L-Desoxyephedrine", lol. But anyways, yeah, I know levomethamphetamine is no fun -- I'd rather cook up the contents of some Benzedrex Inhalers and settle for the propylhexadrine buzz than try to catch one from L-meth.
But back to my point -- they asserted in that PDF that plain old dexamphetamine is 5x more stimulating than levoamphetamine (though they failed to clarify if that was CNS stimulation or peripheral...). I always thought the general consensus was that dex was about twice as potent, but with fewer peripheral effects? But like I said, I'm certainly not disagreeing with them... well, maybe just a little, but only because I don't know about *five* times more stimulating... maybe three and a half times? lol I just would like a copy of whatever study they're referring to, or something.
> An organic chem friend of mine (who is about to get a PhD) said that it IS possible to make d-meth out of l-meth, despite what the government thinks. Isn't that a hoot?It's funny you bring that up -- I've been brushing up lately on what little organic chemistry I used to know and learning quite a bit more as well. What's funny is that I happened across a newsgroup post just last night wherein someone posted the procedure to reverse chirality of the levomethamphetamine stereoisomer.
> d-deprenyl is also a relatively potent psychostimulant with neuroprotective properties that is metabolized into d-amphetamine and d-methamphetamine, incedentally. It would probably be covered under the analog act, though, but I have never heard of a d-deprenyl prosecution.
Huh, thanks for the info -- I'd never even given a thought to dextroratory selegiline, to tell you the truth, but hey, I guess ya learn something new every day. :-)
Take care,
~Michael
Posted by Chairman_MAO on November 9, 2005, at 11:26:09
In reply to Re: US Govt says D-amp is 5x more stimulating than » Chairman_MAO, posted by Ame Sans Vie on November 9, 2005, at 9:53:03
5x sounds right to me, not 2x. If the study uses animal models or measures something in the CNS, you can bet they mean "centrally". Peripheral stimulation isn't really of much interest when talking about things like d-amphetamine. We have drugs like clenbuterol for that.
Posted by paulbwell on November 9, 2005, at 18:06:46
In reply to US Govt says D-amp is 5x more stimulating than L??, posted by Ame Sans Vie on November 9, 2005, at 8:17:32
> I'm just bored, reading various things online. Came across a pretty lengthy document put together by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services' "Center For The Evaluation Of Risks To Human Reproduction":
>
> http://www.drugintel.com/drugs/documents/Amphetamine_FR.pdf
>
> The first paragraph on page 23 (well, page 14 of the PDF document itself, as indicated by the page numbers on the document; but I'm going by Acrobat's page numbering) states this:
>
> "Amphetamine S-(+)(d-) enantiomers have five times the stimulant activity of R-(–)(l-) enantiomers (reviewed in (27))."
>
> I don't have access to bibliographical references listed on the document, or else I'd check out number 27 myself.
>
> I mean, I take Dexedrine 15mg Spansules (45mg daily) and Desoxyn (20mg total daily) myself, along with other things, and it's indisputable in my case that Dexedrine has shown itself to be far superior to Adderall in the long-run. And I'm not sure that I even dispute their claim of 500% the stimulatory action, seeing as Adderall is 75% dexamphetamine and my current doses of amphetamines work far better than Adderall ever did even when I was at 150mg/day. Desoxyn's about twice as potent as dex, and I'm saying that based solely on subjective experience, so I'm currently taking a rough equivalent of 85mg dex daily....... how is it that Adderall, at a dose nearly twice as high, didn't provide me with even half the benefit? I mean, I realize Desoxyn's pharmacology differs a bit, but even before I added Desoxyn to my regimen and I had just made the transition from 150mg Adderall to 60mg Dexedrine Spansule, I noticed a tremendous improvement in all areas of my life. Now, could this be due to my exclusive use of the Barr Labs generic for Adderall (which I've heard to be notoriously unreliable)? I have my doctor write "Brand Name Medically Necessary" on my prescription so Medicaid will pay for the real deal as far as the Dexedrine is concerned -- I've had disappointing and varying results with the generic in the past (also by Barr -- bottle read "D-AMPHETAMINE SULFATE ER").
>
> Or could it be the use of different salt forms in Adderall... ? Inactive ingredients... ? Is this all in my head... ??? lol
>
> As long as the stuff works, and it sure does, I really don't care what the government says -- I know how I respond to it, anyway. But I'm wondering what their sources were??
>
> ~MichaelGorden Alles (1901-1963)-an early pioner in D-Amphetamine, found in 1927 that the D-iosemer, "Dextroamphetamine" was as much as 10x stronger than the L-Isomer. Alles did some studies on himself, apparently with positive results!
Cheers
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.