 |
 |
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