 |
 |
Selegiline The battle lines are drawn, the opposing sides are in their places and the preliminary skirmishes are over. For those of you new to this happy little civil war, here is a brief introduction. It is easy to tell the sides apart. They are: 1.The anti-selegilinists: The anti-seleginists are distinguished by the passionate zeal with which they argue their case. The single unifying factor common to all of the "anties" is that they all seemed to have had a bad experience with the drug. It would be petty of me to suggest that this had any bearing on their viewpoint. A typical anti broadside is on the lines of " A doctor mentioned selegeline to me once and I vomited (an old english expression for 'upchuck') all over his shoes, my cat got convulsions, and the tax man threatened me with an audit". 2. The Pro-selegelinists. The pro-selegelinists to a man/woman/person are drawn from the ranks of those who have taken the drug for some time and have experienced no ill effects from it. Pros are given to acts of faith. A typical pro salvo would be " I have taken selegiline since James Parkinson proscribed it for me. Since then I have won Lotto twice, climbed Mt Everest without oxygen (or even breathing), and have had to take myself out of our olympic team because I'd probably fail the drug testing. Oh by the way I'm still alive so so much for that flawed mortality rate study" You will have noticed that both sides are working hard to keep the debate objective. I must admit to being a member of the pro camp, but of course in the true spirit of the discussion, this has had no influence on my assessment. Dennis (did I mention that James Parkinson put me on selegi----------). ************************************************* Dennis Greene 47/10 [log in to unmask] http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ **************************************************