Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 383476

Shown: posts 23 to 47 of 72. Go back in thread:

 

Re: to all... chemist

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:17:36

In reply to Re: to all..., posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52

oh great chemist, flmm here!
You remind me of the many shrinks I have seen in my life who say things like.."it should not do that", or "I don't think it caused that, must have been something else!" How very patronizing of you to include my "limited knowledge" quote! Oh well, we all can't be the all knowing "Chemist" Well you can take all your knowledge and it does not add up to a hill of beans in the real world. I know more about meds than my shrink does and he has a degree, what he lacks is street smarts. You may have issues here as well. Regardless, I think your advice is of very little value and probably can get some people hurt if they listen to you. Sorry if I don't consider you the "Genius" of chemistry that you are in your own mind. For now i will get my advice elsewhere, but thanks anyways, oh great "CHEMIST"

 

Re: to all... chemist

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:21:44

In reply to Re: to all... chemist, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:17:36

By the way, I speak from experience when it comes to E and what it can do top your loved ones! Great advice "CHEMIST"

 

i am confused... verne

Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:34

In reply to Re: to all..., posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52

hello there, chemist here....my comments below, delineated by asterisks....all the best, chemist


> Hoover and the Chemist have quite the "tag team" act on this board. I've seen this routine used on other boards in an attempt to bully and silence other posters. One supports the other as they gang up on any perceived opposition.

*** this statement is untrue, and unless you have archived URLs for threads that show the contrary - and i cannot recall a single event - i stand firm in this regard. either produce the evidence that Larry Hoover and myself act as you assert, or retract your assertion. the burden of proof is on you. please supply it. ***
>
> What purpose, for example, does one of their comments, "given that other contributions to this thread have been ill- or non-informed" serve? Let each reader decide for themselves how informed a post is.

*** i ask, what purpose do blanket statements that are in fact untrue serve, especially when the people making them cannot and/or do not provide evidence that their assertions are true? this falls under the category of ill-informed and/or non-informed. i repeatedly asked for peer-reviewed information supporting various claims, and none was provided. if you have some, by all means, support your claims. until then, your assertions are opinions not founded in fact nor supported by objective evidence. period. ***
>
> Sadly,this sort of tag-team bullying is usually successful. Many posters, often hurting, in need of help and real answers, instead are drowned out unless they have sufficient references and meet the chemists' level of proof. Worn down, they leave.

*** again, please provide evidence that i - chemist - have been the sole cause of any person leaving the psycho-babble community. the reason i ask for references (and my willingness to provide or make clear that i am not informed in many cases) from posters who make grandiose statements that are all-encompassing is that such sweeping arguments need to be supported.. ***
>
> And in the end, the chemists prevail - at least, in their own minds.
>
>
*** i hold a doctorate in chemistry, and have been a post-doctoral fellow/lecturer at 2 medical schools and a top-ten university. i have published in the esteemed journal Science (my 10th publication). i have held a position as an assistant professor of chemistry, have collaborated in the past and present with a molecular design group at a privately-held pharma, and currently lecture in the 13th-ranked chemistry/biochemistry department in the nation, for whatever good the u.s. news and world report rankings do us. larry hoover is at least as educated as i am and, further, knows more about the stuff on this and other boards than i do. i am a chemist, and like larry, it is the way i pay the bills. it is also my passion. i look forward to your response. ***

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:45

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? verne, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 20:07:25

Chemist, maybe you should get a girlfriend or something and stop reading all these books on drugs. Get a life man! If you want to take E and burn up, knock yourself out man. Use your brain "GENIUS"

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:40:08

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:45

Man I have never read a more insecure post than your last "chemist". Ok, ok you are the all knowing chemist, there is no other! No one knows more than you. Do ya feel better buddy! Good, now put down your book, and go get laid buddy. Then we will all feel better!

 

Re: i am confused... err chemist

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:43:00

In reply to i am confused... verne, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:34

Oops, sorry chemist, I missed where you stated 13th ranked. I guess you are not the greatest "Chemist" after all. My apologies.......

