• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

How is amphetamine neurotoxic? What does it do to you?

Seppi said:
Edit: sigma-2 apparently has some activity in triggering cell-death cascades.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this could be used to humanities advantage? Like making a potent Sigma-2 agonist that was specific for cancerous cells or something. I know that it's more than likely impossible to do that (since Sigma-2 is expressed through-out the body) but I'm just pitching ideas...

Another good obstacle I can think of is; What if the cancerous cell doesn't have Sigma-2 expressed?
 
Could you brianiacs speculate on the possible safety/dangers of the 2fa series ie 2-fa and 2fma.

2-fa is the best drug ive ever tried I think and feels amazingly clean but you never know with those rcs.

Now from an anecdotal perspective I can certainly say taking 2fa didnt give me the horrible side effects that regular amp does- and this seems to be the general consensus. Is there any telling if it is safer than regular amp?
 
Unfortunately, no one here is going to be able to give you anything more than an uneducated guess about the pharmacodynamics of designer compounds. I can say it acts on VMAT2/TAAR1 like endogenous trace phenethylamines, the important question is what it does besides that.
My uneducated guess, based upon the fact that TAAR1-active amph derivatives usually have the same pharmacodynamics as the parent compound and then some, is that: 2fma will eat your brain; 2fa could eat your brain.
 
I still am not much closer to knowing what toxicity actually means. Is it permanent and irreversible brain damage or is it that some cells die but the brain repairs to full health after a few days/weeks (or could it be both depending on the substance but interested what the case is with amps since this is the subject matter at hand)? Ie alcohol I read (stated by David Nutt) is also toxic at any dose but most ppl quite happily have a couple of drinks a few times a week (not me, despise the stuff) with no particular complaints and ppl have been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years living to old age on this diet afaik so long as they dont go crazy and get cancer from too much.

I would prefer not take anything that is toxic these days tbh; getting less fool hardy in my old age.
 
Last edited:
Toxicity is a stupidly vague word that means something bad happens to living tissue.

Everything can be a toxin under the right conditions.
 
^^
Exactly. And then there's also things like LSD (for instance). People claim you can't overdose on it or get addicted to it and that it doesn't damage your brain in any way.

What it does do, however, is cause psychosis. There are no differences in brain tissue or structure of those a with psychosis and those without. Yet LSD can induce it. Would that be considered neurotoxicity? Even though the brain was not phsyically damaged?
 
Where did you find the information that "There are no differences in brain tissue or structure of those with psychosis and those without"?
 
ebola? said:
No, psychosis has a far more precise definition, centering on the presentation of delusions and/or hallucinations carrying themes of reference to the psychotic individual.

ebola
Click to expand...

Very correct. Thank you Ebola.

Trying2Iso said:
You're wrong, psychosis is a "break from reality"
you don't have to hallucinate or have ideas of reference to be psychotic
it is a spectrum
Diseases like Schizophrenia, schizoaffective, alzheimer's, amphetamine psychosis etc
Click to expand...

Disagree

Psychosis can be well defined because we should have a reasonable grasp on objective reality.
 
There are absolutely differences in the brains of normal brains vs. psychotic ones that can be seen in imaging studies. There are probably hundreds of studies documenting this today.
 
Poor OP asked a simple question and got 3 pages of advanced neurology and links to research papers.

I bet his head exploded from all the info and head explosions are far more neurotoxic than any meth :p
 
Poor OP asked a simple question and got 3 pages of advanced neurology and links to research papers.
Click to expand...

Y'all know how we do. . .

ebola
 
Hammilton said:
There are absolutely differences in the brains of normal brains vs. psychotic ones that can be seen in imaging studies. There are probably hundreds of studies documenting this today.
Click to expand...

No there isn't.

There are only very minor discrepancies that have documented. Specifically, there only appears to be minor differences in the brains white matter. Other than that - everything is exactly the same.

The differences are in how the brain functions, not whether there's an abnormality in tissue.
 
swamp fox said:
The differences are in how the brain functions, not whether there's an abnormality in tissue.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this indicate some sort of structural abnormality at a level of analysis that doesn't show up in gross anatomical measures? There has to be SOME difference, or else we couldn't explain the 'abnormal' signaling that underlies psychosis.

ebola
 
There are only very minor discrepancies that have documented. Specifically, there only appears to be minor differences in the brains white matter. Other than that - everything is exactly the same.

The differences are in how the brain functions, not whether there's an abnormality in tissue.
Click to expand...

Really now? No gross structural changes? A cursory search would probably prove otherwise. It would also reduce a childlike, "no I'm right" argument... ... into one that anyone could verify by checking facts. Maybe you've heard of our desire to post citations with your claims.

I'm just being an ass though. Posting the results of a Google Scholar search... or Pubmed... doesn't take very long. Seriously.

"Psychosis" as a medical concept is pretty loosely defined, though. Acting strangely under the influence of drugs is different than, say, schizophrenia or vascular dementia.

On a lighter note, check out the Whole Brain Atlas, too.
 
