![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 72. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 10:26:03
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » Larry Hoover, posted by Dave001 on September 3, 2004, at 18:46:04
>
> > > 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)A few key points. Moderate dose (as defined with respect to RDA, which is by definition insufficent to avoid all symptoms of deficiency), the subjects did not change their poor diets (which may have wholly consumed the antioxidants ingested, on a day-to-day basis), the trial was only for 90 days, and there were limited assays of antioxidant effect (the body definitely prioritizes nutrient allocation).
Concluding anything from such a study is not something I'm inclined to do.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 10:30:02
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » Larry Hoover, posted by Dave001 on September 3, 2004, at 18:46:04
This article is more to the point.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004 Jul 29;18(3-4):265-270.
Plasma Antioxidant Status, Immunoglobulin G Oxidation and Lipid Peroxidation in Demented Patients: Relevance to Alzheimer Disease and Vascular Dementia.Polidori MC, Mattioli P, Aldred S, Cecchetti R, Stahl W, Griffiths H, Senin U, Sies H, Mecocci P.
Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Heinrich-Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany.
A large body of evidence supports a role of oxidative stress in Alzheimer disease (AD) and in cerebrovascular disease. A vascular component might be critical in the pathophysiology of AD, but there is a substantial lack of data regarding the simultaneous behavior of peripheral antioxidants and biomarkers of oxidative stress in AD and vascular dementia (VaD). Sixty-three AD patients, 23 VaD patients and 55 controls were included in the study. We measured plasma levels of water-soluble (vitamin C and uric acid) and lipophilic (vitamin E, vitamin A, carotenoids including lutein, zeaxanthin, beta-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, alpha- and beta-carotene) antioxidant micronutrients as well as levels of biomarkers of lipid peroxidation [malondialdehyde (MDA)] and of protein oxidation [immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels of protein carbonyls and dityrosine] in patients and controls. With the exception of beta-carotene, all antioxidants were lower in demented patients as compared to controls. Furthermore, AD patients showed a significantly higher IgG dityrosine content as compared to controls. AD and VaD patients showed similar plasma levels of plasma antioxidants and MDA as well as a similar IgG content of protein carbonyls and dityrosine. We conclude that, independent of its nature - vascular or degenerative - dementia is associated with the depletion of a large spectrum of antioxidant micronutrients and with increased protein oxidative modification. This might be relevant to the pathophysiology of dementing disorders, particularly in light of the recently suggested importance of the vascular component in AD development.
Posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 11:17:13
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » djinnicht, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 8:58:46
i did not post to convince you. nothing would. i posted to give information to sane people to make an informed decision for themselves and items of discussion for their children. the war on drugs has nothing to do with it, that or any other batshit wars. my daughter won't be imbibing NMDA. will yours?
nor will she be wasting time at a talky therapist, an occupation i consider about as useless as that of 'lead teacher' in the dumbing down of america.
our conversation is over.
materflickenhund/oh tinnenbaum.=========
> > *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
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 14:29:48
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » Larry Hoover, posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 11:17:13
> i did not post to convince you. nothing would.
a) I doubt it. b) Evidence does.
> i posted to give information to sane people to make an informed decision for themselves and items of discussion for their children. the war on drugs has nothing to do with it, that or any other bat**** wars.
Please respect the civility guidelines when posting to this board.
> my daughter won't be imbibing NMDA. will yours?
Inference rejected.
> nor will she be wasting time at a talky therapist, an occupation i consider about as useless as that of 'lead teacher' in the dumbing down of america.
To each, his own.
> our conversation is over.
I'm grateful that you didn't call it a debate.
> materflickenhund/oh tinnenbaum.
Please respect the civility guidelines, or do not post to me any more.
Lar
Posted by zeugma on September 4, 2004, at 18:23:51
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » djinnicht, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 14:29:48
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 18:58:50
In reply to attn Dr. Bob: this thread is neurotoxic to humans (nm), posted by zeugma on September 4, 2004, at 18:23:51
Posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 20:16:04
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » djinnicht, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 14:29:48
mnsr lars,
i don't mind admitting it when i am wrong, and the best time to correct one is:ASAP. i've not learned much in life; but one of the best of all knowledges was thusly: pride is a useless emotion.