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem flmm

Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:43:52

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:45

> Chemist, maybe you should get a girlfriend or something and stop reading all these books on drugs. Get a life man! If you want to take E and burn up, knock yourself out man. Use your brain "GENIUS"


hello there, chemist here...your remarks are offensive and incorrect. there is really no other way to comment on your last posts, and it is the most civil way i can quantify your personal attacks on me. all the best, chemist

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:49:16

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem flmm, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:43:52

Sorry to offend good buddy, but there is nothing more offensive than your passive-agressive," I am a genius and you are an idiot," stance, that you so slyly put in all your posts. You can read every book you want but you still have a problem with real world logic. Most guys like you do. That's why you must defend your knowledge so strongly. It stems from insecurity.

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:53:46

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:40:08

I am out Chemist, Peace good buddy, just playin.....

 

are you sure? flmm

Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:56:09

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:49:16

> Sorry to offend good buddy, but there is nothing more offensive than your passive-agressive," I am a genius and you are an idiot," stance, that you so slyly put in all your posts. You can read every book you want but you still have a problem with real world logic. Most guys like you do. That's why you must defend your knowledge so strongly. It stems from insecurity.


hello there, chemist here...are you certain that the quote you assert i place in ``every post'' does in fact appear? i was not aware of this...thank you for bringing it to my attention...all the best, chemist

 

backpedalling? flmm

Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:57:59

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? chem, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:53:46

> I am out Chemist, Peace good buddy, just playin.....


hello there, chemist here...i have little to no reason to believe that you were just playing....all the best, chemist

 

Re: backpedalling?

Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 23:14:11

In reply to backpedalling? flmm, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:57:59

You are right oh great Chemist. Playing, no. Having fun yes! It will probably get me kicked off but you know what? It was worth it! You don't know squat! You should eat some food or vitamins or meds that will help you with your self esteem. You can still be the old, great chemist that you were. Maybe some people will even listen to you! Just not me, I have lost all respect for the great chemist and long for the old days, when I could trust what I heard. After your outburst, citing your outstanding credentials, I prefer to get my advice from someone with more confidence!

 

Re: backpedalling?

Posted by gardenergirl on August 29, 2004, at 23:36:36

In reply to Re: backpedalling?, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 23:14:11

The dude/dudette doth protest too much, methinks.

gg (thanks be to Shakespeare)

 

Re: please be civil chemist verne flmm

Posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2004, at 23:40:47

In reply to Re: to all... chemist, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:17:36

> i agree with your subjective assessment of your knowledge of the subject being discussed in this thread - limited - and applaud the depth of your self-realization.
>
> chemist

> I've seen this routine used on other boards in an attempt to bully and silence other posters.
>
> verne

> How very patronizing of you to include my "limited knowledge" quote! Oh well, we all can't be the all knowing "Chemist" Well you can take all your knowledge and it does not add up to a hill of beans in the real world... I think your advice is of very little value...
>
> flmm

Please don't be sarcastic, jump to conclusions about others, or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.

Sharing something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise -- and might help others respond to you supportively.

If you or anyone else has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil

Also, follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?

Posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 7:34:02

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 11:16:53

I'd like to take this opportunity to provide a more in-depth analysis of my position vis a vis therapeutic use of MDMA.

I can best represent my feelings by discussing another drug first. If I knew of an individual dying of bone cancer (a horrible painful exit from this mortal coil), I would hope they would be prescribed a suitable pain control medication. Perhaps, I should say, *the* suitable pain control medication, heroin. For these individuals, there is no psychotropic effect. Their powerfully up-regulated mu-opioid system (from the pain stimulus) mops up the heroin first, as those nociceptive receptors have a higher affinity for the drug than do the psychotropic ones. Unfortunately, too many doctors have images of junkies and shooting galleries in their minds, and heroin is far too seldom put to this admirable use. I have heard remarkable tales of people coming back to their old selves, under the influence of the heroin, and being permitted a last and fruitful interaction with their loved ones, prior to their inevitable death. Yet, I have actually heard doctors say that they don't want to turn the sufferer into an addict, and refuse the prescription outright. As if that mattered, in that context. But, in fact, the pain itself precludes addiction (if the dose is appropriate), as addiction can only follow psychotropic effects. So even that argument is fallacious. It is a classic non sequitur, and it arises from social propaganda. Drug abuse is a property of people, not of the drug itself.

