25 replies to this topic

[disaster]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Edited by disaster, 10 August 2008 - 07:00 PM.

[luv2increase]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Yeah, since you are taking it the buccal route, hardly any if at all is getting metabolized into the L-isomer of amphetamine in your liver. It is bypassing the liver. You won't have any problems.

[yoyo]

That amount sublingually shouldn't produce much. Obviously not taking it the few days before the test is the most important thing.

[luv2increase]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Yeah, since you are taking it the buccal route, hardly any if at all is getting metabolized into the L-isomer of amphetamine in your liver. It is bypassing the liver. You won't have any problems.

You also have to note the amount that would even get converted from ingesting even, say, 20mg. Probably only 50mcg or less would get converted. This wouldn't even reach the minimal cut-off detention in a GS/MC drug test let alone a home test.

[yoyo]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Yeah, since you are taking it the buccal route, hardly any if at all is getting metabolized into the L-isomer of amphetamine in your liver. It is bypassing the liver. You won't have any problems.

You also have to note the amount that would even get converted from ingesting even, say, 20mg. Probably only 50mcg or less would get converted. This wouldn't even reach the minimal cut-off detention in a GS/MC drug test let alone a home test.

um, what?

This study indicate ~37% of a selegiline dose gets excreted as methamphetamine within 48hs. http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657

my memory of the emsam prescribing info was that it had about half the metabolites of oral 10mg.

Edited by yoyo, 12 August 2008 - 05:19 AM.

[luv2increase]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Yeah, since you are taking it the buccal route, hardly any if at all is getting metabolized into the L-isomer of amphetamine in your liver. It is bypassing the liver. You won't have any problems.

You also have to note the amount that would even get converted from ingesting even, say, 20mg. Probably only 50mcg or less would get converted. This wouldn't even reach the minimal cut-off detention in a GS/MC drug test let alone a home test.

um, what?

This study indicate ~37% of a selegiline dose gets excreted as methamphetamine within 48hs. http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657

my memory of the emsam prescribing info was that it had about half the metabolites of oral 10mg.

37% of the metabolite were r-methamphetamine NOT 37% of the dose ------ you are thinking that for 10mg selegiline administered, 3.7mg was excreted as r-methamphetamine ----- this isn't so

[yoyo]

I'm taking Cyprenil, about 3 drops/day.

I know that it metabolizes into the l-isomer of (meth)amphetamine, and should be ok, but I want to be on the safe side and avoid any suspicions and be sure that my test comes back negative.

I will probably have to submit a urine test on Wednesday, will my fluids be clear by then?

EDIT: Sorry about the typo

Yeah, since you are taking it the buccal route, hardly any if at all is getting metabolized into the L-isomer of amphetamine in your liver. It is bypassing the liver. You won't have any problems.

You also have to note the amount that would even get converted from ingesting even, say, 20mg. Probably only 50mcg or less would get converted. This wouldn't even reach the minimal cut-off detention in a GS/MC drug test let alone a home test.

um, what?

This study indicate ~37% of a selegiline dose gets excreted as methamphetamine within 48hs. http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657

my memory of the emsam prescribing info was that it had about half the metabolites of oral 10mg.

37% of the metabolite were r-methamphetamine NOT 37% of the dose ------ you are thinking that for 10mg selegiline administered, 3.7mg was excreted as r-methamphetamine ----- this isn't so

i think you're misreading it.

[disaster]

As I wasn't willing to take any chances I put my Cyprenil on hold Monday thru Wednesday as I was sure I would be asked to submit a urine test today. I turns out it wasn't necessary (for the time being). Thanks anyway

[luv2increase]

As I wasn't willing to take any chances I put my Cyprenil on hold Monday thru Wednesday as I was sure I would be asked to submit a urine test today. I turns out it wasn't necessary (for the time being). Thanks anyway

Even if it did show up, it would be the ® racemic version of methamphetamine and amphetamine. If they do a GS/MC test, they would see the difference. I don't think it would even show up on a home test kit, which some gov't agencies and businesses actually do use.


Also make note that out of all the information I've read and gathered throughout the years, not once did I see anyone test positive on a drug screen while taking selegiline. WFIW

Edited by luv2increase, 13 August 2008 - 07:35 PM.

