![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sad Panda on June 25, 2004, at 13:32:58
In reply to Re: DESOXYN---- prescription --(METHAMPHETAMINE) » Sad Panda, posted by jerrympls on June 24, 2004, at 19:49:20
>
> > I think it's best to avoid it because it is too nerotoxic for continuos useage.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Panda.
> >
>
>
> Hi Panda!
>
> I always hold your posts and advice/knowledge as accurate and very well researched - and I still do. But, I have to disagree with you about stimulants being neurotoxic. I don't have anything to specifically site to back up my opinion - but from all of MY research and studies I have never found anyone to really prove such neurotoxicity - unless one's a Breggin follower - then everything is bad.
>
> So, I mean to no harm or challenge by this posting - just wanted to voice my opinion too.
>
> Jerry :-)
>
>Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the kind words, I'm probably out of my depth as far as amphetamines are concerned as I don't have Narcolepsy or ADD. I don't think all stimulants are evil, just meth. I can find plenty of abstracts showing that meth fed to mice & rats is neurotoxic but can't for actual humans. :)
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by utopizen on June 25, 2004, at 21:22:40
In reply to Re: DESOXYN---- prescription --(METHAMPHETAMINE) » jerrympls, posted by Sad Panda on June 25, 2004, at 13:32:58
I think everyone missed my point when I said methamphetamine is methamphetamine and Desoxyn is Desoxyn. I realized that Desoxyn is d-desoxyephedine, but um, that was my point. When you think of meth, or read research on it, Desoxyn isn't being used. Methamphetamine, of which there are twenty or so different kinds, one of which includes Desoxyn, is studied. Few studies, if any at all (there might be one or two) are of Desoxyn (oral d-desoxyephedine). And there's hundreds, if not thousands.
The results would be more benign, and that doesn't get you grants from the slanted bias of the National Institutes of Drug Abuse
Posted by Sad Panda on June 25, 2004, at 23:32:19
In reply to Re: DESOXYN-, posted by utopizen on June 25, 2004, at 21:22:40
I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
Posted by utopizen on June 26, 2004, at 10:50:14
In reply to Re: METHAMPHETAMINE » utopizen, posted by Sad Panda on June 25, 2004, at 23:32:19
> I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
>No, they get unadulterated meth, but don't think researcher's can't use illicit drugs in their studies. My college isn't exactly a huge research school, but even they have done the requisite rats on coke copycat study.
Where do you think they get cocaine and meth to do these studies? Abbott (now Ovation owns it) certainly doesn't dish this stuff out for those purposes. Check out the DEA's Office of Drug Diversion website. They have forms to request schedule I, illicit/illegal drugs for research purposes.
And no, they don't use Desoxyn. I called the doctor that the maker of Desoxyn uses to research the stuff and give advice to the company on things related to it, and he said he was looking for studies but hadn't been able to find any yet. He said it was likely because it was first made in 1944.
Posted by paulbwell on June 26, 2004, at 19:55:12
In reply to Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by utopizen on June 26, 2004, at 10:50:14
> > I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
> >
>
> No, they get unadulterated meth, but don't think researcher's can't use illicit drugs in their studies. My college isn't exactly a huge research school, but even they have done the requisite rats on coke copycat study.
>
> Where do you think they get cocaine and meth to do these studies? Abbott (now Ovation owns it) certainly doesn't dish this stuff out for those purposes. Check out the DEA's Office of Drug Diversion website. They have forms to request schedule I, illicit/illegal drugs for research purposes.
>
> And no, they don't use Desoxyn. I called the doctor that the maker of Desoxyn uses to research the stuff and give advice to the company on things related to it, and he said he was looking for studies but hadn't been able to find any yet. He said it was likely because it was first made in 1944.Some people would say he's a lucky Doc. He may want to try Lillys Drug Archives,or any Lilly drug service reps, working for them around 1950, for info, as they produced a product containing Methamphetamine, opps, I mean (d-desoxyephedrine) in 1950 which sold under the trade name "Amphetdroxyn" in two tablet sizes and in liquid form! so as thoes poor Hyperkinetic kiddies could take it by the teaspoon:). <I hope it was a refreshing minty flavour>
Posted by 1980Monroe on June 26, 2004, at 21:25:10
In reply to DESOXYN---- prescription --(METHAMPHETAMINE), posted by paulbwell on June 22, 2004, at 18:04:06
I used to post on Desoxyn ALOT, only got like 3 posts back out of 5 posted. This one has like 20. I think i need to work on Charisma.
Desoxyn is the TOP class stimulant of the stimulant class. It turns a person dopamine-driven style, confident, motivated, ambitous. Strong dopamine stimulant.
