Chimpanzee Attack

[Thitical Crinker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_re_us/chimpanzee_attack

After reading this, I couldn't imagine what that poor woman went through. I had never thought about it before. Spending time in the bear woods, I had thought about being mauled by bear. But a chimpanzee? For some reason that really freaks me out. It would be like a tremendously strong wildman with big teeth. A 150lb chimp can be 7 to 10 times stronger than a man. This bad boy was 200 lbs. Unbelievably strong.

Don't know if it's worth a thread, but it's something you don't see every day.

[Skeptic Ginger]

People forget intelligent wild animals are still wild. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an unpredictable xanax reaction. Stabbing the poor animal to get it to stop could have also made things worse.

[kedo1981]

they go right for the face,

[GreNME]

Police said they are looking into the possibility of criminal charges. A pet owner can be held criminally responsible if he or she knew or should have known that an animal was a danger to others.

But obviously the animal should be tried in court on its own, shouldn't it? ;)

Police said that Travis was agitated earlier Monday and that Herold had given him the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in some tea. Police said the drug had not been prescribed for the 14-year-old chimp.

I thought drugs like Xanax take a little longer than a day to show any signs of any reaction, and must be taken (and metabolized) on a semi-regular schedule to remain in the system. Xanax aren't like asprin, to be taken only when there's a problem. Still, giving an unprescribed drug like that to the chimp is stupid and abusive.

[Monketey Ghost]

boom, you got dungflung

[GreNME]

they go right for the face,

And have the strength to practically rip a person's arm off. They're definitely not to be trifled with.

[shandyjan]

So it lived as a human all those years, ate rich human foods, was given human medicines.
Is anyone surprised it suddenly behaved like a chimp? I just wonder it didnt do something like that sooner.

Edited to rant..but changed my mind. Just her not being able to bear giving him up made my blood boil. He should have been saved years ago and rehabilitated.Just mho

[The Atheist]

So it lived as a human all those years, ate rich human foods, was given human medicines.
Is anyone surprised it suddenly behaved like a chimp human? I just wonder it didnt do something like that sooner.

Fixed that for you.

[sackett]

Humans' nearest relative is a nasty piece of work. Well, I guess the chimps could say the same thing.

[shandyjan]

Point taken TA ;)
A messed up human, or a wild animal. Either way, it shouldn't have been living like that! Ooh if I had chakras they'd be all out of line by now :mad:

[Jeff Corey]

Tabloid headline, "Travis Goes Ape!"

[Cleon]

Humans' nearest relative is a nasty piece of work. Well, I guess the chimps could say the same thing.

Yeah, when it comes to killing, humans are much, much better at it than chimps. We don't have their strength, they don't have our technology.

What's really infuriated me about this story is the constant reference to Travis as a pet by the various media sources.

Chimpanzees are not pets!

Dogs and cats, and even less-popular pets like rabbits and ferrets, are ideal pets because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be socially compatible with humans. We have not been doing so for chimpanzees, closest relative or not.

Chimps are fascinating creatures. They share many of the same facial expressions with humans, they have many of the same emotions, and they have an intelligence level on par with a small child. People see that, and are fascinated...But promptly forget that they have the temper of a small child, too.

[WildCat]

What's really infuriated me about this story is the constant reference to Travis as a pet by the various media sources.

Chimpanzees are not pets!

Dogs and cats, and even less-popular pets like rabbits and ferrets, are ideal pets because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be socially compatible with humans. We have not been doing so for chimpanzees, closest relative or not.
Slightly off topic (and I know baboons are monkeys, not apes) but in ancient Egypt the police used baboons in much the same way police today use dogs. I wonder why this practice ended, I wonder what a few thousand years of baboon breeding would have wrought!

[GreNME]

Fixed that for you.

I'm sorry, but at which point did it suddenly behave like a human? Before or during the attack? Chimps are notoriously unpredictable and aggressive. Routines make them more predictable, but if anything set even a chimp immersed in routine it could very likely attack like in the story.

All those "acting like people" things are a whole different game to chimps than they are to people, and people don't generally understand this because they're so anthropomorphized.

[The Atheist]

Slightly off topic (and I know baboons are monkeys, not apes) but in ancient Egypt the police used baboons in much the same way police today use dogs. I wonder why this practice ended, I wonder what a few thousand years of baboon breeding would have wrought!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/

[Cleon]

Slightly off topic (and I know baboons are monkeys, not apes) but in ancient Egypt the police used baboons in much the same way police today use dogs. I wonder why this practice ended, I wonder what a few thousand years of baboon breeding would have wrought!

In Indonesia, it's not uncommon for people to use trained monkeys to gather fruit.

[GreNME]

D'oh! I should have caught that! I just saw it last week on television, too.

Mea culpa. :)

ETA: that was in reply to The Atheist.

[WildCat]

Damn, I just googled "egypt police baboons" and my post in this thread was the 2nd link!