[tpower]

Yup, yoyo read it right. Selegiline isn't as safe as I thought; after all, amphetamine-like compounds tend to be pretty toxic. No offense to those selling selegiline here. :-) Just helping others exercise their precautionary step.

[luv2increase]

Yup, yoyo read it right. Selegiline isn't as safe as I thought; after all, amphetamine-like compounds tend to be pretty toxic. No offense to those selling selegiline here. :-) Just helping others exercise their precautionary step.

toxic??? at low therapeutic doses (make note lower dosages than anyone would get out of selegiline anyways) amphetamine is actually good for your brain!!!!!!!!!!

go here and learn before you steer people away, albeit ignorantly, from a great chemical with much promise both for life-extension, cognition, and well-being!!!

[url="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=amphetamine+plasticity&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search""]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=amphet...nG=Search"[/url]]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=amphet...amp;btnG=Search

Edited by luv2increase, 15 August 2008 - 03:23 AM.

[tpower]

Luv2increase, please don't over-react.

According to this paper, http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657, "the metabolites excreted 2 days after administration of 2.5-10 mg of selegiline hydrochloride amounted to 44-58% of the dose." The paper also says that 37% of the metabolites end up as ®-Methamphetamine, and 3% end up as ®-Amphetamine.

Luv2increase, I don't understand where you get the figure of 00000222222333 micrograms of amphetamine-like metabolites from ingesting 1 mg of selegiline from? The actual value is magnitudes higher! Even if you were making an estimate, try to be in the ballpark okay? From my point of view, selegiline should be avoided, and please respect my opinion. Don't start accusing people of being unscientific and giving bad advice when you cannot find scientific evidence to debunk my case.

Everyone, I would be extremely wary of selegiline. Just because people here on imminst have made a lot of posts, doesn't make them right. Some, as I've said before, have financial reasons for sticking around, hence the many posts to establish credibility. Always keep an open mind.

[luv2increase]

Luv2increase, please don't over-react.

According to this paper, http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657, "the metabolites excreted 2 days after administration of 2.5-10 mg of selegiline hydrochloride amounted to 44-58% of the dose." The paper also says that 37% of the metabolites end up as ®-Methamphetamine, and 3% end up as ®-Amphetamine.

Luv2increase, I don't understand where you get the figure of 00000222222333 micrograms of amphetamine-like metabolites from ingesting 1 mg of selegiline from? The actual value is magnitudes higher! Even if you were making an estimate, try to be in the ballpark okay? From my point of view, selegiline should be avoided, and please respect my opinion. Don't start accusing people of being unscientific and giving bad advice when you cannot find scientific evidence to debunk my case.

Everyone, I would be extremely wary of selegiline. Just because people here on imminst have made a lot of posts, doesn't make them right. Some, as I've said before, have financial reasons for sticking around, hence the many posts to establish credibility. Always keep an open mind.

Here is an analogy for you: 1/2 ounce of quality Grey Goose vodka in a sitting is not bad for an individual's health yet 12 ounces are.

Can you catch my drift here?

It is extremely erroneous to assume that such an extremely low amount of amphetamine and/or methamphetamine (notably R isomer ---> although makes no difference here) is bad for an individual's health. You also cannot exclude the fact that selegiline itself is the main beneficial constituent in which should be focused on here. Ever heard the term of the pros outweighing the cons? I hope so. Although, in this instance, there is no cons; therefore, one can safely conclude that selegiline is most definitely beneficial for one's health. This isn't only my words, but the findings of numerous studies have concluded so.


I'm off to bed.

[brotherx]

Hi all,

I think selegiline can be discussed from controversial points of view.
On the one hand there are articles which point to the neuroprotective & life prolonging site of selegiline - and the other hand you also find reports which indicate an excess mortality and the combination with Parkinson.

Cheers

Alex


"Deprenyl, excess mortality, and epidemiological traps.
Riggs JE.

Department of Neurology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown 26506, USA.

