 |
 |
Recently, because of a change in my insurance coverage, I tried to fall back on an old prescription bottle of dopamine CR that had no effect in the past of easing my muscle spasms and rigidity. By the end of the month I was in constant physical agony, and only the return to my regular dopamine 25/100 10 pills a day brought me out of pain, and the effect was instantaneous. Go figure. >From: Ned Gardner <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: redefining toxicity >Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:08:31 -0600 > >mackenzie wrote: >>I recently cited the ELLDOPA study which concluded >>that question of levodopa toxicity was still >>unresolved. >> >>However, upon closer examination of the study and the >>terminology used, it turns out the question of >>toxicity as you and i define it was not even >>addressed. >> >>Instead, the authors redefined “toxic” to mean >>“hastens disease progression.” >> >>i can see how they got there - if you define disease >>progression solely as the loss of dopamine neurons and >>you define toxic solely as something that kills >>dopamine neurons, you have a nice, neat “if A=B and >>B=C, then A=C” thang going on. >> >>But toxic is not defined as “something that kills >>dopamine neurons,” and toxic things do not, by >>definition, hasten disease progression - for example, >>the toxicity of chemo is undisputed, and it, >>obviously, is used to slow disease progression. >> >>Medline Plus medical dictionary defines toxic as a >>poison (or a toxin, but toxin has a very narrow >>definition) and a poison as: >> >>1 :a substance that through its chemical action >>usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism, or >>2 : a substance that inhibits the activity of another >>substance or the course of a reaction or process >> >>anything that causes the kinds of side effects >>levodopa does can surely be said to be injuring or >>impairing people (keep in mind that the only place >>dyskinesias occur without drug inducement is in >>Hungtington’s disease, with the emphasis on >>*disease.*) it is such a no brainer, it has baffled me >>how the question can still be under debate. >> >>Now i know - the question of toxicity isn’t under >>debate at all. >> >>So if you see any headlines claiming that levodopa is >>not toxic, question how they defined “toxic.” it >>probably does NOT mean that it has been shown that >>levodopa is not harmful or injurious. >> >>And I have one question - every single one of those >>authors has an MD, or a PhD, or both, which we >>generally take to be in indication of intelligence. >>Sooooo... are they being disingenuous, or are they >>just stupid? >> >>Either way, it is not good for us. >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: >>mailto:[log in to unmask] >>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn >> >> > >mackenzie: > >I think that what you have exposed is another example of how those >responsible have been chosen for their inept leaderless quality s in an >effort to prove the point that government just cant serve the people, >and they don't mind stepping over a few bodies in the street, as they >have demonstrated, in an attempt to convince the majority of that >misguided conclusion. > >Ned > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: >mailto:[log in to unmask] >In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn