From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 21:44:11 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:07 PM
Subject: RE: Performance enhancement with selegiline
> Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> > Rather than hurling statements back and forth that selegiline does
> > or does not work
>
> Actually that is not what we've been doing.
>
> > I would much rather see comments on the exact
> > mechanism that selegiline is supposed to work from and an evaluation
> > as to when it might and might not work for individuals with specific
> > brain chemistry.
>
> I have posted about 8 or 12 research abstracts about the subject, most
> of which describe possible mechanisms of action in some detail. I
> suggest you go back and read them.
>
> At one point in this discussion I suggested to Rafal that we should be
> debating how selegiline is neuroprotective, not whether it is
> neuroprotective, but he has continued to stonewall on the subject of
> whether it works for this purpose at all. This despite my having posted
> numerous animal studies and one human study showing evidence of
> neuroprotection and life-extension by selegiline.
### Yeah, in rats, etc. No evidence in humans at all.
Why bother arguing about a mechanism if it has never been proven to work in
the first place?
------------------
>
> Rafal hangs his hat on a single study in which selegiline (deprenyl)
> slowed the progression of Parkinson's disease symptoms (a remarkable
> result!) but in which the drug was not found to actually extend the life
> of those same Parkinson's patients.
### I explained before but can do it again: selegiline did not slow the
progression of symptoms, merely symptomatically delayed the time to
levodopa, as shown by the loss of efficacy during washout.
One class II study outweighs an infinite number of class IV or animal
studies, just as one word of a genius weighs more than the babble of a
thousand morons.
--------------------
Meanwhile, a large number of studies
> in animals (and one admittedly less well controlled study in humans)
> give us strong evidence that it does in fact protect neurons and extend
> life. Other studies show that it enhances cognitive ability -- in fact
> selegiline is approved for this purpose for veterinary purposes under
> the trade name Anipryl. If your old dog is acting senile, you can tell
> your vet about it and get a prescription for Anipryl (selegiline). No
> doubt it would be approved for human cognitive enhancement as well if
> only our conservative medical establishment were more willing to
> consider as valid the pursuit of life enhancement by pharmaceutical
> means in people not formally diagnosed with disease. The pharmaceutical
> industry and the researchers they sponsor are interested in finding
> cures and treatments for sick people -- they are not very interested in
> bettering the health of well people, and so almost no research dollars
> flow toward that end.
>
> As I've mentioned here in the past, the most likely mechanism by which
> selegiline (deprenyl) extends lifespan is via neuroprotection by
> upregulation of SOD and catalase in the central nervous system. These
> are two natural antioxidants that have been shown to be associated with
> increased life-expectancy in other anti-aging experiments totally
> unrelated to selegiline.
>
> The theoretical pieces of the puzzle all fit together to me, but then
> enhancement of human life by nutritional and pharmaceutical means is my
> business. I am a consultant in this field.
>
### Then you should know the difference between the value of uncontrolled or
animal studies you quote, which are class IV or no evidence at all, and
class II, controlled ones. Basically you are wasting other people's money
trying to get them to buy a medicine proven not to work in humans with PD,
and never proven to work in extending the lives of aging humans.
Waste of time, too.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 21:46:47 MST