Compared with the findings for an age-matched group not taking deprenyl, a higher risk of mortality in Parkinson's disease patients taking deprenyl has recently been reported. Since a biological basis for this observation was not apparent, an epidemiological explanation was sought. Expected mortality over a 6-year period in four hypothetical age-matched groups was determined. Although groups were age matched, ages of individuals within the groups varied. Variation of individual ages within each group, without affecting the age-match comparability, produced a marked variation in expected group mortality. Mortality comparisons between age-matched groups can be invalid. This epidemiological trap might account for the recent unexplained high mortality observed in a group of Parkinson's disease patients taking deprenyl.

PMID: 9197952 "


"
The necessity of having a proper dose of (-)deprenyl (D) to prolong the life spans of rats explains discrepancies among different studies in the past.
Kitani K, Kanai S, Miyasaka K, Carrillo MC, Ivy GO.

National Institute for Longevity Sciences, Morioka-cho, Obu-shi, Aichi, Japan. kitani@nils.go.jp

(-)Deprenyl (D) has been shown to be effective in prolonging life span in experimental animals, although, there are some discrepancies in its effect on the life span the even within the same species (rats). The present study aims to clarify the reason for these discrepancies. Male F344/DuCrj rats began receiving subcutaneous (s.c.) injections of D at the age of 18 months. Doses used were 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 mg/kg/injection (inj.), three times a week. Average life spans of animals were significantly longer in male rats given 0.25 and 0.5 mg/kg/inj.; however, rats given a 1.0 mg/kg dose began dying earlier than control rats, leading to an inverse U-shaped dose-efficacy relationship, a hormesis. Old (27-month-old) rats given different doses of D for 1 month showed a typical hormetic response for antioxidant enzyme activities, indicating a significant increase in superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities in brain dopaminergic regions with four lower doses (0.25 to 2 mg/kg/inj., 3 times a week), but a significantly negative response with the highest dose (4 mg/kg/inj.). Our results clearly indicate that a proper dose of D within a certain dose range can significantly increase the life span of rats, but that a greater dose becomes less effective and may actually adversely affect the life span of rats. A similar hormetic response for its effect on antioxidant enzyme activities and the parallel between the two different effects of D suggest a possible causal relationship between these two effects of D. The presence of this effective dose range of D may explain previously reported discrepancies in the effect of D on the life span of animals."




"Pharmacological aspects of (-)-deprenyl.
Magyar K, Pálfi M, Tábi T, Kalász H, Szende B, Szöko E.

Department of Pharmacodynamics, Semmelweis University, H-1445, Budapest, P.O.B.: 370 Hungary. magykal@net.sote.hu

Deprenyl, the selective irreversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B), has been synthesised as a potential antidepressant, however, due to its dopamine potentiating capacity, became a registered drug in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Deprenyl possesses a wide range of pharmacological activities; some of them are not related to its MAO-B inhibitory potency. Beside its dopamine potentiating effect, it renders protection against a number of dopaminergic, cholinergic and noradrenergic neurotoxins with a complex mechanism of action. By inducing antioxidant enzymes and decreasing the formation of reactive oxygen species, deprenyl is able to combat an oxidative challenge implicated as a common causative factor in neurodegenerative diseases. In a dose substantially lower than required for MAO-B inhibition (10(-9)-10(-13) M), deprenyl interferes with early apoptotic signalling events induced by various kinds of insults in cell cultures of neuroectodermal origin, thus protecting cells from apoptotic death. Deprenyl requires metabolic conversion to a hitherto unidentified metabolite to exert its antiapoptotic effect, which serves to protect the integrity of the mitochondrion by inducing transcriptional and translational changes. Pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies have revealed that deprenyl undergoes intensive first pass metabolism, and its major metabolites also possess pharmacological activities. The ratio of the parent compound and its metabolites reaching the systemic circulation and the brain are highly dependent on the routes of administration. Therefore, in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, reconsideration of the dosing schedule, by lowering the dose of deprenyl and choosing the most appropriate route of administration, would diminish undesired adverse effects, with unaltered neuroprotective potency. Copyright 2004 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
PMID: 15279565 "


"Effect of selegiline against selective neurotoxins]
[Article in Russian]

Magyar K.