and no one 'made' me post this. i feel badly when i treat others disrespectfully. so here goes:my sincere apologies for having crossed the bounds of civility with you. i'm terribly sorry for having brought my frustration from my huge yahoo group, in which i often have to deal with young people who have post X (multiple doses spanning some years usually, say 16 doses from age 17-20 or so) depression, cognative sx, classic low(no?) serotonin sx such as buzzing in head, shock like sx, etc, well no need to keep blathering, and when i was perusing the various posts, I SAW THIS. and i thought, wow! they must have some new information on safety/how to reclaim the lost 5HT neurons to tell the kids (and this on a nootropics group; it meanders...)
at any rate, you will need to adjust to the only safe way so far, and i located this on a pro-hedonism page btw, to imbibe NMDA without toxic effects if you plan to use it in your practice:
microinjects.again, i do apologise for bringing my 'stuff' into your territory. none of those insults were actually intended or are believed. do forgive me if you would. oh how i wish you had/had something to teach me, though.
oh well.
best,
Dj======
> > i did not post to convince you. nothing would.
>
> a) I doubt it. b) Evidence does.
>
> > i posted to give information to sane people to make an informed decision for themselves and items of discussion for their children. the war on drugs has nothing to do with it, that or any other bat**** wars.
>
> Please respect the civility guidelines when posting to this board.
>
> > my daughter won't be imbibing NMDA. will yours?
>
> Inference rejected.
>
> > nor will she be wasting time at a talky therapist, an occupation i consider about as useless as that of 'lead teacher' in the dumbing down of america.
>
> To each, his own.
>
> > our conversation is over.
>
> I'm grateful that you didn't call it a debate.
>
> > materflickenhund/oh tinnenbaum.
>
> Please respect the civility guidelines, or do not post to me any more.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 21:20:38
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW, posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 20:16:04
> oh how i wish you had/had something to teach me, though.
> oh well.
> best,
> DjPlease do not post to me again. Read the FAQ.
Lar
Posted by verne on September 4, 2004, at 21:34:38
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW, posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 20:16:04
Dj,
I really appreciate your fresh insight about a very dangerous drug. I don't know the chemistry but I've seen a few documentaries citing the damage, lost neurons, subsequent untreatable depression, etc...
Thanks for your perspective.
Verne
Posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 2:25:23
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 10:26:03
> >
> > > > 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)
>
> A few key points. Moderate dose (as defined with respect to RDA, which is by definition insufficent to avoid all symptoms of deficiency), the subjects did not change their poor diets (which may have wholly consumed the antioxidants ingested, on a day-to-day basis), the trial was only for 90 days, and there were limited assays of antioxidant effect (the body definitely prioritizes nutrient allocation).
>
> Concluding anything from such a study is not something I'm inclined to do.
>No, but you're missing the key sentence in the abstract, which was as follows: "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..." Ya might want to subscribe to the sci.life-extension news group, as there is frequently some interesting scientific discussion of these issues. There are some valuable contributers such as Aubrey De Grey, Steve Harris, Peter Proctor, and others.
Dave
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:06:40
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 2:25:23
> > A few key points. Moderate dose (as defined with respect to RDA, which is by definition insufficent to avoid all symptoms of deficiency), the subjects did not change their poor diets (which may have wholly consumed the antioxidants ingested, on a day-to-day basis), the trial was only for 90 days, and there were limited assays of antioxidant effect (the body definitely prioritizes nutrient allocation).
> >
> > Concluding anything from such a study is not something I'm inclined to do.
> >
>
> No, but you're missing the key sentence in the abstract, which was as follows: "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..." Ya might want to subscribe to the sci.life-extension news group, as there is frequently some interesting scientific discussion of these issues. There are some valuable contributers such as Aubrey De Grey, Steve Harris, Peter Proctor, and others.
>
> DaveI may do so, thanks. But I didn't miss anything. I don't believe that those biomarkers are necessarily sufficient to assess oxidative stress parameters, nor do all effects of the nutrients arise from sacrificial events. I believe the protocol was flawed.
Lar
Posted by SLS on September 5, 2004, at 8:19:54
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » Dave001, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:06:40
LOL
These authors sometimes drive me nuts with their ambiguous wording. When I first read the following,
"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."
I took it to mean that the difference in measurments of oxidative damage between a normal diet and the one being studied could not be detected (differentiated).
Sometimes, they try to fit too many concepts in a single sentence. Just what the heck were they trying to say?
I feel pretty silly.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 9:10:57
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by SLS on September 5, 2004, at 8:19:54
> LOL
>
> These authors sometimes drive me nuts with their ambiguous wording. When I first read the following,
>
> "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."
>
> I took it to mean that the difference in measurments of oxidative damage between a normal diet and the one being studied could not be detected (differentiated).
