 |
 |
hi brian you wrote: >On 21 Aug I stuck my neck out to suggest that Selegeline >may not be the wonder drug to save the world that some >would have us believe. i'm intrigued by this i don't recall anyone suggesting that selegiline could perform such a miracle >I promptly got my neck chopped off by a flood of references since i'm guilty of 'flooding' the list [and thus the permanent archive files of this list] with published medline abstracts and news articles which i hope will contribute to our ever growing database i suppose an apology is in order i just don't understand how a 'flood' can cause a 'chop' >each of which appeared to find some new and unexpected >attribute of Selegiline i'm again intrigued that the references had this 'appearance' to you i've heard nothing 'unexpected' about selegiline for over a decade aside from that controversial and much questioned study about the mortality rate >Prof Olanow is convinced that, hiding inside the Selegiline >is the real agent which can provide substantial neuro-protection, >but it is not capable of working while trapped inside the Selegiline. i'm again [again] intrigued, this time by your interpretation of professor olanow's words he said: >Now, what's really been exciting lately is a recent series of >discoveries from our laboratory in which we have shown that selegiline >is metabolised to another drug called des-methyl selegiline, and that >in fact it is the des-methyl selegiline that is the protective >component not Selegiline. So when you give Selegiline you give both, >but that comes with good and bad. It comes with the good which is the >protective part, but it also comes with the M.A.O.B. inhibition portion >which ... Has side effects and it limits your ability to be >able to administer the protective component. Now that we've sorted >out that it is the des-methyl that appears to be responsible for >protection. We can now begin a series of treatments where we evaluate >this drug which hopefully we can push to higher and higher doses >and not run into limitations because of side effects. i'm interested to see that you interpret 'limitations because of side effects' as 'not capable of working' >So what is the score-card showing now: >On the supporter's side ... On my side, .... this also intrigues me i'm curious as to your thinking here what 'game' is being played ? what 'score' is being kept ? you mention the 'risks' of hallucinations and wild dreams these potential symptoms are not exclusive to selegiline they apply to virtually every parkie drug we have at our disposal you also mention the danger of taking demerol with selegiline this is just one of many potential drug interactions that we have to be on guard against i, for one, am not concerned about the single, apparently flawed, study describing a possible increased mortality risk i have been taking 10 mg selegiline per day for nine years and, based on all i have learned and read, have no intention of stopping >I look forward to the next round !! i'm glad that you're looking forward to something [!] but i just can't figure out what 'game' you are referring to i remain, alive and kicking, your cyber sis janet janet paterson - 50/9 - sinemet/selegiline/prozac - [log in to unmask]