Department of Pharmacodynamics, Semmelweis University of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

The complexity of the pharmacological activity of selegiline cannot be considered only as a result of a simple MAO-B inhibition. The mechanism of its neuroprotective action against the noradrenergic neurotoxin DSP-4 was widely studied (-)-p-fluoro-deprenyl (PFD), the chemical derivative of selegiline, with its possible metabolites were also involved into these studies. The results suggested that the uptake inhibitory effect of selegiline, and mainly that of its metabolite (-)-methylamphetamine (MA), played an essential role in the protection. MA was more potent to inhibit the uptake of noradrenaline and dopamine, than the parent compound. Neither selegiline nor its metabolite inhibited the reuptake of serotonin. In respect of the protection against DSP-4 induced toxicity PFD and its metabolites behaved similarly to selegiline, but their effects were more lasting than that of selegiline. After oral treatment selegiline undergoes an intensive "first pass" metabolism, which leads to an enhanced formation of MA. The better understanding of the fate of selegiline in the body, including its pharmacokinetic behaviour and metabolism, may contribute to a better knowledge of the complex pharmacological activity of the drug. The results could be summarised as follows. a) MAO-B inhibition-which is due to the parent compound-is an irreversible "hit and run" effect, the level of which after an initial phase is independent of the presence of the substance which caused it. b) The uptake inhibition is a reversible process and strictly proportional to the concentration of the substance responsible for the effect. In this respect the uptake inhibitory action of the metabolites exceeds that of the parent compounds. The role of the reversible uptake inhibition in neuroprotection may partly explain the need of the daily administration of selegiline to parkinsonian patients in spite of the irreversible MAO-B inhibitory action of the drug.
PMID: 9503567"

Luv2increase, please don't over-react.

According to this paper, http://dmd.aspetjour...t/full/25/6/657, "the metabolites excreted 2 days after administration of 2.5-10 mg of selegiline hydrochloride amounted to 44-58% of the dose." The paper also says that 37% of the metabolites end up as ®-Methamphetamine, and 3% end up as ®-Amphetamine.

Luv2increase, I don't understand where you get the figure of 00000222222333 micrograms of amphetamine-like metabolites from ingesting 1 mg of selegiline from? The actual value is magnitudes higher! Even if you were making an estimate, try to be in the ballpark okay? From my point of view, selegiline should be avoided, and please respect my opinion. Don't start accusing people of being unscientific and giving bad advice when you cannot find scientific evidence to debunk my case.

Everyone, I would be extremely wary of selegiline. Just because people here on imminst have made a lot of posts, doesn't make them right. Some, as I've said before, have financial reasons for sticking around, hence the many posts to establish credibility. Always keep an open mind.

Here is an analogy for you: 1/2 ounce of quality Grey Goose vodka in a sitting is not bad for an individual's health yet 12 ounces are.

Can you catch my drift here?

It is extremely erroneous to assume that such an extremely low amount of amphetamine and/or methamphetamine (notably R isomer ---> although makes no difference here) is bad for an individual's health. You also cannot exclude the fact that selegiline itself is the main beneficial constituent in which should be focused on here. Ever heard the term of the pros outweighing the cons? I hope so. Although, in this instance, there is no cons; therefore, one can safely conclude that selegiline is most definitely beneficial for one's health. This isn't only my words, but the findings of numerous studies have concluded so.


I'm off to bed.

Edited by brotherx, 15 August 2008 - 08:31 AM.

[luv2increase]

Everyone, I would be extremely wary of selegiline. Just because people here on imminst have made a lot of posts, doesn't make them right. Some, as I've said before, have financial reasons for sticking around, hence the many posts to establish credibility. Always keep an open mind.

I posted this on the other thread, yet I think it is relevant to post it here as well so no one misses it.



Here is a study for people afraid of the metabolite of methamphetamine from deprenyl:

Deprenyl treatment attenuates long-term pre- and post-synaptic changes evoked by chronic methamphetamine.
Davidson C, Chen Q, Zhang X, Xiong X, Lazarus C, Lee TH, Ellinwood EH.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Box 3870, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. colda@duke.edu