If you belive you need it, dont mention it directly to your pdoc, because they always change facial expressions, and they'l start sitting edgy. when they here "desoxyn", infamous for its high potential for abuse. But no doubt it is effective for ADHD. Eventually it will come around, when you try everything else.
I used to take dexedrine(plain amphetamine) alot, and depended on it too much. Went to my hypnotherpist and learned to manipulate and increase my dopamine flow, so today i only take dexedrine 10mg, no more 50mg a day.
But play it cool, and wish the best for you on Desoxyn.... Later
Matt
Posted by Anthony Quest on June 27, 2004, at 0:20:31
In reply to Re: this post hit the jackpot, posted by 1980Monroe on June 26, 2004, at 21:25:10
Utopizen is making an excellent point and the parroting of "meth is nurotoxic" would make the DEA very proud.
Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
My point is that whether to use Desoxyn is a clinical decision made by a single patient and single doctor. The decision takes into account the situation that patient finds himself in, the other drugs that have been attempted, and ideally the physician explains the risks and benefits, and the patient makes the choice.
None of us will be influencing the national standard of care, so why is it so important to recite "Desoxyn is bad! Stay away!". Maybe it is bad for people with substance abuse disorders who have no clinical need for it. It's absolutely essential for those who are trying to live a normal life, have tried alternatives, and are living normally because of it.
In another post, someone in this thread criticized Xyrem as worse than crack. I feel like I finally have some quality of life back because of Xyrem. I have never taken Desoxyn, but I absolutely believe it should be available for anyone who needs it.
Just for the record "Zonegran, Lexapro, Straterra" are all way too knew for there to be any long-term studies determining what effect they have on the human brain. We could find out that everyone's brain turns to mush 10 years after being on these drugs. If you think the FDA waits 20 years to gather data before allowing a drug on the market, think again.
There is something to be said for a drug that has been on the market as long as Desoxyn in that at least we know the adverse events from prescription Desoxyn (federal law requires that the company report adverse incidents). You have no guarantee about Straterra and other newer drugs.
Posted by paulbwell on June 27, 2004, at 5:48:06
In reply to Nurotoxic/Neurotoxic-Who Cares?, posted by Anthony Quest on June 27, 2004, at 0:20:31
> Utopizen is making an excellent point and the parroting of "meth is nurotoxic" would make the DEA very proud.
>
> Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
>
> My point is that whether to use Desoxyn is a clinical decision made by a single patient and single doctor. The decision takes into account the situation that patient finds himself in, the other drugs that have been attempted, and ideally the physician explains the risks and benefits, and the patient makes the choice.
>
> None of us will be influencing the national standard of care, so why is it so important to recite "Desoxyn is bad! Stay away!". Maybe it is bad for people with substance abuse disorders who have no clinical need for it. It's absolutely essential for those who are trying to live a normal life, have tried alternatives, and are living normally because of it.
>
> In another post, someone in this thread criticized Xyrem as worse than crack. I feel like I finally have some quality of life back because of Xyrem. I have never taken Desoxyn, but I absolutely believe it should be available for anyone who needs it.
>
> Just for the record "Zonegran, Lexapro, Straterra" are all way too knew for there to be any long-term studies determining what effect they have on the human brain. We could find out that everyone's brain turns to mush 10 years after being on these drugs. If you think the FDA waits 20 years to gather data before allowing a drug on the market, think again.
>
> There is something to be said for a drug that has been on the market as long as Desoxyn in that at least we know the adverse events from prescription Desoxyn (federal law requires that the company report adverse incidents). You have no guarantee about Straterra and other newer drugs.
>
>Do you have Narcolepsy? and take 20x the normal dose of Dex?
and Xyrem does this increase wakefullness in you?
Posted by Sad Panda on June 27, 2004, at 10:43:11
In reply to Nurotoxic/Neurotoxic-Who Cares?, posted by Anthony Quest on June 27, 2004, at 0:20:31
> Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
>
>Your example is a poor, if a person needs only 5mg of Desoxyn to do what 100mg of Dexedrine does, then it's pretty obvious that you would take Desoxyn but it's not likely that Desoxyn is 20 times more potent than Dexedrine.
I would like Chemist's opinion on the difference between Desoxyn and Methamphetamine.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by Sad Panda on June 27, 2004, at 10:53:34
In reply to Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by utopizen on June 26, 2004, at 10:50:14
> > I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
> >
>
> No, they get unadulterated meth, but don't think researcher's can't use illicit drugs in their studies. My college isn't exactly a huge research school, but even they have done the requisite rats on coke copycat study.
>
> Where do you think they get cocaine and meth to do these studies? Abbott (now Ovation owns it) certainly doesn't dish this stuff out for those purposes. Check out the DEA's Office of Drug Diversion website. They have forms to request schedule I, illicit/illegal drugs for research purposes.
