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 the paper that was withdrawn was done so because it demonstrated DA toxicity.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 The paper in question was withdrawn because it relates to crystal meth, not Ecstacy.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
poster:djinnicht
thread:383476
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040904/msgs/386345.html