• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Misc Does a drug being genotoxic mean your definitely getting cancer from taking it regulr

D

deruyityn

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
282
So I cannot find anything conclusive to say mulungu definitely isn't genotoxic (half the papers say it might be at some doses while half the papers say it isn't) so operating on a worst case scenario Im wondering how bad for you it is if it turns out it is genotoxic to some degree.

I am generally only interested in substances now that I can take regulalry for the foreseeable future so have to factor in possible long term detriments.

Is it a definite death sentence if you take something regular that is genotoxic?

Ofc something that is highly genotoxic would I presume kill you very fast (similar to exposure to heavy doses of radiation) but Im asking are there different degrees, like if it isn't too much can it be offset by other factors?

For example I read recently that some spices/herbs used for cooking are genotoxic to some degree.

Cancer is probably one of the worst ways to die and taking something I thought might be genotoxic Id always be scared that it is building up my death tax slowly but surely and one day suddenly you are called in to pay your arrears. But it is also a long slow death. At least the torsades scare with kratom it would be a quick death you wouldnt see coming.

Ive often thought that is the best way to die, like the cricketer who died while playing cricket with a blow to the head from the ball. Well maybe an overdose of downers would be the best, or during very spiriting sex.
 
Last edited:
actually the best way to die is by a car bomb.

and no, youre not definitely gonna get cancer but if you find out it is carcinogenic then you should obviously avoid it.
 
I have honestly never heard the term genotoxic before.
 
deruyityn said:
Id like to know this myself. It seems any attempts of in depth discussion mostly get ignored on this forum in favor of talk of getting 'messed up'.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it is because none of us really have much a of a clue what you are talking about. You seem to be fixated on something that is for the most part really a non-issue. And for a drug "mulungu" that nobody really uses much of. Your obsession with this stuff is insane and I do not even know if you have ever tried the stuff in question.
 
Mad Dash said:
I honestly think it is because none of us really have much a of a clue what you are talking about. You seem to be fixated on something that is for the most part really a non-issue. And for a drug "mulungu" that nobody really uses much of. Your obsession with this stuff is insane and I do not even know if you have ever tried the stuff in question.
Click to expand...

Lol. That really cracked me up.

"it's funny cos it's true' as mr simpson would say.
 
cigarettes are genotoxic, look at all the smokers. Definitely means it has negative health effects, the degree of genotoxicity is variable.

Just an off-topic question: Have you recently been experimenting with stimulants or RCs?
 
MDMA is both neurotoxic and cardiotoxic; that doesn't mean that everyone who's rolled a few times in their life is bound to suffer from dementia and require heart valve surgery (yeah, Shulgin eventually did, but he did shitloads of psychedelics and empathogens over the course of his life, and even then his eventual dementia/heart disease was probably mostly caused by him being in his mid-80s at that point).

And if you tried to avoid anything that might theoretically give you cancer, you might as well avoid BBQs since putting a steak on a grill effectively coats it with a patina of cancerogenic benzopyrenes.
 
Hodor said:
MDMA is both neurotoxic and cardiotoxic; that doesn't mean that everyone who's rolled a few times in their life is bound to suffer from dementia and require heart valve surgery (yeah, Shulgin eventually did, but he did shitloads of psychedelics and empathogens over the course of his life, and even then his eventual dementia/heart disease was probably mostly caused by him being in his mid-80s at that point).

And if you tried to avoid anything that might theoretically give you cancer, you might as well avoid BBQs since putting a steak on a grill effectively coats it with a patina of cancerogenic benzopyrenes.
Click to expand...

I never knew cancer could be so yummy.
 
As per post #10 and #11 that is all I was really asking for; what the relative risks would be.

For instance if loads of other substances in daily life are potentially genotoxic, ones I am more familiar with, and I am still alive, then it puts my mind at ease.