Google must hit this site hard!

[ravdin]

My cat weighs 13 pounds, and he's more than enough trouble. I'm having a hard time imagining him at 200 pounds, with opposable thumbs and a fearsome boost in his cognitive powers. Why anyone would want to keep such a creature as a "pet" is beyond me.

[funk de fino]

Where are the Anti-Chimpanzionist apologists when you need them?

[The Nimble Pianist]

Chimpanzees are not pets!


I was under the impression that it was illegal to own a chimp (or any other primate for that matter) without some kind of license.

[Delvo]

Yeah, when it comes to killing, humans are much, much better at it than chimps. We don't have their strength, they don't have our technology.Actually, we do have their strength (at least given similar amounts of physical activity), just not in the same places. When they grow up, they're bigger than the juveniles we usually see pictures of together with humans; their torsos are about the same size as ours. But their different proportions mean their arms are bigger than ours, more like the size of our legs, and their legs are smaller. So their arms can generally move like our arms but do it with the strength of our legs. Their legs, however, are nothing compared to ours. So they can outslap, outgrab, outpunch, and outgrab us, but we can just as easily outrun, outwalk, outjump, outstand, and outkick them.

What's really infuriated me about this story is the constant reference to Travis as a pet by the various media sources.

Chimpanzees are not pets!

Dogs and cats, and even less-popular pets like rabbits and ferrets, are ideal pets because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be socially compatible with humans. We have not been doing so for chimpanzees, closest relative or not.[/QUOTE]So when people keep squirrels, lizards, birds, snakes, monkeys, frogs, and ferrets, are those also not pets? I don't know of another word for them, but maybe the phrase "captive wild animal" is as short as it gets...

[WildCat]

eVr1n1ha-LA

[luchog]

I'm sorry, but at which point did it suddenly behave like a human? Before or during the attack? Chimps are notoriously unpredictable and aggressive. Routines make them more predictable, but if anything set even a chimp immersed in routine it could very likely attack like in the story.

That's different from humans how?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, we do have their strength (at least given similar amounts of physical activity), just not in the same places. When they grow up, they're bigger than the juveniles we usually see pictures of together with humans; their torsos are about the same size as ours. But their different proportions mean their arms are bigger than ours, more like the size of our legs, and their legs are smaller. So their arms can generally move like our arms but do it with the strength of our legs. Their legs, however, are nothing compared to ours. So they can outslap, outgrab, outpunch, and outgrab us, but we can just as easily outrun, outwalk, outjump, outstand, and outkick them.


I don't have a cite but I've read that their muscles are also hooked up to their bones in such a way as to give them more leverage than a human, at the expense of fine motor control. So while we can throw spears and weave baskets, they can rip our arms off.

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, we do have their strength (at least given similar amounts of physical activity), just not in the same places. When they grow up, they're bigger than the juveniles we usually see pictures of together with humans; their torsos are about the same size as ours. But their different proportions mean their arms are bigger than ours, more like the size of our legs, and their legs are smaller. So their arms can generally move like our arms but do it with the strength of our legs. Their legs, however, are nothing compared to ours. So they can outslap, outgrab, outpunch, and outgrab us, but we can just as easily outrun, outwalk, outjump, outstand, and outkick them.



Dogs and cats, and even less-popular pets like rabbits and ferrets, are ideal pets because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be socially compatible with humans. We have not been doing so for chimpanzees, closest relative or not.So when people keep squirrels, lizards, birds, snakes, monkeys, frogs, and ferrets, are those also not pets? I don't know of another word for them, but maybe the phrase "captive wild animal" is as short as it gets...[/QUOTE]

No.

Humans are unusally gracile apes. Beyond the fact that their muscles, at a cellular level, are stronger (But less adapted for long aerobic work. Humans are suprisingly good at walking long distances) they also have a sigificantly different musculature. It's all the same muscles, but attached more thoroughly. Their tricep attaches in four places, not three. Their bicep attaches in three places, not two. That also gives them more strength.

[alfaniner]

My cat weighs 13 pounds, and he's more than enough trouble. I'm having a hard time imagining him at 200 pounds, with opposable thumbs and a fearsome boost in his cognitive powers.

Um, I think we're the only apes with opposable thumbs...

[ImaginalDisc]

Um, I think we're the only apes with opposable thumbs...

Nope. Not only do most primates have opposable thumbs (Spider Monkeys aka ateles ateles is an exception because it doesn't have thumbs on its hands at all) they're perfectly capable of manipulating objects between their fingers, though most apes have a tendency to hold items btween their fingers. Anatomically, gorillas and chimps have hands almost exactly like ours, though gorilla hands bones are ridged and beef, and chimp hand bones are proportionately longer.

