0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: The Spoon on 17/01/2018 21:59:59Also, diazepam is not really an antidepressant, it is an anti-anxiety agent. See this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2692764
Also, diazepam is not really an antidepressant, it is an anti-anxiety agent.
OK, so maybe it happens. (The jury is still very much out).The stats they use are very much suspect because of the correlations between the different pollutants. And don't get me started on the confounding variables.And I guess we just have to ignore the fact that you don't know what you are on about (none of the pollutants they measure is a particulate).And there's the old issue that correlation doe snot imply causation.So the paper's a bit shitty, and your understanding of it is limited but...What does it have to do with this thread?
'Diazepam was a significantly better antidepressant than moclobemide at four week, although not at eight weeks'.A single 20 year old study - hardly conclusive is it? They are not prescribed as anti-depressants. Not suprising if only a single study indicates this
Quote from: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 17:56:52'Diazepam was a significantly better antidepressant than moclobemide at four week, although not at eight weeks'.A single 20 year old study - hardly conclusive is it? They are not prescribed as anti-depressants. Not suprising if only a single study indicates thisFair enough. But please keep in mind that either way, mixing alcohol and diazepam (or a conventional SSRI) is totally unsafe and can lead to violent behavior.
Benzodiazepines have additive effects with other CNS depressants, including other hypnotics, sedative antidepressants, neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, sedative antihistamines, and alcohol. The combined disinhibitory effects of alcohol and benzodiazepines (see below) may also be additive and contribute to aggressive behaviour. Patients prescribed benzodiazepines should be warned of these interactions.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/01/2018 22:00:39OK, so maybe it happens. (The jury is still very much out).The stats they use are very much suspect because of the correlations between the different pollutants. And don't get me started on the confounding variables.And I guess we just have to ignore the fact that you don't know what you are on about (none of the pollutants they measure is a particulate).And there's the old issue that correlation doe snot imply causation.So the paper's a bit shitty, and your understanding of it is limited but...What does it have to do with this thread?Please read the article before making further comments.
airborne particulates (air pollution) actually promote liver toxicity f
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/10/2017 15:26:55An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from.An autopsy could prove the presence of metallic particulates in the microglia, hippocampus, striatum, and frontal lobe.
An autopsy could not reveal where that airborne particulate matter came from.
OK. Let's start over with the basics. Do you understand what is PM2.5 ?
Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain?
Now do you understand that the paper you cited doesn't refer to particulates and so it doesn't support your idea?
Quote from: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 22:00:15Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain? Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks! pass though the lungs and Riiiight.... So you are saying that particulates that are inhaledQuote from: tkadm30 on 19/01/2018 14:40:10Quote from: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 22:00:15Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain? Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks!Riiiiiight...... so you are saying that particulates pass from the lungs into the bloodstream and then accumulate in the liver and brain? You are saying this is well known? Could you provide good quality, peer reviewed evidence that this is the case? Not just 'it is well known'I have a particular interest in this as I have been dealing with the quantification of risks from contaminated land for many years including human health exposure pathways such as dust inhalation. We know that contaminants associated with dust get into the lungs and the dust (aka particulates) get lodged in the lungs and the contaminants associated with dust may get absorbed by the bloodstream, but particulates passing directly into the bloodstream? Do tell! I shall let those who are working in contaminated land and air pollution research about this fascinating development. Also could you explain how these particulates which are potentially up to 10 um in diameter pass into the blood via pores that must be at least this diameter, yet the lungs dont fill with blood? Could you make sure you provide proper references so I can see you have done what you refer to as 'homeworks'
Quote from: The Spoon on 18/01/2018 22:00:15Do you seriously believe that particulates enter the lungs then get into the bloodstream to be transported to the brain? Yes they do. It is well known that air pollution (like PM2.5) is causing a range of cellular injuries, including to the brain and liver. Do your homeworks!
Riiiiiight...... so you are saying that particulates pass from the lungs into the bloodstream and then accumulate in the liver and brain? You are saying this is well known? Could you provide good quality, peer reviewed evidence that this is the case? Not just 'it is well known'I have a particular interest in this as I have been dealing with the quantification of risks from contaminated land for many years including human health exposure pathways such as dust inhalation. We know that contaminants associated with dust get into the lungs and the dust (aka particulates) get lodged in the lungs and the contaminants associated with dust may get absorbed by the bloodstream, but particulates passing directly into the bloodstream? Do tell! I shall let those who are working in contaminated land and air pollution research about this fascinating development. Also could you explain how these particulates which are potentially up to 10 um in diameter pass into the blood via pores that must be at least this diameter, yet the lungs dont fill with blood? Could you make sure you provide proper references so I can see you have done what you refer to as 'homeworks'
Inhal Toxicol. 2004 Jun;16(6-7):437-45.Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brainAbstractUltrafine particles (UFP, particles <100 nm) are ubiquitous in ambient urban and indoor air from multiple sources and may contribute to adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects of particulate matter (PM). Depending on their particle size, inhaled UFP are efficiently deposited in nasal, tracheobronchial, and alveolar regions due to diffusion. Our previous rat studies have shown that UFP can translocate to interstitial sites in the respiratory tract as well as to extrapulmonary organs such as liver within 4 to 24 h postexposure.
By the way, I assume you understand that ultrafine particles (UFP) are a subset of PM2.5...
UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5.
Quote from: Colin2B on 19/01/2018 23:38:53UFPs are not a subset of PM2.5.So, what do you think happens when particulate matter diffuse into smaller particles?
Perhaps you should reread it again.