Deprenyl, used clinically in Parkinson's disease, has multiple pharmacological effects which make it a good candidate to treat neurotoxicity. Thus, we investigated deprenyl's ability to attenuate methamphetamine-induced dopamine neurotoxicity. We also examined deprenyl's effect in changing markers associated with psychostimulant sensitization. A potential therapeutic effect on either pathological domain would be a boon in developing novel treatments for methamphetamine abuse. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were split into 6 groups. Three groups received a 7-day saline minipump with saline, 0.05 or 0.25 mg/kg SC deprenyl injections given for 10 days before, during and 5 days after the 7-day saline minipump implant. Similarly, 3 groups received methamphetamine pumps (25 mg/kg/day) with escalating daily injections of methamphetamine (0-6 mg/kg) in addition to the minipump treatment. These rats also received saline, 0.05 or 0.25 mg/kg deprenyl injections given before, during and the 7-day minipump treatment. Rats were killed on day 28 of withdrawal and brain samples taken. HPLC analysis for dopamine and 3,4-Dihydroxy-Phenylacetic Acid (DOPAC) revealed a loss of dopamine in the caudate and accumbens which was partially reversed by high dose deprenyl. Tyrosine hydroxylase immunostaining in the midbrain was unaffected by methamphetamine, suggesting that dopamine neurotoxicity was localized to the caudate. Western blot analysis of the caudate after methamphetamine revealed little change in Alpha-Amino-3-Hydroxy-5-Methyl-4-Isoxazole Propionic Acid (AMPA) GluR1 or N-Methyl-d-Aspartate (NMDA) NR2B subunits, or their phosphorylation state. However, methamphetamine increased levels of GluR1 and its phosphorylation state in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), and these increases were attenuated by deprenyl. Methamphetamine also increased levels of PFC NR2B subunit, but these increases were not attenuated by deprenyl. We suggest that deprenyl may be effective in reducing the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine and may also attenuate changes in prefrontal AMPA receptor function, presumably more associated with addiction rather than neurotoxicity.

This study has been brought up before here Imminst, and I can't believe I had forgotten to mention it. Even though methamphetamine is a metabolite, it seems as though selegiline actually attenuates the negative affects from it. This is very important.

Also, Desoxyn is a pure pharmaceutical grade medication of methamphetamine used successfully to treat AD/HD. This is very important because in therapeutic dosages, methamphetamine is not shown to be negative at all. It is only when Meth Addicts consume non-therapeutic mega doses for extreme periods of time does it really mess someone up in a very bad way. Compare the low dose of selegiline metabolites of methamphetamine to the massive (multiple grams throughout many days) doses that the drug addicts consume.

You have to get the stigma out of your head of automatically considering methamphetamine bad, especially when it comes to extremely low dosages.


There you have it.

[disaster]

My only concern right now is if a drug test will give a positive result or not. Assuming that it will be a fairly advanced institution that conducts the analysis, will they look for the l-isomer as well as the d-isomer of (meth)amphetamines?

I haven't been asked to submit a urine test yet but will probably be asked soon so should I refrain from taking Cyprenil for a while?

[luv2increase]

My only concern right now is if a drug test will give a positive result or not. Assuming that it will be a fairly advanced institution that conducts the analysis, will they look for the l-isomer as well as the d-isomer of (meth)amphetamines?

I haven't been asked to submit a urine test yet but will probably be asked soon so should I refrain from taking Cyprenil for a while?

It normally takes around 72 hours for amphetamines to get out of your system. When taking into affect the low dose which deprenyl (ESPECIALLY LIQUID SELEGILINE) would be putting through your system, the cut-off level of detection would probably be overcome within 24 hours or so. Of course, there are other variables like how much water you consume, metabolism, and of course how much deprenyl you are taking in.


Here is a case history for you from http://www.ingentaco...000007/art00030

Abstract:

Methamphetamine was detected in a 77-year-old male who had a history of congestive heart failure. Using a modification of a previously reported method, trifluoroacetyl-l-prolyl chloride was used to derivatize sympathomimetic amines to allow separation and identification of individual enantiomers. The l-enantiomer of methamphetamine and a trace amount of l-amphetamine were found in blood and urine specimens from this case. Further investigation revealed the decedent had bronchial asthma and regularly used a Vicks® Inhaler, which contains l-methamphetamine as the active ingredient.
Document Type: Research article

Affiliations: 1: Franklin County Coroner's Office, 520 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201 2: Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory, Air Force Institute of Occupational Health (Surveillance Directorate), Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235

Concluding from this, it would be safe to assume that if you did test positive, you could just say you use Vicks inhaler or deprenyl (neither are illegal or controlled substances); they would do more tests and determine that d-enantiomer is not present.