[El Greco]

Just a few weeks ago I was watching a documentary about chimp attacks. Several scientists were trying to explain the attacks and the conclusions varied: Some times the chimps felt threatened and insecure, other times they mistook a kid for a monkey, etc. Any real expert would certainly not be surprised by such an attack. Such occasional attacks are to be expected. Even a human can go totally cuckoo without any apparent reason and start butchering his family. Why would a chimp be any different ?

Now, if a group of chimps attack a Ghana village and decimate the villagers, that would be really astonishing.

[Radrook]

Chimps are also in the habit of castrating their opponents as part of their attack. Raise your hands to defend yourself and they bite off your fingers.

[richardm]

Anatomically, gorillas and chimps have hands almost exactly like ours

For Example... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnx62/2592421432/)

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope. Not only do most primates have opposable thumbs (Spider Monkeys aka ateles ateles is an exception because it doesn't have thumbs on its hands at all) they're perfectly capable of manipulating objects between their fingers, though most apes have a tendency to hold items btween their fingers. Anatomically, gorillas and chimps have hands almost exactly like ours, though gorilla hands bones are ridged and beef, and chimp hand bones are proportionately longer.

Sorry, I was on break at work when I hurriedly typed a reply. I meant to say that most apes are perfectly capable of holding items between their thumb and forefinger but often prefer holding fine objects between their fingers in the style of a go player unless they're say, fishing for termites.

In fact, we can hardly be said to have opposable thumbs at all when you compare our hands to the hands of Lorises. (http://www.loris-conservation.org/database/identification_key/Genus_key.html) Those guys have gripping stuff on lock down. They're not even apes, they're prosimians. Simians as a whole have excellent grasping and manipulation ability.

[Modified]

I don't have a cite but I've read that their muscles are also hooked up to their bones in such a way as to give them more leverage than a human, at the expense of fine motor control. So while we can throw spears and weave baskets, they can rip our arms off.

More leverage for strength would give you better fine motor control. More muscle movement for a given amount of joint movement means more strength and makes fine movements easier. If they lack fine motor control, it is for other reasons. What they give up for that leverage is speed. A chimp may be able to slug you hard, but it can't pepper you with jabs. It may be able to throw a desk farther than you can, but not a baseball.

[Giggywig]

From the Straight dope: (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2/can-a-90-lb-chimp-clobber-a-full-grown-man)

In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer — a scale that measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring — was erected in the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma" registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds. Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull of 1,260 pounds.
snip
As you might deduce, therefore, the word on keeping chimps as pets is a big negatory. Chimpanzees can never be fully domesticated; they're aggressive by nature and sooner or later they'll start to threaten their keepers in subtle ape ways that the untrained eye won't recognize, until one day — blammo.

[plumjam]

Just remember to be careful with the safety pin when you're changing the nappy (diaper)

[GreNME]

That's different from humans how?

Aside from the differences in complexity of behavior-- of which there are fewer between humans and chimps than, say, humans and rats-- chimps have instinctual behavior characteristics that are known mostly by their reaction and only in part by stimuli. Humans don't have such characteristics (because we have lost our instinctual capabilities). Even if their unpredictability might seem similar to human equivalents, this is mostly due to our (human) tendency toward anthropomorphizing non-human creatures. Dogs, apes, and monkeys tend to be three of the top creatures in the animal kingdom most often the subject of anthropomorphizing by us (though I'm sure cats fit in there somewhere, too).

It may not be a huge difference, but it's a difference that makes keeping chimps as pets/companions a dangerous undertaking even in normal conditions.

[Cainkane1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_re_us/chimpanzee_attack

After reading this, I couldn't imagine what that poor woman went through. I had never thought about it before. Spending time in the bear woods, I had thought about being mauled by bear. But a chimpanzee? For some reason that really freaks me out. It would be like a tremendously strong wildman with big teeth. A 150lb chimp can be 7 to 10 times stronger than a man. This bad boy was 200 lbs. Unbelievably strong.

Don't know if it's worth a thread, but it's something you don't see every day.
I had a friend who went to a petshop and a chimpanzee who was allowed to roam freely around the store bit the tip of his index finger off.

[plumjam]

I had a friend who went to a petshop and a chimpanzee who was allowed to roam freely around the store bit the tip of his index finger off.

Fair play to the chimp. He was probably an unsalaried employee forced to live off of tips.

[Redtail]

Albeit a different animal, I think, on subjects such as this, Jon Stewart put it best "Key word in Panda Bear? Bear..."

[Radrook]

Maybe the chimps got that way from observing humans.

[patchbunny]

From the Straight dope: (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2/can-a-90-lb-chimp-clobber-a-full-grown-man)

I shudder to think of the poo-flinging range of a 200-lb chimp that can pull near 850 lbs with one arm. :eek:

[Cleon]

Albeit a different animal, I think, on subjects such as this, Jon Stewart put it best "Key word in Panda Bear? Bear..."

And the key word in "Chimpanzee?" Zee!

[Soapy Sam]

Chimps do use tools.
Do they use weapons?