>
> Sometimes, they try to fit too many concepts in a single sentence. Just what the heck were they trying to say?
>
> I feel pretty silly.
>
>
> - ScottYou're not being silly at all. There is a presumption that they know what normal is in the first place. Most often, that means "typical". But typical may be something very different than "optimal". There are always assumptions. I am not satisfied by what is assumed to be normal, a priori.
The authors have found no evidence for the alternative hypothesis, and have therefore accepted the null. That does not preclude type 2 error. In fact, type 2 error is the harder of the two to avoid (alpha is an easier statistic to derive than is beta). They haven't *proven* there is no effect. They didn't *detect* one. Accepting the null hypothesis should not lead to any formal conclusion whatsoever, beyond a statement to that effect. It is a common error to imply that accepting the null is a rejection of the alternative. It is not.
In contrast, there are significant differences in oxidative stress and antioxidant parameters in dementia (compared to non-demented aging brains). The very existence of the word significant implies that alpha lies below an acceptable standard (>.05), and thus the data are probably meaningful. Just what they mean may be debated, but that is yet another matter.
Lar
Posted by dJinnicht on September 5, 2004, at 12:32:02
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » djinnicht, posted by verne on September 4, 2004, at 21:34:38
you are most welcome, mnsr. verne.
it is not necessary to understand complex organic or biochemistry i do not think perhaps; nor microanatomy. however, when i make a post as i have --- i *do* know what i'm talking about -- i include links to support it. i hope you find in those links the pre-Ecstasy measures that can be taken to decrease the chances of neurotoxicity, espcially if you have exposure to young people. a cop doing a DARE presentaion doesn't seem to be making much of a difference, nicht wahr?
and thank YOU for having reached the maturational matrix you project; few do.
at your service,
dJ
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 13:55:20
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to N » verne, posted by dJinnicht on September 5, 2004, at 12:32:02
> it is not necessary to understand complex organic or biochemistry i do not think perhaps; nor microanatomy. however, when i make a post as i have --- i *do* know what i'm talking about --
A tad too self-congratulatory, mon ami. The truly educated know how little they know. If you do not understand organic or biochemistry, I cannot support your conclusion. Moreover, you have not addressed a single issue I raised with respect to contaminants in street drugs, the differential effects of repeated dosing and/or absolute dose and/or antioxidant status and/or drug dependency, or the absence of post-mortem evidence of brain damage in Ecstacy-exposed human brains. Even the term drug abuse, which you so willingly apply to NMDA, must have a corollary meaning of use, else the distinction is moot. Reiteration ad nauseum of the adverse effects of abuse does not falsify the contention that there is an appropriate use.
BTW, just who is tag-teaming now?
Lar
P.S. The prohibition against posting to me stands.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 14:07:11
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*
Interesting how the spelling of your posting name keeps changing. Are you registered under more than one name? That's a clear violation of the site guidelines.
Posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:04:27
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » Dave001, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 7:06:40
> > > A few key points. Moderate dose (as defined with respect to RDA, which is by definition insufficent to avoid all symptoms of deficiency), the subjects did not change their poor diets (which may have wholly consumed the antioxidants ingested, on a day-to-day basis), the trial was only for 90 days, and there were limited assays of antioxidant effect (the body definitely prioritizes nutrient allocation).
> > >
> > > Concluding anything from such a study is not something I'm inclined to do.
> > >
> >
> > No, but you're missing the key sentence in the abstract, which was as follows: "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..." Ya might want to subscribe to the sci.life-extension news group, as there is frequently some interesting scientific discussion of these issues. There are some valuable contributers such as Aubrey De Grey, Steve Harris, Peter Proctor, and others.
> >
> > Dave
>
> I may do so, thanks. But I didn't miss anything. I don't believe that those biomarkers are necessarily sufficient to assess oxidative stress parameters, nor do all effects of the nutrients arise from sacrificial events. I believe the protocol was flawed.
>It may likely be that we're 'measuring' the effects of antioxidants in different ways, because I do believe antioxidants are beneficial in many circumstances. The reason I posted the abstract I did was because I felt it underscored the point I was making about the influence of age on oxidative stress. It is well established in animal studies that certain antioxidants such as the spin-trap PBN can mitigate the acute toxicity of MDMA, for instance.
I don't know why, but I entered this antioxidant discussion partly with the mentality of one debating their effectiveness against the aging process. Probably because that's what I'm used to. On that note, here is an example of a much better discussion on that topic:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4131328336d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a6h84i%24i63%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=1Dave
Posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:28:20
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.<snip>
What on earth are you talking about?? I can't find a word of coherency in your drivel. Can you please clarify what it is that you're trying to say? And why did you change the thread title to include "NMDA?" "Ecstacy" is *MDMA* (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).