Now, with respect to MDMA. There is a similar therapeutic use of MDMA, in an appropriately selected population (e.g. sufferers of PTSD), who are psychologically prepared for the drug experience, and guided by skilled clinicians. Two of the distinctive characteristics of this process (and of the use of heroin, as above), are that the drug is supplied in a much purer form than can be obtained "on the street", and at a very precise dose. You don't know what you're getting from a street dealer, or the dose, nor can you readily obtain that information. For example, an early batch of street MDMA was contaminated with MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), in an attempt to adulterate the MDMA with the drug meperidine (Demerol). Unfortunately for a few individuals, the MPTP was present in high enough concentrations to induce permanent Parkinson's-like symptoms. That's the problem with what we call "bucket chemists". Anybody can get a recipe off the Internet, but that doesn't turn you into a chemist....no more so than reading a recipe for duck a l'orange will turn you into a cook.

I'm not a lily-white ivory-tower demagogue. I was a hard-core addict for many years. I did more PCP than I have a right to have even survived. I know what drug abuse is. And, if I may be so bold, I know what drug abuse isn't.

One hundred years ago, Eaton's (the Canadian equivalent to Sears) sold tincture of opium, and hemp extract. The latter was for "female concerns", or something phrased similar. Lo and behold, one hundred years later, we discover that PMS and dysmennorhea may be related to cyclic depletion of endocannibinoids (our internal, natural cannabis-like chemicals). That's not to suggest that pot-smoking is always valid, but it also does not invalidate medical use of marijuana. Or of opium.

Alcohol is an excellent disinfectant, and used in moderation, reduces the risk of heart attack.... Need I go on?

Lar

 

Redirect: administrative issues

Posted by Dr. Bob on August 31, 2004, at 7:35:35

In reply to Re: please be civil chemist verne flmm, posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2004, at 23:40:47

> follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.

Here's a link:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040717/msgs/384533.html

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover

Posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 8:56:43

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? verne, posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 20:31:34

<snip>

---- begin quote ----
> The first abstract below demonstrates this relationship nicely. Note that the threshold for brain damage, or even abnormal brain chemistry post-use, is greater than 4 mg/kg (by interperitoneal injection, not oral), a dose three times the typical human dose, employing a route of intake not normally employed by humans. Only
----- end quote -----

The study you're quoting involves rats. You can't directly compare animal doses to human doses without first calculating the human equivalent dose (HED) which takes into account such things as body surface area. To get the HED for rats you should multiply the dose above by 0.16. So 4 mg/kg * 0.16 = 0.64 mg/kg. That's a total dose of only 38.4 mg in your 60 kg human. Repeated dosing of MDMA and amphetamines gets even more complicated because rats metabolize the drug so much faster than humans.

Dave

<snip>

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001

Posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 9:19:46

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover, posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 8:56:43

> <snip>
>
> ---- begin quote ----
> > The first abstract below demonstrates this relationship nicely. Note that the threshold for brain damage, or even abnormal brain chemistry post-use, is greater than 4 mg/kg (by interperitoneal injection, not oral), a dose three times the typical human dose, employing a route of intake not normally employed by humans. Only
> ----- end quote -----
>
> The study you're quoting involves rats. You can't directly compare animal doses to human doses without first calculating the human equivalent dose (HED) which takes into account such things as body surface area. To get the HED for rats you should multiply the dose above by 0.16. So 4 mg/kg * 0.16 = 0.64 mg/kg. That's a total dose of only 38.4 mg in your 60 kg human. Repeated dosing of MDMA and amphetamines gets even more complicated because rats metabolize the drug so much faster than humans.
>
> Dave
>
> <snip>

I appreciate the digression into uncertainties of estimate. There are always assumptions made in cross-species comparisons, of course. There are also different ways to estimate HED (I assume yours is BW to the 2/3 power, rather than the metabolic parameter BW to the 3/4). Primate studies are probably more applicable, and the same pattern is found as in the rats. I.e. only extremely high doses, or recurrent use without sufficient recovery time, lead to measurable neuronal damage or changes in neurotransmitter concentrations. Another variable to consider is antioxidant status, and I wonder if e.g. ravers aren't a little more likely to eat poorly?

By no means was I suggesting the referenced article was conclusive, but merely suggestive. There is a toxic threshold, and the issue of exceeding that threshold is not clearly defined in humans.