End of thread I believe.

[tpower]

luv2increase, can you give us good reasons why you prefer selegiline citrate over selegiline hcl and liquid selegiline over tablet selegiline? Frankly, I'm EXTREMELY worried about your seemingly blind enthusiasm, seeing how I have not read ANY papers on selegiline citrate nor ANY studies using the liquid form. Giving us a link to a sketchy site will not do.

[luv2increase]

luv2increase, can you give us good reasons why you prefer selegiline citrate over selegiline hcl and liquid selegiline over tablet selegiline? Frankly, I'm EXTREMELY worried about your seemingly blind enthusiasm, seeing how I have not read ANY papers on selegiline citrate nor ANY studies using the liquid form. Giving us a link to a sketchy site will not do.

The citrate and hydrochloride are just carriers for the base selegiline. They are well known carriers so neither pose any sort of threat to one's health. The selegiline hcl is notorious of being in an oral tablet made to be swallowed until recently when an orally available selegiline hcl tablet came about.

Basically, it is liquid and to be placed under the tongue for a significant period of time to bypass as much as possible the liver metabolism which would bring about the metabolites you are so petrified of. If you have been reading up on this as much as I have, you would come to light that the majority of people taking l-deprenyl (selegiline hcl) orally have had some deleterious results probably due to its conversion in the liver to 'unwanted' metabolites. On the other hand, the majority of those whom have taken the liquid selegiline citrate have had fantastic results without any of the deleterious side-effects such as is given by the selegiline hcl.

Concluding from this, one can reasonably assume that liquid selegiline is superior due to its buccal nature and easy dosing. One thing most importantly in which you should definitely realize is thus; it is not "blind enthusiasm" since I and countless others have had superior results using the citrate form versus the hydrochloride form.

Make note: there are many knowledgeable people on this forum and the mind and muscle forum whom all have come to the conclusion of the citrate form being superior. This has been concluded long ago, so you coming in here causing pointless trouble is a little late. Your place would have been welcome 2 years ago when this discussion was taking place. This is probably why the navigators etc... don't want to respond to your posts because it is pointless seeing the debate has already been taken place long ago and on more than one occasion.


I hope this solves things. If not, I welcome you to use the search function. It is a tab on the top right of the screen in-between 'Teams' & 'Active Topics'. I'm sure you will be able to find it.


Good luck in your quest, and instead of continuing posting on a thread designated for cyprenil (liquid selegiline citrate) and drug tests; start a new thread or get the hint that it is superior. I hope that I have summed it up for you and if not, SEARCH BUTTON SEARCH BUTTON SEARCH BUTTON Leave this thread be for what its title entails.


thank you

[tpower]

Luv2increase.

Like I've said, your supercilious attitude is really not conducive to scientific inquiry.

I don't really care if you say that people have established this or that on this forum or another. If people always believed what forum members have said in the past, without acknowledging information that has not been posed before, then science on these boards will not advance at all; instead, it will grind to a halt, and people will be taking things that aren't good for their health.

Like I've said in the other thread, titled "Deprenyl," there is paper released that warns people against using sublingual selegiline, due to an issue of oral toxicity. The paper was published in 2003. Something that is orally toxic will no doubt increase one's chance of getting oral cancer, but you do not even seem to acknowledge this piece of study conducted by people who have spent years of research on this compound. It is folly to blindfold yourself and pretend to think that people on these boards will be more knowledgeable about a subject in which people have dedicated a significant portion of their lives studying. I have raised an issue that might be of great concern to many people; do not discourage people from voicing concern, for the sake scientific neutrality.

I have also underlined for those who are equally cautious the quite significant percentage of metabolites formed by the liver during an oral administration of selegiline. That is also an extremely valid point to make. The impression I get from many boards across the internet is that the figure is presumed to be many magnitudes lower than the real number. I think people should be warned about that apparent misdirection.

[luv2increase]

Luv2increase.

Like I've said, your supercilious attitude is really not conducive to scientific inquiry.

