Page 1 of 1

Alcohol does not kill brain cells

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:40 am
by roid
edit:
my comment = i always thought alcohol DID kill brain cells
www.dailytexanonline.com wrote:
Debunking drug folklore
By Ryan Ash and Elliott Ash

Alcohol does not kill brain cells.

Science has once again refuted a widely held belief, but popular fiction
has once again resisted replacement by unpopular fact. The human tendency
to accept society's traditional beliefs without checking the evidence
often leads to general trust in falsehoods, alcohol's neurocidal effects
being one of innumerable examples.

Questioning every piece of information with which one comes into contact
would make living difficult, and faith in common wisdom provides an
effective heuristic for functioning in most circumstances. Nevertheless,
it is the business of those in the public sphere to identify and defy
popular myths, and the realm of recreational drugs harbors many of them.

Both our laws and our public dialogue suffer from a serious ignorance of
the individual and societal effects of various drugs.

As mentioned, alcohol poses little danger to neurons. But it does pose a
considerable danger to our very lives. Among people ages 15 to 24,
alcohol-related automobile accidents are the number one cause of death.

While consumption of alcohol remains legal and accessible, use of far
safer drugs is prohibited by law and censured by public opinion. Mythical
beliefs about these drugs are popularly held despite scientific evidence
to refute them.

For instance, it is a common albeit false belief that smoking marijuana,
like smoking cigarettes, causes cancer. A 1997 study at UCLA concluded
that, in actuality, even heavy marijuana use does not increase the
likelihood of cancer. According to Dr. Robert Melamede of the University
of Colorado in Colorado Springs, pot's active ingredient THC counteracts
cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke. "THC turns down the
carcinogenic potential," he said.

Moreover, marijuana is not physically addictive. A 2001 report by the
National Academy of Sciences states that a mere 9 percent of marijuana
users become dependent on the drug. Compare this to tobacco, on which 32
percent of users become dependent, or alcohol, on which 15 percent of
users become dependent. In fact, marijuana is less habit-forming than
caffeine.

MDMA, popularly known as Ecstasy, does not cause brain damage, nor does it
have any long-term physiological effects. George Ricaurte, research
scientist at John Hopkins Medical School, retains a large amount of
responsibility for the propagation of this myth. His study suggested that
a single trip on ecstasy could cause permanent brain damage.

It turns out that his research was seriously flawed: Not only did he
administer his subjects (monkeys) exceedingly high doses, the drug he
administered wasn't even Ecstasy. Supposedly, the drug containers were
mislabeled and Ricaurte injected methamphetamine instead of MDMA.

Ricaurte also provided deceptive photographs for the National Institute on
Drug Abuse's anti-drug campaigns. One of the photos showed an Ecstasy
user's PET scan. Dark spots on the photograph were described as holes in
the brain, but the scans actually showed serotonin levels.

The modest reduction in serotonin levels recorded in the PET scans had
nothing to do with brain damage. Even more despicable, the photograph of
the "normal" brain, placed next to the photograph of the Ecstasy-user's
brain in advertisements, exhibited serotonin levels 50 times greater than
normal.

Subsequent studies have found no evidence of brain damage among users of
Ecstasy.

Meanwhile, nicotine, the active ingredient in cigarettes and other tobacco
products, is the most addictive substance known to science. Hundreds of
thousands of Americans prematurely die each year from cigarette-related
complications. Women who are light smokers lose an average of 14 years
from their lifespan; women who are heavy smokers lose 20.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, tobacco is
the leading cause of death in the United States. Somehow, use of tobacco
remains legal and acceptable. Nonetheless, the Journal's August 2000
survey reported that 46 percent of college students had used a tobacco
product in the last year.

Evidently, popular opinions on recreational drugs are plagued by trust in
false beliefs. To combat ignorance in the populace and guide our
government towards a reality-based reform of drug laws, we must do away
with these misconceptions. While the human practice of accepting
traditional beliefs will undoubtedly continue, dissemination of the
scientific facts can guide us toward objective truth.

Ryan is a Plan II psychology and biology senior. Elliott is a Plan II
government and philosophy senior.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:03 am
by fliptw
and?

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:41 am
by roid
flipTW wrote:and?
and i always thought alcohol DID kill brain cells.
but this article is saying it DOESN'T.

yeah... that's what i got.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:13 am
by TheCope
Is there a catch term for posting articles on an Internet bb and not giving your point of view or making any comment at all? ala "necroposting" or "spamming".

Maybe we should call it "thunderbunnying"

;-0

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:14 am
by Flabby Chick
My mid twenties are a complete blank due to friggin alcohol...it kills somthing.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:56 am
by Hahnenkam
I noticed he doesn't site the source of his alcohol claim. The neurotoxicity of ethanol is well documented. I'll look it up and post links after I have my coffee :)

[edit]That was a painful literature search (lots of articles). In a nutshell, it looks like what I said is true (ethanol = bad for brain), but it seems more true for alcohol abuse. "Casual" or moderate consumption doesn't seem all that bad, or at least the effects are not as well-understood. Also, it looks like the mechanism hasn't been worked out yet; they know ethanol is neurotoxic but they don't know exactly how/why.

