![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 3 to 27 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 13:49:42
In reply to Lou's response-grehytgolph » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 13:41:59
> > Well seems ocd anxiety is unrelenting for me. Since it was written that my writing skills are deteriorating have focused on this. So is it age, terminal illness, meds, lack of meds. No I'm seriously worried and building to panic over this. Also a hopefully small medical problem is causing this mind of mine to blow things out of proportion. And the extra 2.5 of lexapro didn't help. So 5mg of lexapro, 50 luvox, and .25 xanax and l0mg of valium all at night are not helping. And the extra thyroid per doc isn't either. How do I talk my way through this as can't and don't want to see doctors. thanks Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> You wrote,[...unrelenting..deteriorating..seriously worried..building to panic...this mind of mind to blow...lexapro didn't help...lexapro..luvox..xanax..valium not helping...how do I talk my way through this..don't want to see doctors...].
>
> The response that was in the above post by me was redacted by me.
Lou
Posted by torrid2 on January 1, 2012, at 15:20:42
In reply to Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 12:13:55
Phillipa you don't sound yourself and your anxiety is likely blowing things out of proportion. You have gone through this before (anxiety) and it passed and it will pass again, ride it out the best way possible. Concentrate on having good sleeping and eating habits for now. Get into the sun and excertise as much as possible. Read a book, watch a movie, do what ever gets you out of your head in a healthy way.
Posted by SLS on January 1, 2012, at 15:29:58
In reply to Re: Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope, posted by torrid2 on January 1, 2012, at 15:20:42
> Phillipa you don't sound yourself and your anxiety is likely blowing things out of proportion. You have gone through this before (anxiety) and it passed and it will pass again, ride it out the best way possible. Concentrate on having good sleeping and eating habits for now. Get into the sun and excertise as much as possible. Read a book, watch a movie, do what ever gets you out of your head in a healthy way.
Good advice.
- Scott
Posted by larryhoover on January 1, 2012, at 15:45:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 13:49:42
> The response that was in the above post by me was redacted by me.
> LouWhat is the point, Lou? You redact (delete) all text that you authored, but then post anyway. And afterwards, you post to say that you said nothing because you deleted your own words.
I would argue that your editing is not even redaction, as there is no previously posted text being selected from, but let's just stick to the main question here.
What is the point? What are you trying (and utterly failing) to communicate?
Lar
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 15:55:15
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on January 1, 2012, at 15:45:55
I am trying to tell you that I am not able to tell you what I am trying not to say?
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 16:01:45
In reply to Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 12:13:55
Oh PJ, I don't know, We're all going to die soon enough, there's no hope, nothing matters really, why worry? Soon enough we will both be dead. What's the problem? I think the Buddha said it....Hope causes pain.
All the best.
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 16:04:56
In reply to Re: Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 16:01:45
>there's no hope, nothing matters really, why worry?
It doesn't stop me, I have to say.
Posted by SLS on January 1, 2012, at 17:24:53
In reply to Re: Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 16:01:45
> Oh PJ, I don't know, We're all going to die soon enough, there's no hope, nothing matters really, why worry? Soon enough we will both be dead. What's the problem? I think the Buddha said it....Hope causes pain.
Gosh.That doesn't sound very optimistic.
I'm surprised by your outlook here.
You might be right about the inevitability of death. However, things do matter to me. One might as well self-actualize and live a life of joy and reward. There are no second chances.
- Scott
Posted by JohnLA on January 1, 2012, at 19:11:04
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 15:55:15
lou-
as i have said before; for some reason your posts bring a smile to my face. this sentence;
I am trying to tell you that I am not able to tell you what I am trying not to say?
is either pure brilliance or some thing yogi berra would have been proud to say. :)
phillipa; go easy on yourself. the teacher in me would tell you to slow down a bit when writing down your thoughts. i also say we all try to be kinder to ourselves in 2012.
john
Posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 19:21:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by JohnLA on January 1, 2012, at 19:11:04
Thanks all and Sigi I understand perfectly what you are saying. PJxx
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 19:32:34
In reply to Re: Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope » sigismund, posted by SLS on January 1, 2012, at 17:24:53
>That doesn't sound very optimistic.
