Posted by uchiha itachi on August 21, 2004, at 4:28:51
In reply to Re: Adderall - what is the action of amphetamines?, posted by utopizen on February 1, 2003, at 16:15:49
>> The term "neurotoxic" is both the most definitive and vague
>> term in all neurology. How do you think they establish
>> neurotoxicity? It's very difficult, and once it's done,
>> there's still some doubts.
To be able to make such a statement with absolution, you'd
have to be a doctor. But after reading your post, the term
impossible comes to mind.
Neurotoxic is not in any way vague. It can be used loosely,
however, since the terminology doesn't require a neurotoxin
to be present. The only difficulty that comes into factor with
the use of that term is when the observed damage is nothing
but a mere deficit caused by a substance.>> Besides, most of the "neurotoxicity" data on amphetamines
>> comes from animals. Don't trust neurotoxicity data coming
>> from an animal model. There's obviously a sketchy reason
>> why they'd resort to an animal model to find out neurotoxicity,
>> especially if it pertains to a widely use drug that has
>> abuse potential."
No, what would be sketchy is if they started using human models to
support their findings. In order to get any conclusive data, you'd
have to have a preserved brain to start with. To get that, first,
you perfuse the test subject's body fully with warm then cold
saline solution (otherwise the brain would turn into putty);
then you decapitate them and extract their brain; and finally,
you take the brain slices and examine them under a microscope.
That's quite possible. But then you'd have to find someone
willing to take the drugs and is on the verge of dying. Makes
it a lot more difficult, but not impossible. And lastly, you'd
have to find someone who's dying from something that's not
related to their heart, brain, kidney, or liver. Otherwise chances
are that they'll die from the drugs.>> And a lot of neurotoxic research is funded by federal funds.
>> NIH, and particularly that drug abuse federal research bureau,
>> can get more sketchy than a speed junky at a Etch-A-sKETCH
>> contest when it comes to establishing neurotoxicity."
Where'd you get that from? From what I've seen NIDA's
(NIH's drug abuse subsidary) funding for neurotoxicity has
been almost entirely for drugs like MDMA.>> Desoxyn (methamphetamine) is NOT neurotoxic in humans. It's never
>> once been established as such. And if it ever had, it's probably
>> IV methamphetamine, which is much different to a brain cell than
>> methamphetamine that weans itself into your brain over a thirty
>> minute period.
Prove it. If it doesn't cause a build-up of neurotoxins, then
you must have concrete proof.
Also, it's foolish to think that IV methamphetamine is
any different then the solidified form. The crystal form has
a specific oral availability that's used in equating how much
of the drug will be absorbed into your blood stream. The pill
that you pop would roughly give you the same concentration
of the drug as if you took it IV.
>> I've taken Desoxyn for a month, and I haven't been able to
>> notice any holes in my head or sensed many drafts in the winter
>> time. Yet if I did, I suppose this has its benefits. I'd be
>> more open-minded, right?"
If you could see a hole in your head, it would be because
somebody shot you.
You've only taken it a month. That doesn't mean shit. If you take
it for years and you still don't notice any cognitive deficits,
then I'll believe you.And damn.. I just realized that this topic is from a year ago.
Arg.. and I wasted all this time writing it too.
poster:uchiha itachi
thread:138755
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040821/msgs/380274.html