>
> And no, they don't use Desoxyn. I called the doctor that the maker of Desoxyn uses to research the stuff and give advice to the company on things related to it, and he said he was looking for studies but hadn't been able to find any yet. He said it was likely because it was first made in 1944.
>
>So you are telling me that there is a difference between Ovation Desoxyn which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle & a bottle of generic methamphetamine tablets which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle and that reasearchers use illicit drugs?? :)
Posted by Anthony Quest on June 27, 2004, at 14:51:21
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by Sad Panda on June 27, 2004, at 10:53:34
My only point in the hypothetical example is to show that some people do not get a favorible response from Dexedrine and the other stimulants and so having Desoxyn is important for them.
I am not making the argument that if Dexedrine works, you should take Desoxyn because it's better. Rather, I am stating the fact that there are people in whom nothing works but Desoxyn and they should have the option available.
I am also stating the fact that all drugs have costs associated with them and you are deceiving yourself if you think that simply because other medications are not "neurotoxic" they are some how obviously better than and safer than Desoxyn. They may be but it's not necessarily so.
Anyhow, why are you so hostile to Desoxyn. I am advocating it should be available to those who need. And no I have never taken it nor have I taken 20 times the normal dose of Dexedrine. That was to make a point - should we ban chemotherapy because it's toxic?
Posted by paulbwell on June 27, 2004, at 19:16:08
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by Sad Panda on June 27, 2004, at 10:53:34
> > > I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
> > >
> >
> > No, they get unadulterated meth, but don't think researcher's can't use illicit drugs in their studies. My college isn't exactly a huge research school, but even they have done the requisite rats on coke copycat study.
> >
> > Where do you think they get cocaine and meth to do these studies? Abbott (now Ovation owns it) certainly doesn't dish this stuff out for those purposes. Check out the DEA's Office of Drug Diversion website. They have forms to request schedule I, illicit/illegal drugs for research purposes.
> >
> > And no, they don't use Desoxyn. I called the doctor that the maker of Desoxyn uses to research the stuff and give advice to the company on things related to it, and he said he was looking for studies but hadn't been able to find any yet. He said it was likely because it was first made in 1944.
> >
> >
>
> So you are telling me that there is a difference between Ovation Desoxyn which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle & a bottle of generic methamphetamine tablets which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle and that reasearchers use illicit drugs?? :)
>
>
>Ovation Desoxyn is the only 1 being made. They bought the rights to it and the Benzo Tranzene off Abbott several years ago. There is no other legal producer of d-desoxyephindrine available, no generics. Just Desoxyn
Posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 5:50:24
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by paulbwell on June 27, 2004, at 19:16:08
> > > > I doubt researchers are using anything but Desoxyn, why would they? It's highly unlikely that scientists are visiting the neighbourhood tweaker for some local homebrewed speed to feed to their rodents when it would be cheaper & easier for them to buy the real McCoy. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, they get unadulterated meth, but don't think researcher's can't use illicit drugs in their studies. My college isn't exactly a huge research school, but even they have done the requisite rats on coke copycat study.
> > >
> > > Where do you think they get cocaine and meth to do these studies? Abbott (now Ovation owns it) certainly doesn't dish this stuff out for those purposes. Check out the DEA's Office of Drug Diversion website. They have forms to request schedule I, illicit/illegal drugs for research purposes.
> > >
> > > And no, they don't use Desoxyn. I called the doctor that the maker of Desoxyn uses to research the stuff and give advice to the company on things related to it, and he said he was looking for studies but hadn't been able to find any yet. He said it was likely because it was first made in 1944.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So you are telling me that there is a difference between Ovation Desoxyn which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle & a bottle of generic methamphetamine tablets which has methamphetamine hcl written on the bottle and that reasearchers use illicit drugs?? :)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ovation Desoxyn is the only 1 being made. They bought the rights to it and the Benzo Tranzene off Abbott several years ago. There is no other legal producer of d-desoxyephindrine available, no generics. Just Desoxyn
>
>I found that Able makes it too http://www.ablelabs.com/products/products.html
They both say methamphetamine hcl on the label, I think I'll just continue to call it meth to save all the confusion. :)
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 6:07:34
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by Anthony Quest on June 27, 2004, at 14:51:21
> My only point in the hypothetical example is to show that some people do not get a favorible response from Dexedrine and the other stimulants and so having Desoxyn is important for them.
>
> I am not making the argument that if Dexedrine works, you should take Desoxyn because it's better. Rather, I am stating the fact that there are people in whom nothing works but Desoxyn and they should have the option available.
>
> I am also stating the fact that all drugs have costs associated with them and you are deceiving yourself if you think that simply because other medications are not "neurotoxic" they are some how obviously better than and safer than Desoxyn. They may be but it's not necessarily so.