I'm not a neuroscientist, so alot of the terminology is foreign to me. Plus, I only skimmed the abstracts of a bunch of articles. I'm sure I missed alot of important information. Here's a link to a review article on the subject (from University of Sydney :)). I think Pandora studies neuroscience; he can probably be more helpful than I can.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:47 am
by roid
just did some quick research Hahnenkam.

Alcohol DAMAGES brain cells but doesn't technically KILL them.
http://www.wonderquest.com/BrainCells.htm

i agree with what you say, it's pretty obvious that alcohol causes chronic neurological problems.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:59 am
by Hahnenkam
hehe, you posted while I was editing.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:06 am
by Testiculese
While you're at it, post the list of carcinogens and misc. bad things present in coffee. ;)

[posted while you were editing...]

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:38 am
by Hahnenkam
Testiculese wrote:While you're at it, post the list of carcinogens and misc. bad things present in coffee. ;)

[posted while you were editing...]
I choose to believe that the bad things in my coffee are killing off all the slower, weaker cells in my body, leaving me stronger and healthier :P

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:39 am
by WarAdvocat
TheCope wrote:Is there a catch term for posting articles on an Internet bb and not giving your point of view or making any comment at all? ala "necroposting" or "spamming".
LOL! Take it from context. Geesh! You've got more important things to worry about, I'm sure.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:40 am
by Iceman
Flabby Chick wrote:My mid twenties are a complete blank due to friggin alcohol...it kills somthing.
He11 yeah it does ... ditto for me bro. That's why I am so dumb these days.

Oh yeah, coffee rawkz! Screw the carcinogens ...

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:34 am
by De Rigueur
A highly slanted article in a college newspaper by a couple of students(neither of which are in a medical field). I would take it with at least a grain of salt.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:36 am
by DCrazy
I'd take it about as much salt as it takes for a margarita. :P

Seriously. This entire article is founded on a completely baseless assertion. Not even worth reading past the first paragraph, which basically states, "Since alcohol doesn't kill brain cells...".

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:26 pm
by woodchip
I do know from experience that alchohol affects the brain cells in my little head... :oops:

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:31 pm
by De Rigueur
DCrazy wrote:Seriously. This entire article is founded on a completely baseless assertion. Not even worth reading past the first paragraph, which basically states, "Since alcohol doesn't kill brain cells...".
Hey, maybe they wrote the article while "under the influence." Ya know, boys will be boys . . .

Re: Alcohol does not kill brain cells

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:44 pm
by Iceman
The human tendency to accept society's traditional beliefs without checking the evidence often leads to general trust in falsehoods, Roid's posting of bogas articles as fact being one of innumerable examples.
:D

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:46 pm
by De Rigueur
Good eye, Iceman! I never saw that.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:53 pm
by Behemoth
Who even said alcohol killed brain cells in the first place? i've never even heard of that, All i've heard was that it affects areas in the cortex linked to controlling behavior.. NOT killing actual cells which could eventually lead to loss of brain mass correct?

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:19 pm
by roid
De Rigueur wrote:A highly slanted article in a college newspaper by a couple of students(neither of which are in a medical field). I would take it with at least a grain of salt.
i'd say the field of psychology is uniquely suited to comment on "the human practice of accepting
traditional beliefs"
DCrazy wrote:I'd take it about as much salt as it takes for a margarita. :P

Seriously. This entire article is founded on a completely baseless assertion. Not even worth reading past the first paragraph, which basically states, "Since alcohol doesn't kill brain cells...".
Iceman wrote:
The human tendency to accept society's traditional beliefs without checking the evidence often leads to general trust in falsehoods, Roid's posting of bogas articles as fact being one of innumerable examples.
:D
and yet in the terrifying face of adhominem, the facts in the article still stand completely unerred.
Brilliant!

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:42 pm
by dissent
Heh; I'll take my booze in my coffee on occasion.

I like livin' dangerous. :twisted:

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:26 pm
by DCrazy
Roid, what facts? All I see are a bunch of assumptions.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:16 am
by Behemoth
As do i D

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:33 am
by De Rigueur
roid wrote:and yet in the terrifying face of adhominem, the facts in the article still stand completely unerred.
Brilliant!
After thinking about it, I may have gone too far in joking about your post. Sorry.

I still think they write like a high school debate club, though.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:00 am
by Will Robinson
TheCope wrote:Is there a catch term for posting articles on an Internet bb and not giving your point of view or making any comment at all? ala "necroposting" or "spamming".

Maybe we should call it "thunderbunnying"

;-0
That's funny but he who lives in glass houses and all that...
After all aren't you the one guy who likes work in a description of masturbation or oral sex with little asian hotties as a response ;)

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:44 am
by roid
DCrazy wrote:Roid, what facts? All I see are a bunch of assumptions.
everything in this article is backed by research. i'm familure with all of it.

ask a question, i'll answer it.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:24 pm
by TheCope
Will Robinson wrote:
TheCope wrote:Is there a catch term for posting articles on an Internet bb and not giving your point of view or making any comment at all? ala "necroposting" or "spamming".