Ah well, you made me laugh :)
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 19:37:20
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 19:21:58
>Sigi I understand perfectly what you are saying. PJxx
Not very optimistic either :)
I did wonder, I don't know why, if the fear of death was at the back of your worries.
Death is something I think about increasingly. It is an age related thing, as I'm sure you know.
Then if you stop worrying about death, you can stop worrying about life.
What a laugh it all is. hah hah hah.
Time to live in the moment.
Posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 19:57:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 19:37:20
Sigi you know me so well. So what is the answer? You know it's rather funny as asked if there were therapists that helped with this. But can you imagine how depressing this would be? PJxx
Posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 21:03:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph » sigismund, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 19:57:37
I have seen people close to death who were very frightened. Nothing seemed to help. One I knew didn't like to take the morphine because the nodding off effect made her feel she was going to immediately die. Which seemed to me like adding punishment to pain, though for her it was the other way round. To be honest, the thing that helps me with it is the experience of hallucinogenic drugs....something of the feel that it is all concepts swirling around and you need to find a way to let go. It helps me that I have found life painful in many ways, and in that I imagine I am in good company.
The best times I have had though are with people close to death. The conversation generally takes a turn for the better.
I had a friend who died a while back in a Catholic hospital. A religious doctor came and said 'It won't be long now.' My friend said 'What do you think of euthanasia?' I don't think he was particularly worried. We all manage to be born and we all manage to die. I don't like time passing but I wouldn't like it to stop either. Full of complaint. Nothing's good enough:)
Posted by Christ_empowered on January 1, 2012, at 21:12:47
In reply to Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 12:13:55
I think you should just up your benzos, ditch the chump pills, and have a good time.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 21:29:38
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 13:49:42
> > > Well seems ocd anxiety is unrelenting for me. Since it was written that my writing skills are deteriorating have focused on this. So is it age, terminal illness, meds, lack of meds. No I'm seriously worried and building to panic over this. Also a hopefully small medical problem is causing this mind of mine to blow things out of proportion. And the extra 2.5 of lexapro didn't help. So 5mg of lexapro, 50 luvox, and .25 xanax and l0mg of valium all at night are not helping. And the extra thyroid per doc isn't either. How do I talk my way through this as can't and don't want to see doctors. thanks Phillipa
> >
> > Phillipa,
> > You wrote,[...unrelenting..deteriorating..seriously worried..building to panic...this mind of mind to blow...lexapro didn't help...lexapro..luvox..xanax..valium not helping...how do I talk my way through this..don't want to see doctors...].
> >
> > The response that was in the above post by me was redacted by me.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following videos..
Lou
To see these videos:
A. Pull up Google
Type in:
[youtube, How Fluoride Causes Hypothyroidism]
The next video concerns issues related to those that took Prozac, which is a fluorinated drug and Luvox and Lexapro and Celexa and other mind-altering drugs are fluorinated as well. Fluoride can cause hypothyroidism.
To see this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube,Prozac Testimonials-Suicide, Violence]
posted on Jan 14 2008 time is 6 min
Posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 21:43:32
In reply to Lou's response-playnlhevzabul, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 21:29:38
Lou well if so it's too late now as have had it for many years. Do you also have thyroid disease? Do you drink filtered water? I've heard also that prozac is in public water so if don't drink filtered water does this mean that technically you are on prozac and whatever other meds could be in our public drinking water? Guess we could save money on meds if this rumor is true. Which Of course I have no idea if it could be. Let me ask you what are your thoughts on this. Have you also heard these rumors? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on January 1, 2012, at 23:05:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 19:37:20
> Then if you stop worrying about death, you can stop worrying about life.
> Time to live in the moment.
Agreed.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 1, 2012, at 23:10:58
In reply to Lou's response-playnlhevzabul, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 21:29:38
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following videos..
I don't know if you noticed, but I am already a discussant in this thread.
- Scott
Posted by JohnLA on January 2, 2012, at 0:05:07
In reply to Re: Lou's response-grehytgolph, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 15:55:15
'I am trying to tell you that I am not able to tell you what I am trying not to say?'
sigismund; i apologize. i thought lou wrote the above quote. just now realized that you wrote it. still brilliant in my view. thanks for making me laugh.
john
Posted by JohnLA on January 2, 2012, at 0:12:20
In reply to Re: Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope » SLS, posted by sigismund on January 1, 2012, at 19:32:34
i recently saw an interview with the dalai lama.
he said he thinks/meditates about his own death every day.
he seems to be a pretty happy dude.
just saying...