>
> Anyhow, why are you so hostile to Desoxyn. I am advocating it should be available to those who need. And no I have never taken it nor have I taken 20 times the normal dose of Dexedrine. That was to make a point - should we ban chemotherapy because it's toxic?
>
>
>I never said no one should take it or it should be banned, just that it should be avoided. Why go straight to the most potent/toxic drug? You don't reach for a vial of morphine & a hypodermic when you have a headache, you take asprin. What I originally said was "I think it's best to avoid it because it is too nerotoxic for continuos useage" it's pretty true don't you think? Sure there are people that can tolerate big doses for decades, but they are exceptional & pretty far from normal people.
> Anyhow, why are you so hostile to Desoxyn.
I'm not hostile to Desoxyn, but I get the impression you are hostile towards me.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2004, at 6:40:26
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else) » Anthony Quest, posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 6:07:34
Posted by chemist on June 28, 2004, at 14:31:39
In reply to Sounds like a question for CHEMIST. » Anthony Quest, posted by Sad Panda on June 27, 2004, at 10:43:11
> > Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
> >
> >
>
> Your example is a poor, if a person needs only 5mg of Desoxyn to do what 100mg of Dexedrine does, then it's pretty obvious that you would take Desoxyn but it's not likely that Desoxyn is 20 times more potent than Dexedrine.
>
> I would like Chemist's opinion on the difference between Desoxyn and Methamphetamine.
>
> Cheers,
> Panda.
>
hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
Posted by Anthony Quest on June 28, 2004, at 19:33:50
In reply to Re: Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else) » Anthony Quest, posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 6:07:34
It certainly was not my intent to be hostile to Sad Panda or anyone else. If everyone agrees that Desoxyn is not a first choice but should be available for those who have tried other stimulants and failed them, and whose physicians recommend Desoxyn to be taken under medical supervision, then I guess none of us disagree.
I think that out of respect for those who do take prescription Desoxyn under the care of a physician, it is not appropriate to refer to the medical drug as "METH" as a previous post suggested. All of us deal with enough stigma without having to be associated with illicit drug use. "METH" is a street name and I think its confusing rather than helpful.
Again, I apologize if I misread anyone's post as to what his or her position was. As for chemists cites, I am grateful for his expertise as always.
Posted by chemist on June 28, 2004, at 20:02:33
In reply to Re: Desoxyn -Civility, posted by Anthony Quest on June 28, 2004, at 19:33:50
> It certainly was not my intent to be hostile to Sad Panda or anyone else. If everyone agrees that Desoxyn is not a first choice but should be available for those who have tried other stimulants and failed them, and whose physicians recommend Desoxyn to be taken under medical supervision, then I guess none of us disagree.
>
> I think that out of respect for those who do take prescription Desoxyn under the care of a physician, it is not appropriate to refer to the medical drug as "METH" as a previous post suggested. All of us deal with enough stigma without having to be associated with illicit drug use. "METH" is a street name and I think its confusing rather than helpful.
>
> Again, I apologize if I misread anyone's post as to what his or her position was. As for chemists cites, I am grateful for his expertise as always.
>hello there, chemist here....i agree that referring to Desoxyn by its appropriate name is indeed justified: it is infrequent to see posters talk about Adderall as ``speed,'' or alcohol as ``the sauce'' or ``booze'' or what have you. i do thank you for your comment, and i do hope that should Desoxyn become of use to you that you will share your experience....all the best, chemist
Posted by paulbwell on June 28, 2004, at 22:51:39
In reply to Re: Sounds like a question for CHEMIST. » Sad Panda, posted by chemist on June 28, 2004, at 14:31:39
> > > Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Your example is a poor, if a person needs only 5mg of Desoxyn to do what 100mg of Dexedrine does, then it's pretty obvious that you would take Desoxyn but it's not likely that Desoxyn is 20 times more potent than Dexedrine.
> >
> > I would like Chemist's opinion on the difference between Desoxyn and Methamphetamine.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Panda.
> >
> hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemistHi Chemist great info, I have a few questions thought
1 so these were 16kg monkeys given 6mgs/kg of desoxyn over 6 hours, then 2mgs/kg for 2 more dosed six hrs apart?
2 This would correspond to a dose of 420mgs of desoxyn for a 70kg man-no1 not even the worlds worst Narcoleptic would take this, with corresponding follow up doses of 140mgs 6 hrs later, to induce the same dopamine / serotonin damage in the striatum-this being the acute -equiqalent, monkey doses
3 is this permanent to these neurons or do they grow back-repair
4 how would this correspond to my Narcoleptic frend who takes 20mgs 4x daily=80mgs and claims no brain damage after working up to this amount after 45 years, althought he claims to sleep alot when unmedicated, but reports no depression5 How does neurotoxity correspond to Ritalin, for say 40-60mgs for 65kg man, I sometimes think the Rit makes me more tired and other times, to be stimulant-like. feedback?