[Redtail]

And the key word in "Chimpanzee?" Zee!

Which is probably the sound the afore mentioned poo makes when being flung by a 200 pound chimp!:D

[frankvan]

Seems very likely the chimp was jealous of the "friend", rival for the owner's affection? Sounds pefectly human to me.

[Foolmewunz]

He brushed his teeth with a Water Pik, logged on to a computer to look at photos and channel-surfed television with the remote control.

Some skeptics you are!

It's right there in the article. What they don't mention is that they'd recently bought a new computer and the new one has pre-packaged Vista. He reacted as all of us did. If you look at the photos, he's clearly saying, "I want my XP Professional back. Now, dammit!

[GreNME]

Seems very likely the chimp was jealous of the "friend", rival for the owner's affection? Sounds pefectly human to me.

According to a separate report I saw, the friend had her hair done differently or something like that as well, and there was speculation that the new hairstyle made the woman unrecognizable to the chimp and he reacted like he did out of protectiveness.

Both your guess and the guess I saw elsewhere are reasonable guesses to the motivation, but in my opinion fall a little short of accurately describing what would cause a chimp to go off like that. The chances are more likely that the chimp had been progressively displaying more and more dominant behavior in the home and the owner wasn't recognizing it. The attack could have just as easily been a territorial power grab by the chimp based on increasingly dominant behavior, no need for any "crazy" episodes or sudden explosions of behavior from the chimp. He (the chimp) was hit with a shovel and stabbed by the owner during the attack, but even after that he went outside and wanted to go for a ride in a car (he was apparently fond of taking rides). That doesn't strike me as a description of a chimp who just flipped out, it seems to me his dominance aggression was coming to a head and it had disastrous circumstances.

[fishbait]

Analysis offered by Stamford police Capt. Richard Conklin:
"Maybe from the medications he was out of sorts,"

[RecoveringYuppy]

Chimps do use tools.
Do they use weapons?

They've been known to use natural objects as weapons for quite a while, but they've recently been observed making them:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-first-time-chimps-seen-making.html

[ponderingturtle]

Chimps do use tools.
Do they use weapons?

Clubs yes. And some spear like things for hunting bush babies.

[gumboot]

Apparently this Chimpanzee had attacked before (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10557772).

STAMFORD, Connecticut - The 90-kilogram chimp who was fatally shot this week after a vicious attack on his owner's friend also bit a woman in 1996, the woman said.

Leslie Mostel-Paul told NBC's Today show that Travis the chimp bit her hand and tried to pull her into a vehicle as she greeted him. She said she complained to the chimp's owner and to police.

...

Meanwhile, an animal control officer, Lynn DellaBianca, said on Thursday she spoke to Herold in 2003 after Travis escaped Herold's vehicle and frolicked in downtown Stamford traffic. DellaBianca, who ran Stamford's animal shelter at the time, said she warned Herold that the pet's behaviour was worrisome and that she needed to make sure he was kept under control.

[Cleon]

Why the frak wasn't the animal taken away from this woman?!?!?! :mad:

[William Parcher]

Though chimps have tremendous arm strength, it is their teeth that do the damage in attacks. Their jaws are much like ours with some differences. The teeth are large and stout. The jaw muscles are very strong, and the gape is larger than ours. They can take very large and powerful bites. Chimps can and will bite fingers completely off with little difficulty.

Medics describe horror of Connecticut chimp attack. (http://www.examiner.com/a-1860948~Medics_describe_horror_of_Conn__chimp_atta ck.html)

Her hands looked like they were wrecked by a machine. Eyes wounded, hair yanked out. Face and scalp injuries so extensive, all the blood obscured whatever parts were left.

The first police officers on the scene couldn't tell if the body was male or female, and warned dispatchers that the victim's face was ripped away.

[ImaginalDisc]

Chimps do use tools.
Do they use weapons?

Yes, but very badly.

I'll look up some citations when I get home, but quite early on, Goodall observed chimps using props are part of an intimidation display, including one hysterical episode where a low ranking male chimp got a hold of a empty fuel can, smacked it around, and eventualy figured out that even though it was really loud it wasn't about to hurt him. So, armed with his newfound noise maker, he frighted off the higher ranking males and enjoyed exclusive access to the females of the groups until everyone finally cought on that the loud can doesn't bite.

More pointedly, I recall reading a recent article in which using sticks to beat another chimp has been observed. The researchers only observed males striking females and tentatively conclude that they do this for two reasons. One, it's scary as hell. I don't know about you, but a large male chimp swinging a branch at me would cause me to reevaluate my health insurance. Second, it's not very effective as a weapon. Chimps don't have the anatomy to swing weapons with the mechanical efficiency and with the same variety of ranges we do. That's part of the down side of being so muscle-bound as they are.

Some other posters got to the spear article I was looking up. Awesome.

Yep, it seems the first recorded instance of non-human ape weapon use is for domestic violence. :(

[The Painter]

The researchers only observed males striking females and tentatively conclude that they do this for two reasons.

