User talk:CKelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone who wishes to correspond with me is welcome to post comments, info, opinions, questions, criticisms, or whatever you want at the bottom of this page, and I'll respond here. I check this page on a somewhat regular basis. Laters! ZZYZX 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents


[edit] THC detection and retention under special circumstances

Hi. Great work on the Drug test section. I got a query about thc and detection times, no problem, its all in the article. But then he asked :"But since im so big, would that keep thc longer in the fat?" This guy is really obese, but do he have a point? Will a maraton runner with 7% bodyfat have a shorter detectiontime than a person with... well 120% body fat? If this is the case, should it be included in the article? (I'm working on a translation of this article to Norwegian btw, so therefore my keen interest)--PetterBudt 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for putting such effort into this subject. I just don't have the time to watch over the page, but it look like you folks are already doing as good or better a job than I could have.
With respect to your question about body fat content changing detection time. It's true that certain drugs (esp. THC) are highly fat soluble. My understanding of the metabolism of THC is that after a dose, it binds primarily to plasma proteins in the blood. As it is metabolized, the blood levels go back down. So, for the drug to become integrated into bodyfat would require it to happen during this period. Based upon that model, the person would have to be a fairly heavy user for an extended period in order to have any appreciable amount of THC buildup in bodyfat.
With that said, I can say that I have heard this particular issue mentioned by people in the drug-testing field, but only as a suggestion - not any kind of fact. For example, people trying to "beat" a test for THC have been told to diet during any "detox" period and then start eating lots of fat a few days before the test.
As far as the article goes, I would just make a general statement that fitness level, fluid/food intake, and pH of foods/drinks may slightly speed or slow excretion of a drug. It's difficult to go into more detail than that because it's different for each drug. THC excretes faster with an alkaline diet whereas amphetamines excrete more slowly with the same diet.
In truth, nobody really knows whether bodyfat levels effect drug test results, but most professionals are willing to admit they may, but in a minor way. I would guess that if a person went long enough without the drug to get to some kind of baseline THC level - so that the only THC left in the body was leeching from existing fat - that level would be well below the detectable level. Then again, it's just a guess. --ZZYZX 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again thanks for the great work. I grabbede a copy of your answer and will use some of it in the norwegian version. If wee ever meet i o u a norwegian beer.--PetterBudt 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benzodiazepine detection in urine

Do you agree with the upper and lower bounds for detection of benzodiazepines in urine at 1-5 days (now posted on the drug testing page)? I saw that you had posted 1-7 days. I've seen detection times all the way up to 42 days on other sites! I am mainly concerned with Alprazolam.

That sounds fine. I'm sure Xanax would be gone within 2-3 days, since it's so short acting. I got the article info from a friend who was Lab Director for a drug-testing lab. From his POV, he sometimes has to guess, since most people tested for drugs don't tell the lab when the last time they used the drug was. It seems like benzodiazepines should be a bit easier to figure out, since they're medical drugs. The one with a long half-life that comes to mind is clonazepam (Klonopin). That will likely hang around for a long time, but since little is excreted in urine, it can probably be grouped with the others. You may also want to look at Valium (diazepam), since I know it has a fairly long half-life as well.
So yeah, I think 1-5 days is fine. One of the things I'm a bit skeptical about is the list of detection times on websites that sell "detox" products. They always seem to have longer times than other sources, and I think it's a way to give the consumer confidence that their product works. If they list 2 weeks as the detection time (for benzodiazepines, let's say), and the purchaser of the product uses it in the second week, they'll test negative. The negative test is of course due to the drug being gone, not their detox product. One of the problems with these "detection time" charts is that there usually isn't a line for each and every drug. Ultra-short benzodiazepines such as Versed (midazolam) will likely stay for about a day (maximum), whereas the long-acting ones will stay for much longer. That's the reason the chart on the page has different lines for amphetamines/methamphetamine and barbiturates/phenobarbital. It would be really nice to expand that for each drug, but I could only guess about most of them. Thanks for the interest! --ZZYZX 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer!

No problem - I appreciate good questions! --ZZYZX 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venlafaxine and serotonin/norepinephrine

Hello! Could you cite the source of your inbformation concearning venlafaxine's dose-dependant effects on serotonin and noradrenaline.I can't find any reliable information to support the claim that noradrenaline reuptake only occurs at medium to high dosages. Also, Wyeth's information on the pharmacodynamics of venlafaxine state that it's a potent inhibitor of both serotonin and noradrenaline and a weak inhibitor of dopamine reuptake.Thank you in advance and please excuse my poor English.