Posted by sigismund on January 2, 2012, at 2:10:27
In reply to Lou's response-playnlhevzabul, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 21:29:38
I agree Lou. I think Prozac and flouride suck too. I would like some old fashioned opium.
Posted by larryhoover on January 2, 2012, at 15:19:58
In reply to Lou's response-playnlhevzabul, posted by Lou Pilder on January 1, 2012, at 21:29:38
Lou, rather than being merely a discussant to this thread, Ive chosen to become a redactant to it. Ive collected some of your comments from other active threads on this board, and combined them with a smaller portion of comments from this thread. I will discuss the points youve attempted to make, and show you and the other readers of this thread that they are false, inconsistent with science, and history. In order to add some order to my own discussion, I will enumerate my comments. Those numbers will appear in square brackets adjacent to your remarks, to provide a link between the two sets of remarks.
Lou said:
>> You see, the chemicals in the drugs [4] do something to your cells in your nerves and brain cells.
> > A lot of these chemicals are used to kill rats and insects. [3] And are used in poison gas as well to inflict mass-murder. And some of the chemicals [4] make a human retarded so that they will be compliant to orders from authority figures. This can also mean that the person has {an IQ drop}. [2]
> > Now I have written here a small amount about these chemicals because Mr. Hsiung, the owner of this site, has made prohibitions to me [5] that prevent me from posting here facts about these chemicals [4] in relation to particular parts of the historical record. The chemical I would like for you to know about is {fluoride}. Fluoride is in a lot of the drugs that psychiatrists give. [4] Fluoride was put in the water that the {redacted by respondent) camps. Now fluoride is in Paxil amoung other mind-altering drugs. [4] Chemists knew of this from what was done in 1939-1945 and beyond.
> > So the chemist that mixes up the medicine uses building blocks to combine chemicals that have been known for thousands of years that are in plants and oil and such. They synthesize the chemical through different processes. If I worked for GSK, I could make up different mind-altering drugs and give them names.
> Your drug list mentions Paxil that is a fluorinated drug. [4] Fluoride is a very poisonous neuro-toxin used in rat poison. [1,2,3] Fluoride can cause thyroid disease and many people taking these type of drugs get thyroid dysfunction and the consequences related to that. [2] And fluoride can cause brain dysfunction so that those taking the drug become more easily controlled and their IQ declines and their pineal gland is harmed. [2]
> Here is a video that I am requesting that you view. [2] The video shows how fluoride was used from 1933-1945. Now the effects were known then, and the effects are known now.
> Here is the video.
> To see this video;
> A. pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [Fluoride-The Eugenics plot Exposed (Part 1)]
Here is a list of psychotropic drugs that are fluoridated. [4]
A. Luvox
B. Paxil
C. Lexapro
D. Prozac
E. Celexa
F. others
I will show you the other chemicals in these drugs that could even be more (redacted by respondent) to your intellect. And they could cause brain damage that is not reversible.
The next video concerns issues related to those that took Prozac, which is a fluorinated [4] drug and Luvox and Lexapro and Celexa and other mind-altering drugs are fluorinated as well. [4] Fluoride can cause hypothyroidism. [2]
To see this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube, Prozac Testimonials-Suicide, Violence]
posted on Jan 14 2008 time is 6 min
LouEverything else in this post will be my own commentary, unless I refer to specific quotations from others, which will always be referenced.
1. The dose makes the poison.
This is the vernacular expression used to convey the insight first presented by Paracelsus, centuries before our time. The original was in Swiss German, but this is the translation that I believe best preserves his message.
All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy. (Von der Besucht, Paracelsus, 1567)I believe that the original insight of Paracelsus conveys far more that the vernacular version we see most commonly used, i.e. the dose makes the poison, as Paracelsus also invokes the concept that all substances are poisonous. Any substance must be present in an organism above a toxic threshold concentration, or it is not a poison.