Lar

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover

Posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 10:29:18

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001, posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 9:19:46

> > <snip>
> >
> > ---- begin quote ----
> > > The first abstract below demonstrates this relationship nicely. Note that the threshold for brain damage, or even abnormal brain chemistry post-use, is greater than 4 mg/kg (by interperitoneal injection, not oral), a dose three times the typical human dose, employing a route of intake not normally employed by humans. Only
> > ----- end quote -----
> >
> > The study you're quoting involves rats. You can't directly compare animal doses to human doses without first calculating the human equivalent dose (HED) which takes into account such things as body surface area. To get the HED for rats you should multiply the dose above by 0.16. So 4 mg/kg * 0.16 = 0.64 mg/kg. That's a total dose of only 38.4 mg in your 60 kg human. Repeated dosing of MDMA and amphetamines gets even more complicated because rats metabolize the drug so much faster than humans.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > <snip>
>
> I appreciate the digression into uncertainties of estimate. There are always assumptions made in cross-species comparisons, of course. There are

And thus the need to correct false assumptions, such as a 1:1 association with human metabolic rate. ;-)

> also different ways to estimate HED (I assume yours is BW to the 2/3 power, rather than the metabolic parameter BW to the 3/4). Primate

It is generally preferable to use standardized conversion factors which have demonstrated reasonable accuracy. Using generic formulas is usually is only advisable if the species is not listed or if the weight falls outside of the specified ranges. These are the methods used by drug companies when extrapolating from animal data to determine initial human doses.

> studies are probably more applicable, and the same pattern is found as in the rats. I.e. only extremely high doses, or recurrent use without sufficient recovery time, lead to measurable neuronal damage or changes in neurotransmitter concentrations. Another variable to consider is antioxidant status, and I wonder if e.g. ravers aren't a little more likely to eat poorly?
>

Quite possibly. I would imagine the body naturally kicks the production of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase, etc., into full gear in the presence of such toxins.

> By no means was I suggesting the referenced article was conclusive, but merely suggestive. There is a toxic threshold, and the issue of exceeding that threshold is not clearly defined in humans.

My comments were not intended to make any inference regarding the toxicity of MDMA.

Dave

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001

Posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 10:48:57

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover, posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 10:29:18

> > I appreciate the digression into uncertainties of estimate. There are always assumptions made in cross-species comparisons, of course. There are
>
> And thus the need to correct false assumptions, such as a 1:1 association with human metabolic rate. ;-)

Indeed. Inter-species safety factors that I have worked with have been ten-fold, or hundred-fold, in different circumstances. We don't know that those safety factors are necessary. They arise from prudence. Overdosing a rat to produce neuronal damage is not generalizable, even with an a priori conversion factor. We're simpling being prudent.

> > also different ways to estimate HED (I assume yours is BW to the 2/3 power, rather than the metabolic parameter BW to the 3/4). Primate
>
> It is generally preferable to use standardized conversion factors which have demonstrated reasonable accuracy. Using generic formulas is usually is only advisable if the species is not listed or if the weight falls outside of the specified ranges.

I was speaking to the EPA formulae for HED. The body area formula is the BW ^2/3 formula. I'd welcome another reference, for pharmacokinetic conversions, if you have one handy.

> These are the methods used by drug companies when extrapolating from animal data to determine initial human doses.

For phase one studies, which are later revised from empirical evidence. I'm sure there are variances from the 0.16 ratio, used a priori.

> > studies are probably more applicable, and the same pattern is found as in the rats. I.e. only extremely high doses, or recurrent use without sufficient recovery time, lead to measurable neuronal damage or changes in neurotransmitter concentrations. Another variable to consider is antioxidant status, and I wonder if e.g. ravers aren't a little more likely to eat poorly?
> >
>
> Quite possibly. I would imagine the body naturally kicks the production of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase, etc., into full gear in the presence of such toxins.

Perhaps, if nutrient stores are up to it. Antioxidants are sacrificial. They are consumed, so the physiological stress passes into distinct realms depending on antioxidant capacity at baseline. That was the conclusion of the authors of the rat study, that different outcomes are predicated by those thresholds of depletion.

> > By no means was I suggesting the referenced article was conclusive, but merely suggestive. There is a toxic threshold, and the issue of exceeding that threshold is not clearly defined in humans.
>
> My comments were not intended to make any inference regarding the toxicity of MDMA.
>
> Dave

Cool.

Lar

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover

Posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 21:12:57

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001, posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2004, at 10:48:57

> > > I appreciate the digression into uncertainties of estimate. There are always assumptions made in cross-species comparisons, of course. There are
> >
> > And thus the need to correct false assumptions, such as a 1:1 association with human metabolic rate. ;-)
>
> Indeed. Inter-species safety factors that I have worked with have been ten-fold, or hundred-fold, in different circumstances. We don't know that those safety factors are necessary. They arise from prudence. Overdosing a rat to produce neuronal damage is not generalizable, even with an a priori conversion factor. We're simpling being prudent.
>

True, though that's an issue not directly related to normalization for metabolic rate.