Dave
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 15:38:41
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to N, posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:28:20
> > *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.
>
> <snip>
>
> What on earth are you talking about?? I can't find a word of coherency in your drivel. Can you please clarify what it is that you're trying to say? And why did you change the thread title to include "NMDA?" "Ecstacy" is *MDMA* (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).
>
> DaveUh, thanks. My brain registered something wrong with NMDA, but for some reason, it didn't register just what, and I couldn't be bothered figuring it out. This whole "debate" has been tedious.
Lar
Posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:56:24
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW, posted by djinnicht on September 4, 2004, at 19:29:44
>
> yahoo group, in which i often have to deal with young people who have post X (multiple doses spanning some years usually, say 16 doses from age 17-20 or so) depression, cognative sx, classic low(no?) serotonin sx such as buzzing in head, shock like sx, etc, well no need to keep
>Please tell me this is a joke. This has to be a joke. 16 doses spanning multiple years causing significant damage? I think that it is foolish to take MDMA given the *potential* neurotoxicity involved, but if you think 16 measily doses over a few years is going to cause any significant damage, half of our population would emerge from college as vegetables. I had a friend whose roomate in college would take four tabs (100 mg) of MDMA *every single night* before bed; he would crank up the music and just zone out... He still managed to do reasonably well academically. Now that doesn't mean such reckless behavior won't come back to haunt him years later, but it should give you some idea of the relative toxicity possible from just a few doses. That may sound like a "wild story," but knowing my friend I have every reason to believe it is true.
> at any rate, you will need to adjust to the only safe way so far, and i located this on a pro-hedonism page btw, to imbibe NMDA without toxic effects if you plan to use it in yourI really think you mean to say "MDMA." There is more than a little difference between "MDMA" and "NMDA."
Dave
Posted by dJinnicht on September 5, 2004, at 16:27:53
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to N, posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:28:20
> > *always helps to actually post something*
previous message was posted blank
> > *ding*
slang for an aHa nanosecond> > 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.
nice cutting and pasting.(sic) you left out the link to the new papers. DA=dopamine. the paper that was withdrawn was 'the 7 year monkey study'
>
> <snip>
>
> What on earth are you talking about??
look up. right over your head.
>I can't find a word of coherency in your drivel.
a MS in chemistry can solve that problem.>Can you please clarify what it is that you're trying to say?
see above and original post. and, of course, a whole lotta chemistry from inorganic thru biochem.
> And why did you change the thread title to include "NMDA?" "Ecstacy" is *MDMA* (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine).
>can you draw that for me please?
>human error. NMDA is
1. a glutumate receptor, target of many GABAergic AED's such as depakote, lamactil, Gabatril, and alcohol, the kind bars serve; N-methyl-d-aspartate which is gated by AMPA receptors targeted by such drugs as topamax/topirimate, zonegran, the fabled AMPAkines.
and aspartame, of course.
but you knew all that, geZeus.
~
============/dJ
>
> Dave
Posted by FredPotter on September 5, 2004, at 19:03:51
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » djinnicht, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2004, at 8:58:46
Larry Not many people will understand homoskedacity (esp when you mean heteroscedasticity (meaning having different variances))
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 20:56:19
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » Larry Hoover, posted by FredPotter on September 5, 2004, at 19:03:51
> Larry Not many people will understand homoskedacity (esp when you mean heteroscedasticity (meaning having different variances))
Doh! Caught me. ;-)
I haven't even thought the words in some years. I know what I meant, but I used the wrong term. Thanks for the correction.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2004, at 9:28:35
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to NOW » FredPotter, posted by Larry Hoover on September 5, 2004, at 20:56:19
OMG, I think I just had a flashback to stats class!
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2004, at 9:31:37
In reply to Re: NMDA is neurotoxic to humans:fast forward to N, posted by Dave001 on September 5, 2004, at 15:28:20
> thank YOU for having reached the maturational matrix you project; few do.
>
> djinnicht> A tad too self-congratulatory, mon ami.
>
> P.S. The prohibition against posting to me stands.
>
> Larry Hoover> I can't find a word of coherency in your drivel.
>
> DavePlease don't be sarcastic or post anything that could lead others 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 others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing oneself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Also, if you post to someone, it's always OK for them to post to you in response:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#harassed
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
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.