There is another very critical point to be made about dosing and poisons; the dose-response curve is virtually never a straight line. Let me provide a couple of examples for you.and keep in mind Paracelsus insight that all substances are poisons.Consider water. You need water to survive. If you dont get enough water over time, it has toxic consequences (you die). We could put that on a graph, dose (intake over time) against response, with response being the probability that an individual in the population will not survive. At zero intake, the response is 100% fatal. At very low intakes, the probability of death is still very high, but as we increase the dose, the response line falls. At some point, the response falls to zero (essentially). We might call that point, the safe minimum intake (dose) for water. But if we continue increasing the dose, eventually we find the response begins to rise from zero (which we might call the safe maximum intake for water). Water is a poison at high enough doses, because it dilutes the electrolytes in our blood. Eventually, at a high enough dose, we again reach 100% response (all subjects in the sample population have expired).
What we have is a U-shaped dose response curve. All curves. No straight lines. The same U-shaped dose-response curve is true for all essential nutrients. It could be said that the same applies to e.g. regulatory hormones in our bodies, such as thyroid hormone or insulin. Too little is as bad as too much, although the specific details of why that is so may be very different in deficiency or surplus.
In contrast to these essential substances for life, we have a host of other chemicals that are not necessary for our continued existence, but if exposure meets a certain threshold, they become toxic. Lets consider the most potent carcinogen yet identified, TCDD (dioxin). We very quickly learned that if you expose lab animals to high doses, they develop all kinds of cancers. Intuitively, we want to draw a straight-line graph of dose and response, assuming that the carcinogenic response is proportional to exposure at all doses. But that is not the case. TCDD exhibits hormesis. Hormesis is the opposite effect at different dose ranges. At low exposures, TCDD protects against cancer, i.e. the graph goes below zero response at doses rising above zero dose. Only at some undefined point does the risk return to zero, and that point is well above typical environmental TCDD exposure for mammals. I provided some links to the science in this thread: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110610/msgs/988716.html
For dioxin, the dose-response curve is J-shaped. Its protective at low doses, and only becomes toxic at much higher doses.I will attempt to show that the same is true for fluoride, which I will discuss separately.
2. Toxicology of fluoride.
I rely on the monograph written by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (U.S. Department of Health), found at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf, for the main points abstracted here. I have done extensive corroborative research, and I have not found any information to contradict the conclusions presented here. Dont worry, Lou, its only 404 pages. Its very well organized.
The plasma half-life of fluoride is 8-10 hours. It is efficiently excreted by the kidney.
At all times, the brain concentration is a tiny fraction of the plasma concentration. Fluoride does not efficiently pass the blood-brain barrier, and does not accumulate in brain tissue.
Bone serves as a long-term repository for a fraction of ingested fluoride, maintaining a baseline plasma concentration independent of ingestion.
High fluoride exposure (well above that found in typical water supplies) is associated with thyroid dysfunction, but if and only if other thyroid risk factors are also present (especially malnutrition).
Normal vitamin C, E, and calcium intake will protect against chronic low-level exposure, and can also be used to treat high-level acute exposure.
Cognitive dysfunction and potential impact on IQ have only ever been found to be associated with chronic/lifetime exposure to very high fluoride concentrations in water, and are reversible by reducing fluoride exposure. The much-hyped and undocumented use of sodium fluoride by the Nazis as a mind-control agent is not supported, in any way, by the known toxic effects of the substance. Stupefaction can occur at extreme doses, because fluoride is a metabolic poison at high doses (binding serum calcium), but it would take sustained exposure to maintain such an effect, as the kidneys efficiently clear the ion from the blood. Stupefaction (or mind-control, if you believe the propaganda) could only be maintained by killing the intended subjects with the poison (long-term acute toxicity). I think this myth is busted.
There is no evidence for pineal gland dysfunction associated with fluoride exposure. (I did supplemental research on this issue, and discovered that calcium fluoride does accumulate in the pineal gland, which is not protected by the so-called blood-brain barrier. However, the pineal gland calcifies as we age, and no relationship with fluoride accumulation has been demonstrated, in terms of pineal gland function.)After reading the monograph, I conclude that the benefit afforded by reduction in dental caries upon exposure to 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water is not counterbalanced by any negative effect at that exposure. Therefore, I conclude that the dose-response curve is indeed J-shaped.