-Thomas

I'm not sure which article you're referring to, so I can't put the source in myself, but the information is part of the official prescribing information for Effexor (venlafaxine HCL) that was released by the manufacturer (Wyeth). The statements can be found in the section "Clinical Pharmacology." The manufacturer's site only had PDFs, but this page (www.rxlist.com - Clinical Pharmacology of Effexor) has the info:
http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic4/effexor_cp.htm
It (and official prescribing information) include this statement:
Preclinical studies have shown that venlafaxine and its active metabolite, O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV), are potent inhibitors of neuronal serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake and weak inhibitors of dopamine reuptake.
Noradrenaline and norepinephrine are the same thing, but the word "norepinephrine" is used more commonly when it comes to brain chemistry. Incidentally, the same thing is true with adrenaline and epinephrine (i.e. they are the same chemical). I think I wrote (if not then I should have) that serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake are altered at all doses, but dopamine reuptake is only significantly altered with higher doses. Venlafaxine is therefore considered an SNRI (serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), though all three neurotransmitters are effected in a dose-dependent manner. Let me know if you need more info. ZZYZX 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied to venlafaxine talk page at 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FDA conspiracy theory

Congratulations on the new article. It is needed, since this theory is widespread among anti-authoritarians and the alt med crowd. Are you familiar with the role of Tim Bolen in spreading this idea? His wild claims are based on it, and under deposition he was forced to admit that some of this claims were mere "euphemisms." -- Fyslee 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I'm not familiar with Tim Bolen, but if he's that bad, you may want to write an article about him. I wrote the FDA conspiracy theory article because I finally got tired of these infomercials (especially Kevin Trudeau's) where he claims that everything can be done naturally (with herbs, etc.) and that drug companies don't want us to get well. It's ridiculous because in the free market, if one company has a product that can just "treat" something, and another company comes out with a drug that can cure someone, doctors will be prescribing the cure. Also, the huge problem with herbs is that they contain all sorts of unidentified alkaloids, not a single drug. But, I guess I'm preaching to the choir here because you agree with me.
I plan on continuing the add content, but I won't be doing that for at least a week. In the meantime, anything you want to add would great. Also, thanks for the compliment on the article. ZZYZX 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolokol-1

I'd like to ask you that in future you don't introduce original research like you did here. First of all, naloxone is exactly what was used. Second, there is no way for you to know how much naloxone doses might have been available in Moscow, a city of ten million, whether additional doses were provided, or just about anything else related to this. Nikola 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "original research" you're right, I have no idea how much naloxone Moscow hospitals kept in stock, or if they had enough to treat the affected. Clearly that was conjecture, and should not have been included by me. If that was what you objected to, then I agree. If you objected to the statement about naloxone being the antidote (to fentanyl derivatives), I think that's a medically accepted fact.
But now I'm curious, did you mean that naloxone was used without success on the Moscow Siege patients, or that it was used successfully? I had the impression (from the article at that time) that the authorities didn't tell hospital workers how to treat the Siege victims, and not getting naloxone in time was the reason for the deaths. I suppose if the gas contained something in addition to fentanyl, treatment with naloxone might not have been enough, and that could have caused the deaths. Do you have any idea which it is?
In any case, apologies... ZZYZX 11:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to User_talk:Nikola_Smolenski)
According to the article now (and it is sourced, reference #7), authorities did tell medics to use naloxone, so there is some reason why is it used. Deaths of hostages are attributed to weakening of their organisms during the siege due to lack of water which caused worsening of chronic diseases by the gas. According to the reference, the gas was tested on people without ill effects. Nikola 11:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ZZYZX 11:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FDA conspiracy theories

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article FDA conspiracy theories, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MastCell Talk 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ZZYZX, I deleted the article because it was an expired PROD. The concern listed by the nominator was :"Unreferenced, original research, POV fork. Relevant viewpoints could be incorporated into existing articles on FDA, assuming they can be sourced." My own opinion was that the Criticism of the FDA article covered that ground more neutrally, and because all the content was unreferenced, I saw nothing worth merging to the other article. Since it was deleted via PROD, I can undelete it and list it at Article for deletion if you want, but I see little chance of it surviving a deletion discussion.--ragesoss 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the article and placed it in your userspace: User:CKelly/FDA conspiracy theories. If you improve it to the point where you think it has addressed the reasons it was deleted, you can move it back into article space. However, I strongly recommend that you discuss it with other editors at Criticism of the FDA and FDA first.--ragesoss 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A redirect would be appropriate.--ragesoss 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)