> > > also different ways to estimate HED (I assume yours is BW to the 2/3 power, rather than the metabolic parameter BW to the 3/4). Primate
> >
> > It is generally preferable to use standardized conversion factors which have demonstrated reasonable accuracy. Using generic formulas is usually is only advisable if the species is not listed or if the weight falls outside of the specified ranges.
>
> I was speaking to the EPA formulae for HED. The body area formula is the BW ^2/3 formula. I'd welcome another reference, for pharmacokinetic conversions, if you have one handy.
>

I'm assuming by BW you mean a ratio of animal to human weight; e.g., HED = animal dose * (animal weight/human weight)^2/3. Yeah, that is what I would go by in the absence of specific data for a given species, or if there is an extreme inner-species variation in weight.

Ah, here we go. I knew this had to be somewhere on their site. See <URL:http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/dose.htm#v>; for dose conversion guidelines.

> > These are the methods used by drug companies when extrapolating from animal data to determine initial human doses.
>
> For phase one studies, which are later revised from empirical evidence. I'm sure there are variances from the 0.16 ratio, used a priori.
>
> > > studies are probably more applicable, and the same pattern is found as in the rats. I.e. only extremely high doses, or recurrent use without sufficient recovery time, lead to measurable neuronal damage or changes in neurotransmitter concentrations. Another variable to consider is antioxidant status, and I wonder if e.g. ravers aren't a little more likely to eat poorly?
> > >
> >
> > Quite possibly. I would imagine the body naturally kicks the production of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase, etc., into full gear in the presence of such toxins.
>
> Perhaps, if nutrient stores are up to it. Antioxidants are sacrificial. They are consumed, so the physiological stress passes into distinct realms depending on antioxidant capacity at baseline. That was the conclusion of the authors of the rat study, that different outcomes are predicated by those thresholds of depletion.
>

True, though 'nutrient storage' is somewhat ambiguous in the context of enzymes which are endogenously produced "as needed" as opposed to dietary antioxidants. However, deficiencies of important enzyme cofactors could of course occur. The importance of age in regulating antioxidant defenses has been particularly impressive in many studies I've seen -- I mean to a much greater extant than one might expect.

Dave

> > > By no means was I suggesting the referenced article was conclusive, but merely suggestive. There is a toxic threshold, and the issue of exceeding that threshold is not clearly defined in humans.
> >
> > My comments were not intended to make any inference regarding the toxicity of MDMA.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Cool.
>
> Lar

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 1, 2004, at 8:25:14

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover, posted by Dave001 on August 31, 2004, at 21:12:57

> > Indeed. Inter-species safety factors that I have worked with have been ten-fold, or hundred-fold, in different circumstances. We don't know that those safety factors are necessary. They arise from prudence. Overdosing a rat to produce neuronal damage is not generalizable, even with an a priori conversion factor. We're simpling being prudent.
> >
>
> True, though that's an issue not directly related to normalization for metabolic rate.

I am truly grateful for your expertise, here. One thing that I seldom see, despite it's obvious value, is closer examination of the a priori assumptions. So very many factors are assumed, that those assumptions all become qualifiers on the validity of the conclusion. Seldom do we see conclusions which overtly express the underlying assumptions.

> > I was speaking to the EPA formulae for HED. The body area formula is the BW ^2/3 formula. I'd welcome another reference, for pharmacokinetic conversions, if you have one handy.
> >
>
> I'm assuming by BW you mean a ratio of animal to human weight; e.g., HED = animal dose * (animal weight/human weight)^2/3. Yeah, that is what I would go by in the absence of specific data for a given species, or if there is an extreme inner-species variation in weight.
>
> Ah, here we go. I knew this had to be somewhere on their site. See <URL:http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/dose.htm#v>; for dose conversion guidelines.

Thank you. My work in toxicology makes different assumptions, though they have a similar effect.