I don't really care if you say that people have established this or that on this forum or another. If people always believed what forum members have said in the past, without acknowledging information that has not been posed before, then science on these boards will not advance at all; instead, it will grind to a halt, and people will be taking things that aren't good for their health.

Like I've said in the other thread, titled "Deprenyl," there is paper released that warns people against using sublingual selegiline, due to an issue of oral toxicity. The paper was published in 2003. Something that is orally toxic will no doubt increase one's chance of getting oral cancer, but you do not even seem to acknowledge this piece of study conducted by people who have spent years of research on this compound. It is folly to blindfold yourself and pretend to think that people on these boards will be more knowledgeable about a subject in which people have dedicated a significant portion of their lives studying. I have raised an issue that might be of great concern to many people; do not discourage people from voicing concern, for the sake scientific neutrality.

I have also underlined for those who are equally cautious the quite significant percentage of metabolites formed by the liver during an oral administration of selegiline. That is also an extremely valid point to make. The impression I get from many boards across the internet is that the figure is presumed to be many magnitudes lower than the real number. I think people should be warned about that apparent misdirection.

This thread is in regards to drug tests and cyprenil. I think the answer has already been established in this regard. Please refrain from posting anything other than 'cyprenil and drug tests' in this thread tpower.


Thank you.

Edited by luv2increase, 20 August 2008 - 03:05 AM.

[brotherx]

Luv2increase, tpower, all

let us discuss those things together and openly without blaming. I think that we need to build, keep and sustain a good communication culture.
Let us develop a communication culture which is stronger than on the other 'common' boards out there.
If people what to learn - they should come to us - and read here!
The stronger the culture and the stronger the expertise we show the more experts (now and future) we will attract. The more experts we attract - the more we will learn ourselves.

Well, that's at least my personal opinion.

Cheers

Alex

Luv2increase.

Like I've said, your supercilious attitude is really not conducive to scientific inquiry.

I don't really care if you say that people have established this or that on this forum or another. If people always believed what forum members have said in the past, without acknowledging information that has not been posed before, then science on these boards will not advance at all; instead, it will grind to a halt, and people will be taking things that aren't good for their health.

Like I've said in the other thread, titled "Deprenyl," there is paper released that warns people against using sublingual selegiline, due to an issue of oral toxicity. The paper was published in 2003. Something that is orally toxic will no doubt increase one's chance of getting oral cancer, but you do not even seem to acknowledge this piece of study conducted by people who have spent years of research on this compound. It is folly to blindfold yourself and pretend to think that people on these boards will be more knowledgeable about a subject in which people have dedicated a significant portion of their lives studying. I have raised an issue that might be of great concern to many people; do not discourage people from voicing concern, for the sake scientific neutrality.

I have also underlined for those who are equally cautious the quite significant percentage of metabolites formed by the liver during an oral administration of selegiline. That is also an extremely valid point to make. The impression I get from many boards across the internet is that the figure is presumed to be many magnitudes lower than the real number. I think people should be warned about that apparent misdirection.

This thread is in regards to drug tests and cyprenil. I think the answer has already been established in this regard. Please refrain from posting anything other than 'cyprenil and drug tests' in this thread tpower.


Thank you.

[luv2increase]

Well, that's at least my personal opinion.

That is a good opinion, yet let us keep to the topic.

[tpower]

luv2increase, I apologize for the hostile attitude that I've shown you for some time. Taking everything into account, you are an extremely valuable contributor to this forum.

Admittedly I seem to tolerate risk much less than most people. I guess I just want to warn people about potential risks involved that have not been discussed before. I do have genuine concern for the safety of people's health but you might be right in saying that I might have been excessively paranoid about the risks of selegiline. Personally I prefer taking things that have absolutely no toxicity whatsoever; however, these things are rare and few in number.

I have contributed what I can to this discussion to the best of my knowledge. I might have came off as too objective and risk-adverse in doing so. I do want people to exercise your personal judgments in picking chemicals to use, of course.

[mikeinnaples]

Personally I prefer taking things that have absolutely no toxicity whatsoever

I hope you don't drink water.

[tpower]

Personally I prefer taking things that have absolutely no toxicity whatsoever

I hope you don't drink water.

Not taken to that extreme, obviously.