One, it's scary as hell.
Two, they just don't listen.

[slingblade]

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Hospital officials in Ohio say a Connecticut woman mauled by a chimpanzee two weeks ago lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids and may be blind and suffering brain damage.

The Cleveland Clinic tells The Associated Press that 55-year-old Charla Nash also lost the bone structure in her face when she was attacked on Feb. 16 in Stamford, Conn.

. . .

Police are still deciding whether its owner, Sandra Herold of Stamford, will face criminal charges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29515100/

She'd better be facing a long, long time in jail, and a civil suit as well.

[dudalb]

I wonder why Gorilla Grond in the Flash comics never thought of throwing Poo on the Scarlet Speedsters....

[slingblade]

What on earth does fecal matter and constant jokes about flinging poo have to do with a woman's face being crushed and mangled?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29515100/

She'd better be facing a long, long time in jail, and a civil suit as well.

Civil suit absolutely, but as far as I can tell, her owning the chimpanzee was legal (though it shouldn't have been). The only criminals charges that would make sense might be if she gave it Xanax... even then, I have no idea what the charge would be, nor if they could prove that it caused or had anything to do with the attack.

In a civil suit, I wonder if the fact that the victim was coming over specifically to help with the chimpanzee would matter. I'm sure the owner still has the vast majority of the responsibility (legally speaking, and certainly morally as well), but I'm curious if, from a legal perspective, the fact that the victim knowingly came there specifically to help with an out of control chimpanzee (e.g. she came over to try and help get him back inside the house) would have any mitigating impact on damages awarded.

[Travis]

I just think it's strange she was giving it Xanax.

[Alt+F4]

What on earth does fecal matter and constant jokes about flinging poo have to do with a woman's face being crushed and mangled?

From what I read it was worse than that. Wasn't she transferred to the Cleveland Clinic that recently did an almost total facial transplant? Events like this is what make people want to horde pills and have great friends (if you know what I mean).

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just think it's strange she was giving it Xanax.People often assume drugs will work the same in animals as they do in people but it isn't always the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those injuries are incredible. I knew chimps could kill but that is way beyond how one might picture it occurring.

[GreNME]

People often assume drugs will work the same in animals as they do in people but it isn't always the case.

Xanax takes huge doses or a constant dose of weeks to have any effect. Assuming it was the Xanax that did this is irresponsible and uninformed.

Chimps, especially male chimps, are prone to erratic and violent outbursts toward females and males they consider weaker. Despite the woman's protestations, I'm willing to bet that this isn't the first time he's acted out. It very well may be the first time he's done this kind of damage, but that just means the woman was lucky previously. Chimps, no matter how well-trained, have not been domesticated.

Remember the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

[Roma]

want to horde pills and have great friends (if you know what I mean).

I know what you mean.
My best friend has a fear of being in a hospital in pain and has made me promise to bring her something. I hope it never comes to that because I don't think I would know what to bring her.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm certainly not saying the Xanax caused the behavior. A friend of mine playing veterinarian gave penicillin to his parakeet and the bird died. I only meant what I said, people assume...

[Alt+F4]

Didn't this chimpanzee also try to steal a police cruiser after the attack?

[supercorgi]

They were talking about this attack on the radio this morning. A man called in to say his sister had 4 monkeys (he didn't say what kind) and they all had their teeth removed. That's appalling to mutilate an animal like that so you can keep it as a pet. The guy agreed with the radio people that his sister was crazy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They were talking about this attack on the radio this morning. A man called in to say his sister had 4 monkeys (he didn't say what kind) and they all had their teeth removed. That's appalling to mutilate an animal like that so you can keep it as a pet. The guy agreed with the radio people that his sister was crazy.That's awful. De-clawing an indoor cat maybe, but not teeth. It's horrible when people have their dog's vocal cords cut too.

[Travis]

People often assume drugs will work the same in animals as they do in people but it isn't always the case.

A good way to kill your cat is to just give it some tylenol. I always check with a vet before giving any meds to my pets.

Xanax takes huge doses or a constant dose of weeks to have any effect. Assuming it was the Xanax that did this is irresponsible and uninformed.

Chimps, especially male chimps, are prone to erratic and violent outbursts toward females and males they consider weaker. Despite the woman's protestations, I'm willing to bet that this isn't the first time he's acted out. It very well may be the first time he's done this kind of damage, but that just means the woman was lucky previously. Chimps, no matter how well-trained, have not been domesticated.

Remember the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

Xanax always hits me hard just twenty minutes after I take it. Which is why it works good to kill my panic attacks. Which is the only time I take it. Or are you just talking about adverse psychological effects?

[plumjam]

It's horrible when people have their dog's vocal cords cut too.
Likewise it would be completely despicable if any male human were to apply similar treatment to his wife. I'd be dead against it.