> > > Quite possibly. I would imagine the body naturally kicks the production of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase, etc., into full gear in the presence of such toxins.
> >
> > Perhaps, if nutrient stores are up to it. Antioxidants are sacrificial. They are consumed, so the physiological stress passes into distinct realms depending on antioxidant capacity at baseline. That was the conclusion of the authors of the rat study, that different outcomes are predicated by those thresholds of depletion.
> >
>
> True, though 'nutrient storage' is somewhat ambiguous in the context of enzymes which are endogenously produced "as needed" as opposed to dietary antioxidants.

Yes, but....Up-regulation of anitoxidant enzyme formation would not serve well in acute exposures, e.g. overdose of MDMA. It could not possibly happen fast enough. Liver toxicity in acetominophen exposure only begins upon depletion of glutathione. It is the idiosyncratic glutathione concentration which accounts for differences in outcomes from similar expsosures to the toxicant.

It is also one of my own a priori assumptions that the typical person is nutrient deficient. That could become a thread in itself, as I have done extensive research into the subject.

> However, deficiencies of important enzyme cofactors could of course occur.

The minerals in particular. Zinc and selenium, especially so.

> The importance of age in regulating antioxidant defenses has been particularly impressive in many studies I've seen -- I mean to a much greater extant than one might expect.
>
> Dave

Oh, absolutely. It remains to be seen if that observation is the effect of chronic malnutrition. In other words, if simple supplement routines can act in a prophylactic manner.

Lar

 

Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Larry Hoover

Posted by Dave001 on September 3, 2004, at 18:46:04

In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? Dave001, posted by Larry Hoover on September 1, 2004, at 8:25:14


> > However, deficiencies of important enzyme cofactors could of course occur.
>
> The minerals in particular. Zinc and selenium, especially so.
>
> > The importance of age in regulating antioxidant defenses has been particularly impressive in many studies I've seen -- I mean to a much greater extant than one might expect.
> >
>
> Oh, absolutely. It remains to be seen if that observation is the effect of chronic malnutrition. In other words, if simple supplement routines can act in a prophylactic manner.
>
> Lar

Moderate antioxidant supplementation has no effect on biomarkers of oxidant damage in healthy men with low fruit and vegetable intakes.

J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-3 (ISSN: 0022-3166)

Jacob RA; Aiello GM; Stephensen CB; Blumberg JB; Milbury PE; Wallock LM; Ames BN U.S. Department of Agriculture/ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, University of California at Davis, 95616-8683, USA. rjacob@whnrc.usda.gov.

The link between high fruit/vegetable intake and reduced chronic disease may be partly explained by antioxidant protection. To determine the effect of moderate antioxidant intake on biomarkers of oxidant damage, we assessed in vivo lipid and protein oxidation in 77 healthy men whose typical diet contained few fruits and vegetables (mean of 2.6 servings/d). The 39 nonsmokers and 38 smokers, age 20- 51 y, were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C, 31 mg all-rac-alpha-tocopherol, and 400 micro g folic acid), or placebo, for 90 d with their usual diet. Blood and urine were taken at baseline and the end of the study for determination of lipid peroxidation products, including F(2)-total and 8-isoprostanes, and protein carbonyls. Urine thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was the only oxidant damage marker that was significantly higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers (P < 0.05). Supplementation increased plasma ascorbate and tocopherol, but had no effect on the oxidant biomarkers. In healthy young men, the endogenous antioxidant defense system and a modest intake of dietary antioxidants are adequate to minimize levels of in vivo oxidant damage such that they cannot be differentiated by current methods.

Dave

 

Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW dJinnicht

Posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 2:10:14

In reply to NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW (nm), posted by dJinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 1:32:31

*always helps to actually post something*
*ding*
here are the 2004 papers explaining the mechanisms. all of your references are rather dated. the paper that was withdrawn was done so because it demonstrated DA toxicity.
~
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/index.html
scroll on down page: (or)
you will end up here:
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/mdmatoxicity.html
&that's just a sampling.
put ' 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine '
into the search @ pubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
THERE IS NO DEBATE./oh, you have a dying patient? load them up. oh you have a severe anxiety disorder patient? pipeline drugs with new systems/receptor approaches/affinities come soon
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/newdrugs.html
[and that's the beginning of the rabbit hole.]
magnetic therapies are are here and ever advancing. (rTMS, TMS, ROSHI, MST). there is a protein which can make a brain forget fear memories(microinject?)
sorry, old reference, technique much more advanced now; surely to be abused by us govt.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406722a0_fs.html
an 1812 discarded appetite supppressant for talky therapy? which comes at the price tag of lifelong brain damage which currently has no known therapies in sight?
i asked a very prominent neuropsychiatrist, "what do you do with your X patients currently?"
answer:"now? WE WRITE THEM OFF, THAT'S WHAT."
~
it is this overclocked dualist society that makes people like you, talky therapist, seem necessary. work to make yourself out of a job instead of being an apologist for a neurotoxin.
auf weidersehen

