4 ms·

> The lethal dose of DXM is an estimation because, as of yet, no one has managed to achieve a fatal overdose of DXM. So it is a safe drug Focusing on fatalitie

> The lethal dose of DXM is an estimation because, as of yet, no one has managed to achieve a fatal overdose of DXM. So it is a safe drug Focusing on fatalities and LD50 is a red herring in drug safety. There are many drugs that can do a lot of damage at doses far lower than those that kill someone.

Maursault 4y ago
> Focusing on fatalities and LD50 is a red herring in drug safety. LD50 is ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity. In general, the smaller the LD50 value, the more toxic a substance is. The opposite is also true: the larger the LD50 value, the lower the toxicity. I don't believe it is beyond the realm of reason that, in general, the more toxic something is, the more lethal it will be. Your claim could be considered a red herring. Being that I neither focused on nor made any mention of fatalities, LD50, nor the field of drug safety, your comment is also a straw man. What I instead argued was that dxm, and only dxm, can be considered safe because it is an old drug (went off patent in the 1950's, leaving lots of time for plenty of safety trials, scientific and amateur), it is OTC (implicitly it has been tested and scrutinized for safety by the FDA at various dosages and been approved to have no scheduled controls), and the lethal dose is an estimation (being that it is so old and readily available without prescription, and drug abusers without restraint have survived all imaginable overdoses), which only taken together support my claim that DXM is safe, specifically, what I meant was that DXM is forgiving of mistakenly high dosages in a way that other OTC drugs, such as Acetaminophen, Diphenhydramine, and even Aspirin, are not. > There are many drugs that can do a lot of damage at doses far lower than those that kill someone. This is a bandwagon argument. You're implicitly arguing fallaciously that because there are "many drugs" that can produce significant damage at doses much lower than a lethal dose, then this is also true of dextromethorphan.
- loa_in_ 4y ago
  >> There are many drugs that can do a lot of damage at doses far lower than those that kill someone. > This is a bandwagon argument. You're implicitly arguing fallaciously that because there are "many drugs" that can produce significant damage at doses much lower than a lethal dose, then this is also true of dextromethorphan. This is more like Pascal's wager - better don't mess with what you can't understand or see. Personality, memories, beliefs, goals, fears. Anecdotally I lost a portion of my memory and cognitive skills after a kind of flu. Instead of support, I've been met mostly with claims that I'm making it up or I am acting like a hypochondriac. All while I struggled to re-learn how to use my daily driver Linux system and where important things are.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Anecdotally I lost a portion of my memory and cognitive skills after a kind of flu. Instead of support, I've been met mostly with claims that I'm making it up or I am acting like a hypochondriac. It sucks that many working in medicine are suspicious, paranoid and lack empathy. Sorry for your troubles. Consider taking niacin or B complex supplements.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > LD50 is ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity. LD50 is literally "median lethal dose". LD = lethal dose and 50 for median. It doesn't tell you anything about toxicities that aren't fatal. There are many, many drugs that will do life-altering damage at doses that won't kill 50% of people (or 50% of lab rats). Nobody should be using LD50 to gauge toxicity.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > It doesn't tell you anything about toxicities that aren't fatal. Though LD50, or median lethal dose, is defined as the dose of a test substance that is lethal for 50% of the animals in a dose group, a substance with small LD50 value will necessarily be more toxic than a substance with a much larger LD50 value. In spite of this, I have made no argument regarding LD50 or fatalities, and certainly haven't focused on them. You introduced this in your previous comment as a straw man and continue unabated here in fallacious argument. > There are many, many drugs that will do life-altering damage at doses that won't kill 50% of people (or 50% of lab rats). This is irrelevant unless it is also true for dextromethorpan, which it is not. To argue that certain drugs with high toxicity but low lethality somehow affects those same measures of dextromethorphan is a bandwagon argument and a sweeping generalization. > Nobody should be using LD50 to gauge toxicity. What, then, is the gauge for toxicity that stands in stark contradiction to LD50? LD50 is regularly and ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity and acute toxicity, and use of LD50 in this way is not remotely exceptional. Toxicity and lethality are closely related. The more toxic something is, the more lethal it is at higher doses. If these highly toxic drugs aren't killing patients or lab rats fast enough for your definition of lethal, nevertheless, the more damage done to tissue, organs and bodily systems, the shorter the life span. Regardless of the level of accuracy of your technical knowledge, you introduced an argument that is not my argument only to attack it, and I have now entertained your straw man twice.