[Spyke]

That's awful. De-clawing an indoor cat maybe, but not teeth. It's horrible when people have their dog's vocal cords cut too.

Wait..what? They cut their vocal cords? :jaw-dropp

I can't bring myself to Google that, but you're serious? I swear I near burst into tears when I read that.

[supercorgi]

Wait..what? They cut their vocal cords? :jaw-dropp

I can't bring myself to Google that, but you're serious? I swear I near burst into tears when I read that.

Yes, I know of some dog breeders who have had to do that in order to keep their dogs (constant complaints from the neighbors about the barking and getting Animal Control involved). The dogs can still make noise, sort of like a soft coughing sound but can no longer bark loudly.

[supercorgi]

That's awful. De-clawing an indoor cat maybe, but not teeth. It's horrible when people have their dog's vocal cords cut too.

After volunteering at a vet and seeing how they declaw a cat (basically cut off the first knuckle), I could never do it. I just clip my cats claws on a regular basis. I used to show cats and you cannot show a declawed cat. I got really good at clipping their claws.

[cbish]

Yes, I know of some dog breeders who have had to do that in order to keep their dogs (constant complaints from the neighbors about the barking and getting Animal Control involved). The dogs can still make noise, sort of like a soft coughing sound but can no longer bark loudly.My sister did that to her dog. Guess what?!? They grew back!!! So, not only did the dog bark loudly, it sounded like it had been a heavy smoker for fifty years!

[TX50]

Never mind defanging animals. My mother had all her teeth removed
when she was fifteen so she could get false teeth. She says it was common
in those days to have that done.

[Alt+F4]

As if this story couldn't get worse, an update on her condition:

Charla Nash lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids in the Feb. 16 attack, the Cleveland Clinic (http://www.courant.com/topic/health/hospitals-clinics/cleveland-clinic-PLCUL000137.topic) said Wednesday. She may be blind and brain damaged, and her injuries are so severe hospital officials say it's still unclear if she can recover at all.

In addition:

Tighter state laws on pet ownership are being proposed in the wake of a chimpanzee attack in Stamford (http://www.courant.com/topic/us/connecticut/fairfield-county/stamford-PLGEO100100201190000.topic) last month that left a 55-year-old woman critically injured.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (http://www.courant.com/topic/politics/richard-blumenthal-hpp4069.topic) plans to announce today legislation banning private ownership of certain animals, including chimpanzees.

Linky:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-webchimp0306mar07,0,6548000.story

[LibraryLady]

There have been people coming forward to say that this chimp has bitten them in the past. However, the chimp had achieved some sort of celebrity status in that town, even starring in an Old Navy ad (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-16-chimpanzee-attack_N.htm) and the complaints haven't been taken seriously enough.

There have been attacks by "tame" chimps in the past (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7087194/), but people still insist on treating these wild and highly intelligent animals as tame, domesticated pets.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait..what? They cut their vocal cords? :jaw-dropp

I can't bring myself to Google that, but you're serious? I swear I near burst into tears when I read that.There's a dog in a yard I walk my dogs past that makes a sound but can't bark. It's very upsetting. I hope it was a natural disease that caused it but don't want to ask the owners.

Yes, people do it.

Problem Barking (http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/behaviourproblems/barking.html)A final resort, when all other behavioural modification methods have been tried, and particularly when the dog's life is in question, is a vocal cordectomy (debarking). This surgical procedure involves removal of all or part of the vocal cords.

[slingblade]

My son had a poodle whose vocal cords had been cut before they got it...I'm not sure how they came by it, a friend gave it to them or something, I really don't know.

The poor thing never shut up. The noise it made was as bad, if not worse, than any barking it could have done. And it made you want to cry, it sounded so pitiful.

They didn't keep it long. A friend fell in love with the beast, and the kids were only too glad to see it have a new home. The noise was driving them nuts.

Once I found out what was involved in "de-clawing" a cat, I quickly made up my mind that I like shredded furniture.

[GreNME]

I'm certainly not saying the Xanax caused the behavior. A friend of mine playing veterinarian gave penicillin to his parakeet and the bird died. I only meant what I said, people assume...

Then your statement in the context of this thread was a red herring. Regardless, the chances are so much higher that the xanax had no effect in this case that the inclusion of it in the data set for this incident is beyond ridiculous.

-----

Xanax always hits me hard just twenty minutes after I take it. Which is why it works good to kill my panic attacks. Which is the only time I take it. Or are you just talking about adverse psychological effects?

I'm not going to speculate about your results, but I will say that the best answer you can get to that would be from the doctor who diagnosed and prescribed it for you. From what I know of the drug, it does not work similar to how asprin or antihystamines work, and it requires at least semi-regular use to have efficacy.

[luchog]

My son had a poodle whose vocal cords had been cut before they got it...I'm not sure how they came by it, a friend gave it to them or something, I really don't know.

