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:
Lyrica and Neurotin both work on the GABA system though in unknown ways and they tend to work well on neuropathic pain; however the side effect profiles are comparable to CNS depressants - drowsiness, slowed reflexes, dizziness, blurred vision, etc. Not everybody experiences those side effects, but they're pretty common, so you might have to make a choice whether you'd risk a little more "brain fog" in exchange for reduced pain.
Also, this is spoilered for being a scary side effect that only happens in a tiny minority of people:
Neurotin was in the news a couple of years ago because it also caused an odd behavioral side effect - it increased self-harming behavior. But not out of any known psychological cause. it wasn't like people felt bad about themselves and went to cut themselves. Rather, it seemed to do something to impulse control in some people. People would put their hand on a stove burner or cut themselves with a kitchen knife and not really know why they did it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Omagaaaah I'm in the end of Avatar season 1 you guys
I'm excited you guys
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the overwhelming feeling i get about all this shit in general is that the more i read the more i know that i have no clue, and neither does anybody else
it is a good feeling
ps good luck doing rational drug design for neurological conditions :x
the overwhelming feeling i get about all this shit in general is that the more i read the more i know that i have no clue, and neither does anybody else
it is a good feeling
ps good luck doing rational drug design for neurological conditions :x
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.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
if it was because of its dopamine agonism youd see the same thing with bromocriptine
and moreover, remember the effect persists indefinitely
so it would need to be emulatable with any other strong dopamine agonist, which it isnt
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?
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.
I really want to get the A-10 Warthog simulator on sale at Steam but I know I won't play it anytime soon. I just have such a huge mancrush on the A-10.
"Here's a gun. Let's build an aircraft around it."
As crazy as the A-10 is, I think the design meeting for the AC-130H tops it. "Fuck it, we've got some 105mm howitzers sitting around, lets put one of those on a fucking plane!"
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.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
ok, amend that to "good" rational drug design
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...
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2012
what is bad about naltrexone?
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
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
its not hugely dangerous especially if taken at low doses
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.
I am too used to a government that responds to the specter of civil resistance by raising the stakes rather than backing down and counter-resisting via appeal to the public, as seems to be what people aim for here. Hmm.
The recoil force of the GAU-8/A[14] is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN),[3] which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each).[15] While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i do not know american doctor prescription rules but if you could make the case for limited off-label prescription i cant see him making a huge fuss, especially if you show him some decent evidence
I am too used to a government that responds to the specter of civil resistance by raising the stakes rather than backing down and counter-resisting via appeal to the public, as seems to be what people aim for here. Hmm.
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.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I am too used to a government that responds to the specter of civil resistance by raising the stakes rather than backing down and counter-resisting via appeal to the public, as seems to be what people aim for here. Hmm.
i do not know american doctor prescription rules but if you could make the case for limited off-label prescription i cant see him making a huge fuss, especially if you show him some decent evidence
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
So apparently Sarah Jessica Parker is going to star in some offshoot "Wicked" style Oz movie that deals with a non central character of the Oz Story.
Anecdotally, specialists are more likely to work with you on off label stuff because specialists tend to be a little more technical in their prescriptions.
GPs & PCPs are largely working by established medical practices.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I really want to get the A-10 Warthog simulator on sale at Steam but I know I won't play it anytime soon. I just have such a huge mancrush on the A-10.
"Here's a gun. Let's build an aircraft around it."
As crazy as the A-10 is, I think the design meeting for the AC-130H tops it. "Fuck it, we've got some 105mm howitzers sitting around, lets put one of those on a fucking plane!"
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.
There are a couple of roles that some of the attack choppers can do better. Scouting and spotting roles mostly.
No Than. My agency is the bastard child of the government. We're governed under an entirely separate Act (literally) that allows employees to be treated like shit basically.
Have you started looking for a new job yet?
Seriously, I wouldn't wait out the end of that one. It's going to be way harder to find another job once you're not employed anymore, and if they are left hanging because you live, you can explain to them exactly why in your exit interview. At this point, you owe them nothing.
I'm not. I'm doing everything I can but I'm in the nasty position of get a job making what I make or take a paycut and lose my house, sooooooo. I already have some contacts with some I.T. contractors. I have a plan B. Basically if I lose my job I can do contract work in Atlanta until I can find a job. I have a contingency plan. But I'm not going to walk away from a GS-12 job for less money just to lose my house and fuck up my credit. I'm in a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation. Which is why I was shocked when I was lead to believe I'd get my CCNA. It combined with my Security+ and Network+ and 7 years of federal experience would have helped the fuck out of my job seeking and value. And it's not like it was my fucking idea.
Yeah, that's some shit.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
also, people dont abuse naltrexone
I GET TOO HIGH SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA GET ME DAT NALTREXONE DAWG
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:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm excited you guys
it is a good feeling
ps good luck doing rational drug design for neurological conditions :x
neurospam
sounds like a Black ICE from Shadowrun
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's called
Horse of a Different Color
GPs & PCPs are largely working by established medical practices.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.