Maursault 4y ago

> Focusing on fatalities and LD50 is a red herring in drug safety. LD50 is ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity. In general, the smaller the LD50 value, the more toxic a substance is. The opposite is also true: the larger the LD50 value, the lower the toxicity. I don't believe it is beyond the realm of reason that, in general, the more toxic something is, the more lethal it will be. Your claim could be considered a red herring. Being that I neither focused on nor made any mention of fatalities, LD50, nor the field of drug safety, your comment is also a straw man. What I instead argued was that dxm, and only dxm, can be considered safe because it is an old drug (went off patent in the 1950's, leaving lots of time for plenty of safety trials, scientific and amateur), it is OTC (implicitly it has been tested and scrutinized for safety by the FDA at various dosages and been approved to have no scheduled controls), and the lethal dose is an estimation (being that it is so old and readily available without prescription, and drug abusers without restraint have survived all imaginable overdoses), which only taken together support my claim that DXM is safe, specifically, what I meant was that DXM is forgiving of mistakenly high dosages in a way that other OTC drugs, such as Acetaminophen, Diphenhydramine, and even Aspirin, are not. > There are many drugs that can do a lot of damage at doses far lower than those that kill someone. This is a bandwagon argument. You're implicitly arguing fallaciously that because there are "many drugs" that can produce significant damage at doses much lower than a lethal dose, then this is also true of dextromethorphan.

loa_in_ 4y ago
>> There are many drugs that can do a lot of damage at doses far lower than those that kill someone. > This is a bandwagon argument. You're implicitly arguing fallaciously that because there are "many drugs" that can produce significant damage at doses much lower than a lethal dose, then this is also true of dextromethorphan. This is more like Pascal's wager - better don't mess with what you can't understand or see. Personality, memories, beliefs, goals, fears. Anecdotally I lost a portion of my memory and cognitive skills after a kind of flu. Instead of support, I've been met mostly with claims that I'm making it up or I am acting like a hypochondriac. All while I struggled to re-learn how to use my daily driver Linux system and where important things are.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Anecdotally I lost a portion of my memory and cognitive skills after a kind of flu. Instead of support, I've been met mostly with claims that I'm making it up or I am acting like a hypochondriac. It sucks that many working in medicine are suspicious, paranoid and lack empathy. Sorry for your troubles. Consider taking niacin or B complex supplements.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> LD50 is ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity. LD50 is literally "median lethal dose". LD = lethal dose and 50 for median. It doesn't tell you anything about toxicities that aren't fatal. There are many, many drugs that will do life-altering damage at doses that won't kill 50% of people (or 50% of lab rats). Nobody should be using LD50 to gauge toxicity.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It doesn't tell you anything about toxicities that aren't fatal. Though LD50, or median lethal dose, is defined as the dose of a test substance that is lethal for 50% of the animals in a dose group, a substance with small LD50 value will necessarily be more toxic than a substance with a much larger LD50 value. In spite of this, I have made no argument regarding LD50 or fatalities, and certainly haven't focused on them. You introduced this in your previous comment as a straw man and continue unabated here in fallacious argument. > There are many, many drugs that will do life-altering damage at doses that won't kill 50% of people (or 50% of lab rats). This is irrelevant unless it is also true for dextromethorpan, which it is not. To argue that certain drugs with high toxicity but low lethality somehow affects those same measures of dextromethorphan is a bandwagon argument and a sweeping generalization. > Nobody should be using LD50 to gauge toxicity. What, then, is the gauge for toxicity that stands in stark contradiction to LD50? LD50 is regularly and ordinarily used as a measure of toxicity and acute toxicity, and use of LD50 in this way is not remotely exceptional. Toxicity and lethality are closely related. The more toxic something is, the more lethal it is at higher doses. If these highly toxic drugs aren't killing patients or lab rats fast enough for your definition of lethal, nevertheless, the more damage done to tissue, organs and bodily systems, the shorter the life span. Regardless of the level of accuracy of your technical knowledge, you introduced an argument that is not my argument only to attack it, and I have now entertained your straw man twice.