Last edited:
I'm responding to another thread post here:
i have read the Amphetamine-Neurotoxicity-and-Tolerance-Reduction-Prevention threads and every time someone mention a good antioxidant/neuroprotectant someone else pop a study about how this compound or this compound is not a good idea because it can turn pro oxidant/ increase neurotoxicity ??
Melatonin was said to be a strong anti oxidant that prevent meth(amphetamine) neurotoxicity than someone said it would increase neurotoxicity, same for vitamine C ALCAR magnesium the list goes on....
so what to take ? i'm confused :?
keep in mind that i don't take amphetamine often just from time to time at moderate dose but i would like to take some sort of supplements to decrease neurotoxicity
is there supplements that really reduce neurotoxicity that was PROVEN to not work againt you (antioxidant that turn into pro oxidant for exemple)??
thxx!
Click to expand...

In order to prevent neurotoxicity altogether:

Case 1 - You use (non-substituted) amphetamines at therapeutic doses (the larger of 60 mg or 1 mg/kg (i.e. a kg of your body weight) of amphetamine salt, not including Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride))
Then: Don't do anything and stop worrying about neurotoxicity. This isn't even an issue at twice this range.

Case 2 - You use methamphetamine at therapeutic doses (includes Desoxyn, Vicks Vapoinhaler, and their generic equivalents)
Then: Switch to Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine. For the inhaler, use decongestants with active ingredients that don't include "levmetamfetamine" (levomethamphetamine).

Case 3 - Use of designer substituted amphetamines (any dose; ex: bath salts) OR recreational use (anything greater than 2.5x max daily therapeutic dose) of amphetamines, or use of ecstasy (any dose)
Then: Stop that shit.

That's all there is to it.

____________________________________________


Regular amphetamine is not going to cause neurotoxicity at therapeutic doses. If you don't agree with me, read the links in this sentence and the cited sources with regard to the neurotoxic as well as neuroprotective/neurogenerative (sections: [1] [2]) properties of amphetamine. It took hundreds of hours to research and write that page.
There's some additional evidence in my previous posts in this thread which isn't included in the wikipedia article; this is due to wikipedia's strict citation standards for medical articles. Some of my previous posts include dose comparisons to those used in animal neurotoxicity and new primary research on humans which hasn't yet been included in a review of literature.

Also, don't infer from this post that using between 1x-2.5x the maximum therapeutic dose is a good idea. The risk of addiction is dose dependent and the benefits of amphetamine decrease above an optimal dose (unique to each individual, varies a little w/ tolerance).
 
Last edited:
Seppi said:
I'm responding to another thread post here: In order to prevent neurotoxicity altogether: Case 1 - You use (non-substituted) amphetamines at therapeutic doses (the larger of 60 mg or 1 mg/kg (i.e. a kg of your body weight) of amphetamine salt, not including Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride)) Then: Don't do anything and stop worrying about neurotoxicity. This isn't even an issue at twice this range. Case 2 - You use methamphetamine at therapeutic doses (includes Desoxyn, Vicks Vapoinhaler, and their generic equivalents) Then: Switch to Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine. For the inhaler, use decongestants with active ingredients that don't include "levmetamfetamine" (levomethamphetamine). Case 3 - Use of designer substituted amphetamines (any dose; ex: bath salts) OR recreational use (anything greater than 2.5x max daily therapeutic dose) of amphetamines, or use of ecstasy (any dose) Then: Stop that shit. That's all there is to it. ____________________________________________ Regular amphetamine is not going to cause neurotoxicity at therapeutic doses. If you don't agree with me, read the links in this sentence and the cited sources with regard to the neurotoxic as well as neuroprotective/neurogenerative (sections: [1] [2]) properties of amphetamine. It took hundreds of hours to research and write that page. There's some additional evidence in my previous posts in this thread which isn't included in the wikipedia article; this is due to wikipedia's strict citation standards for medical articles. Some of my previous posts include dose comparisons to those used in animal neurotoxicity and new primary research on humans which hasn't yet been included in a review of literature. Also, don't infer from this post that using between 1x-2.5x the maximum therapeutic dose is a good idea. The risk of addiction is dose dependent and the benefits of amphetamine decrease above an optimal dose (unique to each individual, varies a little w/ tolerance).
Click to expand...
thx for your help :) so there is no supplements that can reduce the neurotoxicity of meth usage ? (average dose, 1 or twice every 3-4 months, no binge or sleep deprivation) ? all the talk about these supplements in the amphetamine neurotixicty/tolerence reduction thread are worthless ?
 
sekio said:
Really now? No gross structural changes? A cursory search would probably prove otherwise. It would also reduce a childlike, "no I'm right" argument... ... into one that anyone could verify by checking facts. Maybe you've heard of our desire to post citations with your claims.

I'm just being an ass though. Posting the results of a Google Scholar search... or Pubmed... doesn't take very long. Seriously.

"Psychosis" as a medical concept is pretty loosely defined, though. Acting strangely under the influence of drugs is different than, say, schizophrenia or vascular dementia.

On a lighter note, check out the Whole Brain Atlas, too.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have read these Sekio. To quote one of the studies specifically...

Meta-analysis suggests that whole brain and hippocampal volume are reduced (both P<0.0001) and that ventricular volume is increased (P<0.0001) in these patients relative to healthy controls.
Click to expand...

Wow. The brain difference in those with Schizophrenia and those without is reduction in hippocampal volume by a whopping 0.0001 percent!

For shame, Sekio, for shame... *smh*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top