3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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

> 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.