Posted by Larry Hoover on March 30, 2008, at 17:26:36
In reply to Re: Parnate metabolites » Larry Hoover, posted by Quintal on March 30, 2008, at 16:58:03
> > I'm scared for posters' safety.
>
> So that's your primary motive?Yes.
> I have no emotional investment in the methamphetamine metabolite theory whatsoever. If your chemistry is as good as it sounds then I'd say you're probably right. However, there have been a number of reports suggesting methamphetamine and other amphetamine-like metabolites over the years, and I think at least one Parnate user tested positive for amphetamines after being forced to undergo a random drug test at work. I'm not a professional scientist so I'm not going to attempt to dissect all of the possibilities therein.
Tranylcypromine's structure is not too different from that of amphetamine. See structures at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranylcypromine
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmphetamineThe small 'triangle' in the former is the cyclopropane ring. It can open at more than one place, producing the primary or secondary amine. The secondary amine is the more likely product, and is called amphetamine. The similarity in the structures undoubtedly leads to poor resolution during analysis, leading to false positives for amphetamine on screening tests. However, more specific tests have always failed to find amphetamine as a metabolite of tranylcypromine.
As I stated earlier, the structural similarity of tranylcypromine to amphetamine was intentional (according to Goodman and Gillman's 'The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics', which is the 'bible' for phsychiatrists and pharmacists, both), in order to confer stimulant activity to the MAOI. Unfortunately, the consequence of that similarity is a vulnerability to true stimulant addiction.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:819514
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/neuro/20080204/msgs/820734.html