Thanks
Posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 22:56:31
In reply to Re: Sounds like a question for CHEMIST. » Sad Panda, posted by chemist on June 28, 2004, at 14:31:39
> hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
>
>Thanks for that Chemist, I thought methamphetamine was neurotoxic when compared to d-amphetamine but I didn't know it was that bad. Regardless of it being called Desoxyn, Methedrine or methamphetamine, I thought it was pretty safe to assume we are talking about actual methamphetamine & not adulterated street meth since this isn't the substance abuse board & we only talk about legal drugs here.
Cheers,
Panda.
Posted by chemist on June 29, 2004, at 2:08:43
In reply to Thanks Chemist » chemist, posted by Sad Panda on June 28, 2004, at 22:56:31
> > hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for that Chemist, I thought methamphetamine was neurotoxic when compared to d-amphetamine but I didn't know it was that bad. Regardless of it being called Desoxyn, Methedrine or methamphetamine, I thought it was pretty safe to assume we are talking about actual methamphetamine & not adulterated street meth since this isn't the substance abuse board & we only talk about legal drugs here.
>
> Cheers,
> Panda.
>
>
hey panda, thank you....still some unresolved issues with another poster who is intent on getting Desoxyn.....in my opinion, alternatives are better.....chat more anon, chemist
Posted by paulbwell on June 30, 2004, at 3:37:22
In reply to Re: Thanks Chemist » Sad Panda, posted by chemist on June 29, 2004, at 2:08:43
> > > hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for that Chemist, I thought methamphetamine was neurotoxic when compared to d-amphetamine but I didn't know it was that bad. Regardless of it being called Desoxyn, Methedrine or methamphetamine, I thought it was pretty safe to assume we are talking about actual methamphetamine & not adulterated street meth since this isn't the substance abuse board & we only talk about legal drugs here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Panda.
> >
> >
> hey panda, thank you....still some unresolved issues with another poster who is intent on getting Desoxyn.....in my opinion, alternatives are better.....chat more anon, chemist
>Hi Chemist, who would be this poster intent on gettin Desoxyn? Its a heavy hitter im sure, and Im sure in 90% of cases you would know about the better alternatives.
-Im curious you seem very knowlegdeable, are you an experienced Pharmacist?
Posted by chemist on June 30, 2004, at 20:19:32
In reply to Re: Sounds like a question for CHEMIST. Desoxyn, posted by paulbwell on June 28, 2004, at 22:51:39
> > > > Assuming Desoxyn is "neurotoxic" why don't you explain what exactly that means? How much more neuorotoxic is it than Dexedrine. Dexedrine not neurotoxic you say, well what if the person who needs Desoxyn has to take 20 times the dose of Dexedrine that most other people do, just to stay awake. There are no study comparing 20 times the average dose of dexedrine to a normal dose of Desoxyn.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your example is a poor, if a person needs only 5mg of Desoxyn to do what 100mg of Dexedrine does, then it's pretty obvious that you would take Desoxyn but it's not likely that Desoxyn is 20 times more potent than Dexedrine.
> > >
> > > I would like Chemist's opinion on the difference between Desoxyn and Methamphetamine.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Panda.
> > >
> > hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
>hello there, my answers delineated with ***** below.....all the best, chemist
> Hi Chemist great info, I have a few questions thought
> 1 so these were 16kg monkeys given 6mgs/kg of desoxyn over 6 hours, then 2mgs/kg for 2 more dosed six hrs apart?