3. Sodium fluoride as rat poison/insecticide.
I have done substantial research, following the links provided by Lou, and similar ones found via my own Google research. Only in this conspiracy-minded network is there any reference to sodium fluoride as a rodenticide. There is a naturally-occurring fluorinated substance that has been utilized to control mammal populations (not just rodents), but it is not NOT a fluoride. It is sodium fluoroacetate. And, as I said, it is a naturally occurring substance (in plants). It is a big problem for cattle grazing in Australia, for example, because cattle are very sensitive to it. The subject is well explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate.
By the way, this substance has not been licensed for rodenticide use in the U.S. since 1972. So, even if we accept that someone mistakenly confused sodium fluoroacetate for sodium fluoride, the much repeated challenge (in the videos, and the accompanying internet literature) to go to any hardware store, and read the label on rat poison.sodium fluoride is misguided, at best. I read the Material Safety Data Sheets on a number of commercial rodenticides, and none of them contain any fluoride. That does not prove that none do, but then again, none rely on it for the toxic effect, either.Now, sodium fluoride is registered with the EPA as an anti-fungal wood preservative. And it appears to be a minor constituent in some insecticides. To say that is the insecticidal agent, is a pretty long stretch. It can be a constituent, but it has not been shown to be an active insecticidal agent, in so far as I was able to determine.
4. Fluorination versus fluoridation
Probably, this distinction is more meaningful to me, as a chemist, than it is to virtually any other person reading this thread. And I must acknowledge that Lou has sometimes gotten it right. It seems that he paid some attention to my words the last time I brought this issue up. Id like to make it perfectly clear that they are not synonyms. I will also discuss the difference between a chemical and an element.
Lets begin our discussion with sodium fluoride. It is an ionic compound, which is to say that the two constituent atoms are not bound chemically. The attraction between them is electrostatic. Sodium (symbol Na) is readily ionized to the positively charged form, called a cation. It has lost an electron, so it is shown with a positive charge, as Na+. Fluorine (symbol F) is also readily ionized, but it steals an electron to become a negatively charged ion, an anion, as F-. Sodium fluoride is neutral, because the positive and negative charges cancel out. It can be represented as (Na+F-), or simply NaF. In any case, all fluorides have ionized fluorine. That is what fluoride means, the ionic form of fluorine. Similarly, a chloride contains Cl- atoms. Ionic compounds are generally quite soluble in water, because water stabilizes ions via hydrogen bonding. It is simple enough to say that they are generally hydrophilic (water loving) compounds. When a compound containing fluoride is dissolved in water, the water can be said to have been fluoridated.
Fluorine (the element, an indivisible type of matter found in the periodic table of the elements) can become a component of a molecule by forming a chemical bond. In a chemical bond, the adjacent atoms share electrons. When fluorine forms such a chemical bond, the resultant molecule can be said to have been fluorinated. But the properties of fluorine are very different when considered as fluoride, when compared to a fluorinated molecule.
Lets consider some fluorinated molecules. Theres Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)), as one example. It is so chemically unreactive and heat resistant that we use it in a vast range of extreme environments. It is composed entirely of carbon and fluorine, but the chemical bonds are so incredibly strong that the carbon is protected from all but the most extreme chemical environments. There are other very resistant molecules, such as carbon tetrafluoride, or halogen analogs such as the chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs, aka Freon). Theyre all potent greenhouse gases because they dont break down in the environment except and until theyre exposed to solar radiation and cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, where the breakdown products consume ozone.
On the other end of the reactivity spectrum, youll find elemental fluorine. As the pure element, fluorine is a diatomic gas. Just as oxygen is O2, and nitrogen is N2, so we find fluorine as F2. Elemental fluorine is extremely reactive, more so than any other element. With the exception of neon and helium, fluorine will react with all other elements. (In an interesting aside, the wiki fluorine article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine ) states, Many generally non-reactive substances such as bricks, water, and frozen meat will burn with a bright flame in a jet of fluorine gas.)
Fluorine is stabilized by becoming ionized to fluoride, or by completing the chemical reactions it so readily initiates, resulting in fluorinated compounds. I will allow Lou that these compounds can be considered to be chemicals, but only these compounds.