The main cause for concern has been that it is like some esoteric mystical substance from deep in the amazon with little western knowledge on it. Hence my idea of, rather than finding direct studies of which I came up short in my search, instead, try to draw comparisons to other substances which may have a similar risk profile.
 
mike.vick said:
Just an off-topic question: Have you recently been experimenting with stimulants or RCs?
Click to expand...

Hehe no. You will be surprised to hear I've abstained from stimulants for over two years. I have had a little penchant for dopamine stims in the past but this is mainly why I'm trying to find downers now which won't be too destructive since they seem to be better for my fragile mental disposition.

Though I do kind of have a hankering to try 2-fa again- it was pretty manageable from what I recall the time I took it due to short half life and general lack of side effects/gentle up and down., I vowed to myself I wouldnt until I deifnitely had a downer that I could rely on to put on the brakes when required. Because the last few times I took stims I did kind of have mental breakdowns.
 
Last edited:
deruyityn said:
As per post #10 and #11 that is all I was really asking for; what the relative risks would be.

For instance if loads of other substances in daily life are potentially genotoxic, ones I am more familiar with, and I am still alive, then it puts my mind at ease.

The main cause for concern has been that it is like some esoteric mystical substance from deep in the amazon with little western knowledge on it. Hence my idea of, rather than finding direct studies of which I came up short in my search, instead, try to draw comparisons to other substances which may have a similar risk profile.
Click to expand...

Yeah, regarding the BBQ example above... lots of foods contain lots of toxins. And I'm not talking about those eeeeevil new-fangled processed foods and artificial sweeteners and preservatives and what have you, but the traditional ingredients that didn't have to undergo rigorous toxicity tests.

Some other examples:
Fries? Acrylamide, cancerogenic
Grains? Aflatoxins from moulds, extremely hepatoxic
Sugar? Linked to type II diabetes
Beer? Ethanol, hepatoxic and neurotoxic (among other things)
Fruit / fruit juice? Pectin, releases methanol
Cinnamon? Coumarins, potentially hepatoxic
Fish? Lead and other toxic heavy metals
Eating before going to sleep? Risk of gastric reflux, can lead to esophagal cancer

Oh, and you know another thing that's genotoxic? Sunlight. Yes, UV rays can actually damage your very DNA.

Keep in mind that many toxicity studies involve ridiculously high doses of the substance in question. It's kind of amusing to read studies about some artificial sweetener showing potentially harmful effects in lab animals at a daily dose of X grams per kg of body weight, then doing the math and realizing that for a human to consume this much they'd have to drink over 10 gallons of diet soda a day, so they'd be dead from a water overdose (yes, that's a thing) long before they felt any harmful effects from the sweetener.

Edit: Still not sure if I'd be willing to swallow random "natural" drugs willy-nilly though... it's just that I'd mostly be concerned about hepatoxicity, or the product actually being adulterated with some kind of RC.
 
Hodor said:
I'd mostly be concerned about hepatoxicity, or the product actually being adulterated with some kind of RC.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support that other than one case where kratom was adulterated, and that was only a freak occurence; one case doesn't prove the rule. From my dealings with them I gather ethnobotanical suppliers to be alot more ethical than rc suppliers for instance. They are usually more hippy types who actually have an interest in the products they sell vs the soulless rc suppliers who are just looking to syphon as much cash as they can in the quickest time possible.

And why would you be concerned about heptotoxicity when there are no studies to say a given thing causes such and it has a long history of use? I presume your talking about kava kava and tarring all natural products with the same brush. Seems like very potted logic.

My concerns are at least based on some scientific studies Ive read.
 
I have been reading that diazepam is genotoxic or has been shown to be in mice.

This is interesting since it is used by probably millions? and still regarded as safe isn't it and hasn't been recalled.

Any other examples of known mutagens that are still in common use?
 
deruyityn said:
I have been reading that diazepam is genotoxic or has been shown to be in mice.

This is interesting since it is used by probably millions? and still regarded as safe isn't it and hasn't been recalled.

Any other examples of known mutagens that are still in common use?
Click to expand...

DDT was used to eradicate malaria from mosquitoes in america and was rained down upon the land by plane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top