Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Que veux-tu, [chat]? Happy May Day!
Posts
It's not unheard of.
Like any neuro drug not everybody sees the same side effects, and a drug that is completely intolerable in one person can be somebody else's miracle drug.
I wrote this several posts up but it might have gotten lost in neurospam:
I'm excited you guys
it is a good feeling
ps good luck doing rational drug design for neurological conditions
neurospam
sounds like a Black ICE from Shadowrun
i thought that was a Ramones thing
where is the meat
Prozac was the first approved drug developed from rational drug design, actually.
All rational drug design does is go, "We want to target a specific receptor." (Or enzyme, or protein.) "Let's find a molecule that fits that receptor!"
Knowing why that receptor does what it does is a different matter entirely.
We're still a step ahead from where we were before Julius Axelrod. We gave people drugs without even knowing what receptors they interacted with. Now at least some of the time we have a general idea of what receptors the drugs are interacting with, just not why doing stuff to those receptors does what it does.
Right, I was wondering if it was somehow particularly strong among agonists. Though, I'm assuming here that it might be somehow stronger than just having more dopamine itself (since that's what you're doing with reuptake inhibitors/etc).
Maybe it could be somehow breaking the receptor? Like it leaves the receptor in a more trigger-happy conformation or something? I don't know how long that would last, though. Actually somewhat related, since you would know: How often are dopamine receptors replaced? Are they constantly degrading and the neuron is constantly adding new ones, or do they hang out for a while?
It's not a meat salad!
Good point.
I've yet to get familiar with all the different subtypes of dopamine receptors.
Hell, it was only just now that I found out there were significantly many past D4.
I could see that. The side effects from it cause the user to have the uncontrollable urge to sign up their handle for a companies marketing message. Makes it a bit more grey then black.
the way the A-10 turned out though is one of the bigger successes of military hardware. Those things are cheap to build, actually acomplish a needed role (close ground support as opposed to stupid shit like air superiority fighters) and are extrememly tough and well armored.
If it weren't for stupid funding rules designed to keep the services from spending all their time sabotaging each other they should replace every attack helicoper in service with an A10.
you dig
re dopamine receptors:
hours
they do not persist long individually
but youd be altering the mechanisms that led to their turnover, not the receptor quantity itself...
gastrointestinal stuff mainly
its not hugely dangerous especially if taken at low doses
winky if you're interested in dopamine receptor ubiquitination start here and dig through refs
http://www.jbc.org/content/283/17/11083.full
Like someone's Facebook getting hacked. Your friend decks into the wrong corporate subnet and from then on will periodically shout about free credit reports
That study you posted is quite promising. He says he's recruiting for a larger study to be completed in 2009, but I can find no more info and no email address to contact the Drs. involved.
I bet my GP would write for it, if we knew more about how to go about trying.
Oh yeah we totally agree on this. "Rational drug design" isn't (necessarily) all that rational.
Also, it is blowing my mind how many of them were developed as treatment for sexual dysfunction and not, you know, schizophrenia.
What prompted this observation?
maybe you're doing rational drug design to make a new antiviral and you've mapped exactly how the viral RNA is translated into a specific protein on the viral sheath and this protein does not appear anywhere in mammals so you want to create a drug that breaks down just that protein.
That's pretty rational. You have a pretty exhaustive picture of how that drug is going to work.
Making a new GABA agonist because GABA agonists help pain... somehow...
Pharma companies will call that "rational drug design" as well even though it's completely different in nature.
Oh shit yes this is exactly the stuff I want. The more I can learn about D4 in particular the better.
The GM wheat thing.
In the US, as long as the drug is not
1) controlled
or
2) discouraged for that particular offlabel use by the FDA (which is rare)
or
3) contraindicated for some medical reason
then physicians can prescribe it for offlabel use and it's not a big deal.
Off label prescriptions aren't terribly rare in the US.
It's called
Horse of a Different Color
GPs & PCPs are largely working by established medical practices.
There are a couple of roles that some of the attack choppers can do better. Scouting and spotting roles mostly.
I GET TOO HIGH SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA GET ME DAT NALTREXONE DAWG
so he should give you zero shit
This wouldn't stop me from using them, of course.