Posted by Dave001 on August 29, 2005, at 0:40:07
In reply to Neurotoxicity is a pretty sketchy term, posted by utopizen on August 28, 2005, at 16:12:31
> Keep in mind all neurons die, and all amphetamines do is actually
> prolong their lifespan.Sorry, but it's difficult to take what you're saying seriously, since
you've just demonstrated that you don't know what a neuron is.> Neurotoxicity?
Yes. Damage to dopaminergic axon terminals (i.e., not transient chemical
changes).> If you don't sleep, or eat food, of course you'll get neurotoxicity.
> I can guarantee these primates did not sleep, and would suspect they
> lost appetite as well.Diet, exercise, sleep, temperature, etc., are among the most basic
environmental factors that researchers control for. Furthermore, it is
nonsense to say that sleep deprivation or lack of food are neurotoxic in
any meaningful sense. How they influence the development of
neurotoxicity is another matter, which again, is something that is
controlled for.[...]
> Also, keep in mind this: The word "neurotoxicity" is the most
> pathetic excuse for a medical term ever. If you ever read a
> "neurotoxicity" study, keep in mind doctors rarely take them
> seriously.That isn't surprising, considering that very few doctors have expertise
in drug toxicology research; they're concerned with the practical
application of medicine. Would you really expect prescribing patterns to
change whenever some new contradictory finding from a study in mice is
published?> Ask your doc what "neurotoxicity" means. It's derived from
> neurotoxocology. Oh, what a developed science that is!What on earth does the etymology of "neurotoxicity" have to do with the
implications of this study? You seem really hung up on the term
"neurotoxicity." Substitute "brain damage" if you feel that it's more
palatable.
<snip>
poster:Dave001
thread:547372
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050827/msgs/547938.html