*** the dosing regimen was 2 mg/kg tid for a total of 6 mg/kg. the reference to the ``second dosing'' is misleading on my part: one of the subjects was going downhill after the second dose, i.e., after ingestion of 4 mg/kg ****> 2 This would correspond to a dose of 420mgs of desoxyn for a 70kg man-no1 not even the worlds worst Narcoleptic would take this, with corresponding follow up doses of 140mgs 6 hrs later, to induce the same dopamine / serotonin damage in the striatum-this being the acute -equiqalent, monkey doses
**** again, 6 mg/kg tid, no additional 4 mg/kg, so your 420 mg dose for a 70 kg man is the right figure, and yes, taken over a 6-hour period. ***
> 3 is this permanent to these neurons or do they grow back-repair
*** according to the literature, the damage is permanent ****
> 4 how would this correspond to my Narcoleptic frend who takes 20mgs 4x daily=80mgs and claims no brain damage after working up to this amount after 45 years, althought he claims to sleep alot when unmedicated, but reports no depression
*** i do not know. perhaps tolerence or something specific in re: mechanism with narcolepsy. the high doses do not result in brain damage, if i understand the phrase to mean reduced mental capability (correct me if i am wrong, please): i did not state that. they result in degradation of dopaminergic and serotinergic receptors. ****
>
> 5 How does neurotoxity correspond to Ritalin, for say 40-60mgs for 65kg man, I sometimes think the Rit makes me more tired and other times, to be stimulant-like. feedback?**** don't know, although i assume it is less than methamphetamine. sorry, but that's all i have on ritalin *******
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
Posted by chemist on June 30, 2004, at 20:23:14
In reply to Re: Thanks Chemist, posted by paulbwell on June 30, 2004, at 3:37:22
> > > > hi there, chemist here....desoxyn = (S)-methamphetamine, and dexedrine = d-amphetamine. panda is correct in re: potency. there is a body of literature that reports that methamphetamine is about twice as potent as d-amphetamine. potency is derived from dose/response evaluations of subjects, and i can point you to several citations that conclude that (S)-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine are actually equipotent. HOWEVER, it turns out that (in at least 1 study examining a D_{1} antagonist) the mechanisms of neurotoxicity at high doses of desoxyn and dexedrine are different, as the antagonist protected against death from dexedrine in a dose-dependent fashion but not for desoxyn. (Derlet et al., Life Sci. 47:821-827 (2000)). but, the equipotency has been established, too. [e.g., Woolverton et al., Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 13:869-876 (1980)]. but then, see Peachey et al., Psychopharmacology 51:137-140 (1977) for evidence of greater stimulation (not potency) of desoxyn than dexedrine. more recently, Melega et al. JPET 274:90-96 (1995) concluded that low doses of either drug exhibited similar pharmacokinetics and dopamine response, although this is not a measure of potency nor were the doses extreme. from an abstract by Ellison and Switzer in Neuroreport. 25:17-20 (1993), they report (i quote) ``Both [dexedrine] and [cocaine] induced pronounced degeneeration in fasciculus retroflexus, but only [dexedrine] further induced substantial degeneration in striatum...[Desoxyn] administered in the very high dose but less prolonged drug regimen often employed in studies of dopamine toxicity induce pronounced degeneration in striatum, but widespread degeneration in many other regions as well.'' and then there is one paper by the man who instigated the FDA to make MDMA illegal: Ricaurte et al., Neuropharmacology 22:1165-1169 (1983), in which ``Repeated administration of large doses of [desoxyn] produce long-lasting depletion of brain dopamine and serotonin, as well as persistent decreases in the activity of their respective biosynthetic enzymes...'' interestingly, dexedrine - in ``a comparable regimen'' to the desoxyn dosing - ``did not did not produce long-lasting depletion of 5-HT in either the neostriatum or hippocampus.'' but, it turns out (and not just in this ref) that pretreatment with fluoxetine likely inhibits metabolism of amphetamines in general. so, in summary: potency is derived from dose/response curves, and in low doses, it appears as if desoxyn and dexedrine exhibit similar pharmacokinetics and are somewhat equipotent. however, at high doses of both drugs, the potency of desoxyn is greater and the toxicity is, as well, due to the larger amount of the brain affected in re: dopamine and 5-HT response. most drugs exhibit linear pharacokinetics/dynamics in the recommended dose ranges. the LD_{50} for desoxyn and dexedrine are almost identical, but at higher doses, desoxyn is more lethal. finally, as i posted some time ago, the study by (again) Ricaurte et al. in Science 297:2260-2263 (2003) entitled ``Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (``ecstact'')'' - which was later retracted because the drugs given to the 5 monkeys tunred out to be methamphetamine and not MDMA - is actually testament to the neurotoxicity to methamphetamine (desoxyn). the dose was 6 mg/kg over 6 hours. recalling that this was pure methamphetamine, this means that your 100 mg desoxyn would correspond to your weight at about 16 kg, or about 35 lbs. 1 monkey died, 1 was unable to continue after the second dose (dosing was 2 mg/kg tid), and the 3 surviving monkeys were examined over several weeks after the acute dosing (there's more, and i can send you the PDF of the article if you desire, or anyone else). conclusions: severe dopaminergic injury and serotonergic neuortoxicity (for subjects using methamphetamine in repeated doses over several hours). the implication is that using desoxyn for a prolonged period - which is essentially what this last study showed - is bad news compared to dexedrine. hope this helps, and all the best, chemist
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for that Chemist, I thought methamphetamine was neurotoxic when compared to d-amphetamine but I didn't know it was that bad. Regardless of it being called Desoxyn, Methedrine or methamphetamine, I thought it was pretty safe to assume we are talking about actual methamphetamine & not adulterated street meth since this isn't the substance abuse board & we only talk about legal drugs here.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Panda.