Maybe we should call it "thunderbunnying"

;-0
That's funny but he who lives in glass houses and all that...
After all aren't you the one guy who likes work in a description of masturbation or oral sex with little asian hotties as a response ;)
:( me no friends :(

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:28 pm
by Behemoth
i'm your friend :)

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:52 pm
by DCrazy
Roid: In what medical journal can I find the results of a study that conclusively proves that alcohol does not damage brain cells? Or ecstacy?!

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:31 pm
by Hahnenkam
regarding the ecstasy research mentioned in Roid's post

It was one paper by the group, about Ecstasy and a very specific claim about Parkinson's disease. This particular paper was retracted.

Other research does show neurotoxicity, at least in animal models; Ecstasy has "selective toxicity to serotonin (5-HT)-containing neurons" (I have no idea what the hell that means, but it's quoted from Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, June 2003).

However, other researchers are trying to legalize Ecstasy for use as a psychiatric med. If you can access it, here is a link to an article in Nature. I don't know if the article is subscription-only (I'm at school, and we have a subscription), if so, here is a snippet:
On 16 April, a patient suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder visited a psychiatrist's office in Charleston, South Carolina, to try a new experimental treatment. She is the first of 20 people who have signed up for the trial. Like the others, she suffers from flashbacks, nightmares and years of painful memories, despite receiving counselling and antidepressant drugs. Each of the volunteers will undergo further counselling, this time in combination with doses of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA รข?? the active ingredient in the recreational drug ecstasy.

The study is a landmark victory for a group that has fought long and hard to bring drugs such as MDMA into the clinic. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), based in Sarasota, Florida, has been arguing since the mid-1980s that MDMA is a powerful therapeutic tool. Its leader, Rick Doblin, now hopes that a similar study in Spain will be allowed to resume after a two-year hiatus. He is also working with doctors in Israel to plan trials there. And MAPS has donated money to Harvard Medical School in Boston, where psychiatrist John Halpern is planning a trial to test whether MDMA can relieve anxiety and pain in end-stage cancer patients.
As you may imagine, there is disagreement about Ecstasy's degree of toxicity to humans. My uneducated-guess is, it depends upon how much you take. Some medicines are toxic (hell, Tylenol will destroy your liver if you take enough); to be therapeutic, their positive effects must outweigh the negative.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:54 pm
by roid
DCrazy wrote:Roid: In what medical journal can I find the results of a study that conclusively proves that alcohol does not damage brain cells? Or ecstacy?!
Alcohol does damage braincells, as i have already said. The one misspeak in the article is "As mentioned, alcohol poses little danger to neurons" which is technically wrong (but to give them credit they were talking solely about cell life or death).

Ecstacy acts mainly on the serotogenic system in the brain, therefore it is theorised that if overstimulated this may lead to permanent damage. Personally i think that a high enough overdose would cause permanent damage, overdosing on anything is bad news. However you must know the language when dealing with scientific research, i could show you books and books of "MAYBE"s concerning drugs.
The article i quoted counters the claim that there is proof that it causes brain damage - for there is none. And if you read the article you'd see how it was based on research error. This isn't news to me, NONE of this article is news to me except for the "alcohol doesn't KILL braincells" thing - none of it is NEW news - it's all quoting past research. So it shouldn't be new to you either (if you are in the know).

Some more info on that particular E issue: In the UK, this flawed study was used to justify strengthening anti-drug laws. Days/weeks later it was proven to be a research error, but the political wheels were already set in motion (and although the original "E brain damage link proven!" headlines were page 1, the subsequent corrections were buried deep in the papers)

As an example of how people will believe anything without question: The study basically said that E will kill you, near guarenteed. Now... there are probabaly millions of people taking E. Yet how many deaths are there? According to the research, ppl should be dropping dead like flies.

yet people happily believed the News headlines that E is guarenteed to kill you. That's "the human practice of accepting traditional beliefs" for you.


ask me a question.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:12 am
by Hahnenkam
roid wrote:ask me a question.
why does my dog eat poop? :mrgreen:

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:55 pm
by Behemoth
Because it tastes better then the food you give him :)

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:43 pm
by Mobius
Women who are light smokers lose an average of 14 years from their lifespan; women who are heavy smokers lose 20.
What a load of BULL-FUSKING-SHIAT!

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:52 pm
by Robo
Mobius wrote:
Women who are light smokers lose an average of 14 years from their lifespan; women who are heavy smokers lose 20.
What a load of BULL-FUSKING-SHIAT!
That's no very good vocabulary, is it?

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:45 am
by Behemoth
I don't believe Mobius spelled that right.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:07 am
by Will Robinson
TheCope wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
TheCope wrote:Is there a catch term for posting articles on an Internet bb and not giving your point of view or making any comment at all? ala "necroposting" or "spamming".

Maybe we should call it "thunderbunnying"

;-0
That's funny but he who lives in glass houses and all that...
After all aren't you the one guy who likes work in a description of masturbation or oral sex with little asian hotties as a response ;)
:( me no friends :(
not true. I enjoy your commentary quite a bit...especially the asian girls stuff ;)