Fluorination alters the chemistry of a compound. It can increase its reactivity, as seen with trifluoroacetic acid, which is about 100,000 times more acidic, when compared to acetic acid. But, another way of looking at that is that the trifluoroacetate anion is 100,000 times more stable than is acetate. Theres a yin and a yang to chemistry; an increase in one property is associated with a decrease in another. Thats what happens with Sarin gas, which is a fluorinated organophosphate (a toxic class of compounds used as pesticides, e.g. Malathion). In this instance, the fluorinated organophosphate can bind irreversibly to the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, leading to fatal muscle paralysis. But that is an extreme case, and quite unusual amongst fluorinated compounds.
(Frankly, all this hoo-hah about rat poison and Sarin and such-like reminds me of the propaganda surrounding dihydrogen monoxide. See: http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html
In the hands of modern chemists, fluorination can be completely harnessed. As with the incredible non-reactivity of Teflon, many modern pharmaceuticals are purposely fluorinated to stabilize them, and make them less reactive. That property protects them against enzymatic degradation, allowing a lower dose to have a greater effect. (Phillipa, if you have read this far, this explains the fact that intact pharmaceutical molecules are being detected in the environment, including in water sources used for drinking water. The molecules are sufficiently resistant to our own enzymes, and the bacterial enzymes acting in sewage treatment plants, that they can persist intact. But, they are at such incredibly low concentrations that they have no physiological effect (refer to point 1, the dose makes the poison), and they are hydrophobic (my next point) which drives them into sediment, that they are of no consequence.)
A second reason to fluorinate pharmaceutical drugs is to make them hydrophobic (or lipophilic, fat loving, which is the same thing). This allows them to enter cells more readily, again permitting a lower dose for the same effect.
The third reason for fluorinating pharmaceuticals is that it can enhance mimicry at receptors. The affinity of a fluorinated analog to a natural receptor substrate can be orders of magnitude stronger. Dexamethasone is a fluorinated analog to cortisol, and its potency is 26.6 times that of the natural hormone.
All three of these benefits of fluorination are used in the development of modern pharmaceuticals. Fluorination reduces reactivity at enzymes, extending half-life (and reducing the effective dose). Fluorination enhances lipophilicity, enhancing cell uptake, again reducing the effective dose. And fluorination enhances biological activity at receptor sites, once again reducing the effective dose. All of this is done very selectively.
And Lou, I want to emphasize something in particular. The fluorine that has been added to these drug molecules is extremely stable. It likes being where it is, more so than any other atom that can be bound to carbon, which constitutes the skeleton of all drug molecules. The only way for fluorine to leave one of these stable molecules as fluoride would also mean that the leaving site for that fluorine atom would become a carbocation. That doesnt likely mean anything to you, but that is a very unstable and reactive situation. As a scientist, I can never say that it could not happen, but the likelihood is very remote. So, in conclusion, Prozac and all those other fluorinated drugs are not fluoride sources. But even if they were, the dose would be miniscule, and of no toxic consequence.
5. I would join in support with Dr. Bob if he was to prohibit you from posting this sort of stuff to the site, as well. Although you describe this material as fact, it is anything but. The basic source of all your comments is anecdote, and unreferenced and/or out-of-context material. I am perhaps in a position of advantage, having both a scientific and research background. If I had found any information to support any of your theses, Id have presented it, Lou, but if and only if the source was credible and consistent with the body of knowledge I have come to know as science. I spent many hours on research into your concerns, not only over the last two days, but also over time, and I have only been able to falsify your allegations. I would ask that you desist from posting on these subjects any longer.
Lar
Posted by Phidippus on January 2, 2012, at 16:12:38
In reply to Blowing Things Out Of Proportion I Hope, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2012, at 12:13:55
>So 5mg of lexapro, 50 luvox, and .25 xanax and >l0mg of valium all at night are not helping.
THE DOSES ARE ALL TOO LOW (except the Valium)!
Eric
Posted by 10derheart on January 2, 2012, at 16:47:35
In reply to Rebuttal of Lou's remarks » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on January 2, 2012, at 15:19:58
Always so nice to 'see' you, Lar.
This post of yours....to my mind and soul, is a thing of beauty. Thank you for taking the time. Really.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.