> > >
> > >
> > hey panda, thank you....still some unresolved issues with another poster who is intent on getting Desoxyn.....in my opinion, alternatives are better.....chat more anon, chemist
> >
>
> Hi Chemist, who would be this poster intent on gettin Desoxyn? Its a heavy hitter im sure, and Im sure in 90% of cases you would know about the better alternatives.
>
> -Im curious you seem very knowlegdeable, are you an experienced Pharmacist?hello there, chemist here...i am a chemist specializing in drug design and biophysics. i am not a pharmacist or medical doctor. all the best, chemist
Posted by johnWrites on July 23, 2004, at 12:40:18
In reply to Desoxyn (d-desoxyephederine, not anything else), posted by utopizen on June 26, 2004, at 10:50:14
TO: PSYCHOBABBLE--DESOXYN (thread)
FROM: JOHN MICHAEL VORE
DATE: 2004-07-23The initial post in this thread (2004-06-22, paulbwell)--which I read yesterday--asked for comparisons between different ADD/ADHD medicines. I respond by focusing on: Adderral (brand, generic) and Desoxyn (two brands, one generic). I will begin with (I) bio-chem-psych profile, (II, III) my own experiences and (IV) some theoretical points. The history is necessary so that you can determine the personal applicability of what follows. The theory is necessary to open up new ways of framing what is labeled "ADD/ADHD." None of the writing, here, is permitted for use without proper citation, and/or, personal use. The "data" can be mined as agreed to in the Dr. Bob Disclaimer.
I. BioChemPsych Profile--GENETIC HISTORY OF ADHD/ADD
40 yr. old white male, approx: 180lbs; adopted at birth; when reunited with birth-family, discovered birthmother and younger brother both with severe ADD; brother has severe dyslexia, as well; I suspect that an early childhood trauma--broken left femur--and a very stimulating, safe upbringing--may have ameliorated some of the dyslexic affects in me; I tend more towards dyspraxia; no addictive behaviors; alcohol use: intermittent, light to heavy--though infrequent episodes of heavy alcohol use seem to have a "natural" stopping point (4-6 drinks in an evening); never much of a marijuana smoker, which used to give me "emotional hangovers" (weepy following day); prescribed Ritalin during intervals during childhood, prob. before age 11; noticed affects of Advil cold and sinus, though discontinued use some years ago due to blood sugar crashes; used to drink lots of coffee, though it caused emotional crashes at end of day, so discontinued; prescriptions tried in past (early 30s): Wellbutrin (small dosage, perhaps 20 mg.?); unlike what is written, I felt immediate (i.e., within 3 hrs.) effects; discontinued use after 3 mos., as with Prozac; initial steadying of emotional lability eventually stoppedII. Relevant Experiences--'PARTY' TO PRESCRIPTION
After a recreational encounter with crystal methamphetamine, I was shocked to feel "in my body" in a way I never had; friends were rushing around cleaning: I wanted to sit down and watch a movie, which is always a fifteen minute ordeal (getting settled down); in the past I had often felt like I was about a foot outside my actual bodyDisliking the legal ramifications, health problems associated with street meth (distrusting the method of supply (adulterants, no controls on production)), i sought out and researched alternatives; I eventually insisted on Desoxyn because of it's expected similarity to street meth, and my discomfort with trying drugs which do not work; I avoided Ritalin, mostly because of perception of negative research recently
III. Adderral(s) v. Desoxyn(s)--THE CHARLY EXPERIENCE
The difficulty of filling a prescription for Desoxyn in my area (northeast Pennsylvania) was nearly insurmountable--after calls to every pharmacy (in which some pharmacists talked to me as if I was a suspect)--I had to drive to Baltimore to get it filled, and there found a "leftover" store of Abbott Desoxyn; the initial three days felt like my mind was building a tunnel; the recommended dosages, for me, were way off; I experimented with minimums (1-3) and maximums (4-5); the maximum 4-5 @ 5mg/day was what finally worked (20 mg. being way below the neurotoxicity described by CHEMIST in earlier posts); the difficulty in refilling made me decide to try Adderral; there was a similar period of chemical adjustment (2-3 days); Adderral (4-5 @ 10mg/day; no difference between generic and brand) did NOT make me feel as focused, though it did make me feel lighter and happier; I told the psychiatrist with whom I work that it felt like being at a birthday party; it FELT (subjective) to me much more like what crystal meth felt like; not wanting to be tempted into overuse, I switched back to Desoxyn; my next prescription had mostly Abbott; no noticeable differences from first batch; the third prescription (2nd full month) had me receiving a batch of Ovation Desoxyn; the first day felt like I'd just breathed pure oxygen; later days brought me back to the focused affects I had been accustomed to; I've since used Able's generic Desoxyn; it does not feel as potent as the Ovation, but it is difficult to know how much of this is subjective, and or, due to brain acclimation; I did purposefully switch to Adderrall for the second period of 3 mos.; emotional lability returns in weeks 10-12, regardless of using Adderral or Desoxyn; it appears, first unnoticed, because it has been so much part of my daily life...the arc of my "story" regarding all of this seems, to me, very similar to the movie, "Charly" (the 1968 film with Cliff Robertson in an Oscar-winning performance; based on the novel, Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes)IV. Theoretical Points:
a) ADHD-NOT: TRY "INFORMATION PROCESSING, NON-STANDARD"
My experience and reading suggest a different theory of onset and a different model of understanding ADD/ADHD; it is not a focus problem but an information processing problem, i.e., Information Processing, Non-Standard (I would suggest calling it); "shut down" or emotional frustration occurs when too much information is coming in and there is no place for it to go; Desoxyn and Adderrall seem to make sorting easier; but it does NOT change skipping from thing to thing, which one must expect and learn to work around; my years without any prescription and the discipline required in writing allowed me to develop completion skills; simply put: i know i will return to what i forget until it is done; so i put things in the "return path," i.e., someplace where I will notice it next time around;b) LOAF-AT-A-TIME
I also find that it is not that I don't "perceive" incoming information, but rather, I perceive more than non-ADHDers; yet, my brain cannot, on demand and within a new context, retrieve relevant information--which some take as no perception; I've just usually got the whole loaf and they're asking for a slice; for example: in walking into a room full of people, the whole scene is information from "wide angle", at once, no "filters"; I may not recall something that happened in the room moments later--while still in the room--but I seem to have very good recall of things I wouldn't have expected I noticed days and months (and sometimes years) later;c) IT'S ALL ABOUT NOT-ME
Onset, I believe, occurs because one never conceptualized a personal self in early childhood; whatever the reason (i.e., birth trauma, problem pregnancy, mother deprivation), one does not seem to ever abstract a notion of salient self; therefore, one never has a "standpoint" from which to sort incoming information; notice that when ADD/ADHD people initiate conversations with questions of their own, they have no problem following the information chain; I think good advice to any student with ADD/ADHD would be: always look for the question you want to ask, whether in reading or listening;d) THE OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCE
ADD/ADHD people can't sit still because they are always trying to locate their bodies in space; we are often perceived as being "kinesthetic" because of this; the very notion of meaning has deep neurological "roots," so to speak, in one's body-in-motion; "hyperactivity," to my way of thinking, is merely a signal that the meaning-into-action process does not function in a traditional fashion; this does not mean one is limited to imprecise actions or vague thoughts; sophisticated movement and highly abstract thought may develop in "parallel universes," so to speak; here, when faced with a hyperactive person, good advice may be simple physical touch, like grasping a wandering hand; having been benignly restrained by a parent or sibling at times, or "grounded in the chair" as a child, I may have a built in bias against "forced" immobilitye) WHO AM I?
Lack of a "conceptual self," if this proves out in further research, would mean that all psychotherapies aimed at strengthening an (absent) ego, or building self-esteem (there is no foundation), will, of necessity fail; you cannot strengthen what is not there; you cannot anchor self-esteem when there is no "bottom" to the ocean; the notion of the individual comes from politics and is about 300 years old, though it's widespread distribution is less than 100 years old; the notion of a psychological "ego," even less; I'm developing what I believe is a more accurate model of self, one in which the traditional ego becomes iterative patterns of energy and information; this is based on notions first sketched out in my book, The Raft (Firetrap, 2001); and is further developed in a work-in-progressf) FORGET THE ANCHOR: LEARN TO SAIL
As for emotional lability: without an anchoring conceptual self, there is nothing for this evolutionary mechanism to regulate; so, of course emotions will be out of whack...at least some medicines allow one to follow ideas, and therefore, find purpose--and not get trapped in emotional swells; i find that my ideas and even my purpose have always been curiously removed from any notion of "me"--and yet the most difficult social adjustment, it seems, is this projection by others of a "me" onto my activity; it is almost always selfless (in the ego sense), though not necessarily either altruistic or self-destructive; some psychologies fundamentally err in believing that one must have an ego, or else be mentally diseased; borrowing from the outlook of any social minority: the disease is unease because of a perceived difference between who one is and who others seem to be; also borrowing from minorities (AIDS activism, mostly): I do not assume that a psychiatrist or doctor has an accurate model of how I may work; one must learn to navigate between governing medico-psychological paradigms and one's own insights
Take care,John Vore
© 2004 John Michael Vore. May be used for personal use, or professionally with citation to author.
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.