The poor thing never shut up. The noise it made was as bad, if not worse, than any barking it could have done. And it made you want to cry, it sounded so pitiful.

They didn't keep it long. A friend fell in love with the beast, and the kids were only too glad to see it have a new home. The noise was driving them nuts.

Once I found out what was involved in "de-clawing" a cat, I quickly made up my mind that I like shredded furniture.
Surgical alteration of any animal purely for purposes of owner convenience or aesthetic sensibility is, to my mind, barbaric, and qualifies as abuse. If you can't handle a dog barking, and are unable to train it not to bark, then you shouldn't have a dog, period. Same with declawing cats, docking ears and tails, venomoid snakes, etc.

I also have a problem with routine surgical correction of genetic abnormalities. If they bloodline is that prone to disabling genetic defects, then it should not be breeding, period. Let it die out and breed from a more robust bloodline. There's no reason to inflict that kind of suffering on an animal simply because you want to achieve a particular appearance.

[ImaginalDisc]

Surgical alteration of any animal purely for purposes of owner convenience or aesthetic sensibility is, to my mind, barbaric, and qualifies as abuse. If you can't handle a dog barking, and are unable to train it not to bark, then you shouldn't have a dog, period. Same with declawing cats, docking ears and tails, venomoid snakes, etc.

I also have a problem with routine surgical correction of genetic abnormalities. If they bloodline is that prone to disabling genetic defects, then it should not be breeding, period. Let it die out and breed from a more robust bloodline. There's no reason to inflict that kind of suffering on an animal simply because you want to achieve a particular appearance.

I have to disagree. If you have an animal who is suffering because of a disroder that breed is prone to, not treating that condition constitutes abuse. The question of whether it is morally wrong to breed that animal is totally unrelated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then your statement in the context of this thread was a red herring. Regardless, the chances are so much higher that the xanax had no effect in this case that the inclusion of it in the data set for this incident is beyond ridiculous.
....No, my statement was in response to Travis who said, "I just think it's strange she was giving it Xanax. "

Any reason you feel compelled to play thread monitor?

[GreNME]

No, my statement was in response to Travis who said, "I just think it's strange she was giving it Xanax. "

That very well might have been what you meant to say, but coupled with your first post (emphasis mine below):People forget intelligent wild animals are still wild. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an unpredictable xanax reaction. Stabbing the poor animal to get it to stop could have also made things worse.

The implications of what you said on the previous page:People often assume drugs will work the same in animals as they do in people but it isn't always the case.

Take on a very different meaning when reading the thread than what you are now claiming you meant with your statement. Since I don't believe anyone here, including myself, are mind-readers, the only thing I have to go on is what you actually post, not what you might have meant but did not say. So before you assume anything else perhaps you might want to evaluate whether this is a case of disparity between what you were posting and what you actually meant.

Any reason you feel compelled to play thread monitor?

Look, there's absolutely no need to get personal on the subject. You stated outright that you "wouldn't be surprised" if the xanax had something to do with it, so there is no logical reason to believe that you felt otherwise in later posts. Xanax doesn't have a consistent effect even among humans-- a property common among many mood-affecting medications-- so the statement about people not always knowing how such drugs will affect animals is correct in the same manner as not knowing how they will affect a given human. The risk in using any mood-affecting medications on non-human animals is that they can't effectively and specifically communicate to those administering the medications how the drugs are affecting them, which means that assessments to the efficacy of such drugs is limited and, in many cases, unable to diagnose*. The difference between that and with humans is that the same drugs also require follow-up by trained professionals to evaluate whether the desired result is achieved.

What this means is that the woman giving the chimp drugs was acting stupidly, irresponsibly, and quite likely illegally, but since her own statements in interviews state that she gave it to the chimp somewhere around five minutes prior to the incident, the likelihood that the drug made its way into the animal's bloodstream in any amount to have any effect would be next to nil unless she'd been administering the drug on some kind of semi-regular basis in the first place. The reasons the woman gave for administering the xanax in the first place are a better indication of what eventually happened than anything else, given what is known about typical chimpanzee behavior in the first place, so the actual administering of the xanax is less indicative of the attack than the behavior beforehand that led the woman to assume the drug would help. The focus on the xanax takes away from the more obvious indicators of something being wrong that the woman failed to recognize, which ultimately led to the tragic attack that followed. When in doubt, apply Occam's Razor: the woman said she already noticed erratic and aggressive behavior prior to the incident, which manifested ultimately in the attack on the woman's friend. No other modifiers to the situation are necessary, and overcomplicate the obvious.


* Sometimes efficacy can be judged by observation of behavior, but in those cases trained animal behaviorists are usually utilized.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Come on GreN, saying, "I wouldn't be surprised", is also not a red herring. You doth protest a bit too much here.

Saying you disagree is one thing. Going on a rant about my comments being inappropriate was unnecessary and equally personal. Continuing to rant takes this even more over the top.