 

Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW djinnicht

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 8:58:46

In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW dJinnicht, posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 2:10:14

> *always helps to actually post something*
> *ding*
> here are the 2004 papers explaining the mechanisms. all of your references are rather dated. the paper that was withdrawn was done so because it demonstrated DA toxicity.

Did you check the dates on those papers? There are blessed few dated 2004. Some from the '80s.

The paper in question was withdrawn because it relates to crystal meth, not Ecstacy. It was a serious methodological error.

> ~
> http://www.neurotransmitter.net/index.html
> scroll on down page: (or)
> you will end up here:
> http://www.neurotransmitter.net/mdmatoxicity.html
> &that's just a sampling.
> put ' 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine '
> into the search @ pubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

> THERE IS NO DEBATE.

Oh, I suspect that there is. Check Pubmed for post-mortem analyses of toxicants. Fatalities are often associated with drugs which are not MDMA, but were sold as MDMA. That's one confound to laboratory studies. We have no idea if the adverse human effects in recreational users arise from contaminants or not, because we're studying the pure drug in non-human species. Secondly, we do not know the relationship between frequency of use, and the factorial relationship with both frequency and dose, as each relate to adverse cognitive outcomes. Subjects with DSM defined substance abuse (MDMA) disorder have severe cognitive deficits. Lumping those subjects in with occasional users, without distinguishing for frequency of use and dose, skews the resultant dataset, producing both homoskedacity and invalid conclusions.

/oh, you have a dying patient? load them up.

I am dismayed. It was I, not chemist, who introduced the use of heroin as analgesic for terminal cancer patients. I do not feel comfortable with what you seem to be implying, the trivialization of the suffering of terminal human beings. We "put our pets down", to ease there suffering, but we use heroic measures to keep suffering humans alive, until the very last agonized breath.

> oh you have a severe anxiety disorder patient? pipeline drugs with new systems/receptor approaches/affinities come soon
> http://www.neurotransmitter.net/newdrugs.html
> [and that's the beginning of the rabbit hole.]

Now, you're invoking the unknowable future as a critique of the present day? That's hardly a solid argument. Twenty years ago, it was predicted that we would travel in robotic cars, which prevented collisions automatically, maximized the efficiency of traffic flow, and permitted us to rest while en route.

> magnetic therapies are are here and ever advancing. (rTMS, TMS, ROSHI, MST). there is a protein which can make a brain forget fear memories(microinject?)

You're advocating injections directly into the brain? I'm aghast.

> sorry, old reference, technique much more advanced now; surely to be abused by us govt.

Now, conspiracy theory?

> http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406722a0_fs.html

A non-specific protein synthesis inhibitor? This is what you want to inject into human brains? I'll take MDMA over that one, any day of the week.

> an 1812 discarded appetite supppressant for talky therapy? which comes at the price tag of lifelong brain damage which currently has no known therapies in sight?

The former and the latter are two separate issues. You have created a complex case, which is a logical fallacy. Falsification or verification of one does not affect the veracity of the other. Moreover, you have used prejudicial language and non sequitur to influence emotional reactions to a logical question (fallacy of distraction). Some scientists are promoting the therapeutic use of MDMA, in a fashion which would minimize the risk of any adverse effects.

There is solid literature on the therapeutic use of MDMA in cognitive therapy. It is dated (mostly published some years ago), as the "war on drugs" mentality has prejudicially overtaken the scientific use of *single dose* MDMA in therapy. Not chronic use of impure street drugs. Single dose MDMA.

> i asked a very prominent neuropsychiatrist, "what do you do with your X patients currently?"
> answer:"now? WE WRITE THEM OFF, THAT'S WHAT."
> ~

Again, I am aghast.

> it is this overclocked dualist society that makes people like you, talky therapist, seem necessary. work to make yourself out of a job instead of being an apologist for a neurotoxin.
> auf weidersehen
>

Eh? Once more, in English? I have not grasped your intent.

Axiom number one in toxicology: "The dose makes the poison."

Lar


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.