[GreNME]

Okay, let's try this again:

Based on your previous posts in this very thread, there was a disparity between the meaning you appeared to be posting and the meaning you intended to be posting. My only beef with your dismissal of my response is that you decided to include a personal jab. The rest of your statement is simply incorrect.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, let's try this again:

Based on your previous posts in this very thread, there was a disparity between the meaning you appeared to be posting and the meaning you intended to be posting. My only beef with your dismissal of my response is that you decided to include a personal jab. The rest of your statement is simply incorrect.OK, trying to distance this from the 'personal' connotation, I said 2 things.

One, animals often do not react to human drugs the way humans react and vice versa.
Two, I wouldn't be surprised if the chimp experienced a paradoxical reaction to the Xanax.

Nowhere in that statement did I say the Xanax caused the attack, or that natural aggressiveness in adult chimps was not the predominant factor.

Unless you have some evidence you have yet to provide on the reaction of chimps to Xanax, you cannot say a paradoxical reaction did not contribute to the attack.

And nothing I said was a red herring.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

So while we can throw spears and weave baskets, they can rip our arms off.
That would certainly mess with our basket weaving abilities.

Yuri

[ImaginalDisc]

Unless you have some evidence you have yet to provide on the reaction of chimps to Xanax, you cannot say a paradoxical reaction did not contribute to the attack.


Pardon? I think you've confused who bears the burden of proof here. Unless you can provide evidence for how chimps react to the dosage of Xanax he was receiving, you have no evidence that it contributed at all. I suspect it probably contributed, but that's neither here nor there.

[GreNME]

OK, trying to distance this from the 'personal' connotation, I said 2 things.

One, animals often do not react to human drugs the way humans react and vice versa.
Two, I wouldn't be surprised if the chimp experienced a paradoxical reaction to the Xanax.

The first of which is misdirection (and, depending on the drug, incorrect), while the second is the red herring. No one (including you) at all has provided a single shred of evidence to indicate why the xanax would be included as a contributor in any fashion. The woman may as well have instead tried giving the chimp his favorite hot cocoa the way it was mentioned by her-- meaning, in relation to her trying to stave off what she already admitted was already erratic and aggressive behavior.

Nowhere in that statement did I say the Xanax caused the attack, or that natural aggressiveness in adult chimps was not the predominant factor.

No, you didn't say it outright, in much the same way that Bush never said outright that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Instead, you focused on the drug in a manner that implied it while adding that you "wouldn't be surprised" if it were a main cause.

Unless you have some evidence you have yet to provide on the reaction of chimps to Xanax, you cannot say a paradoxical reaction did not contribute to the attack.

You're actually demanding I prove a negative? How amusing. If there is anyone who honestly believes giving the animal-- which was already agitated-- a xanax shortly (I believe the woman stated it was around five minutes) before the attack, then the onus is upon the person who is making or laying credence to such a claim. Not only have I repeatedly pointed this out, but I've also pointed out the mitigating factors that make supporting such a claim more difficult, as well as pointing out the obvious that the chimp was already agitated and acting erratic.

And nothing I said was a red herring.

Despite your continued protestations, your repeated focus on the xanax is indeed a red herring, considering the behavior was already manifest prior to the attack and the attack happened before the xanax could conceivably metabolize in a 200-pound chimp. The answer as to why the chimp attacked is as simple as the parable of the frog and the scorpion. If you have any logical reason why Occam's Razor doesn't apply here, all you have to do is present it and back it up. Thus far, you've failed to do so.

[hodgy]

They've been known to use natural objects as weapons for quite a while, but they've recently been observed making them:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-first-time-chimps-seen-making.html

The distinction here between weapon and tool is somewhat moot. The activity of a chimp 'fishing' for termites is not much different from its 'fishing' for bushbabies.

Mechanically its similar - the differences are coloured by our moral differentiation between termites and bushbabies - the chimp does not make such differences and in that respect may be considered more rational than us. In both cases the victim gets hunted and eaten.

[joobie]

From what I know of the drug, it does not work similar to how asprin or antihystamines work, and it requires at least semi-regular use to have efficacy.

you have a flawed understanding of xanax. it does not need to be taken regularly and is used specifically (among other things) for panic attacks, where needing to have taken it regularly for some time beforehand isn't going to do you much good.

[GreNME]

you have a flawed understanding of xanax. it does not need to be taken regularly and is used specifically (among other things) for panic attacks, where needing to have taken it regularly for some time beforehand isn't going to do you much good.

The typical recommended dosage path for Xanax consists of regular daily dosages, not popping them like asprin to cure a headache. Note: Please read all the way to the bottom before responding.

RXList.com (http://www.rxlist.com/xanax-drug.htm) (click page two if not displayed):Dosage should be individualized for maximum beneficial effect. While the usual daily dosages given below will meet the needs of most patients, there will be some who require doses greater than 4 mg/day. In such cases, dosage should be increased cautiously to avoid adverse effects.

Anxiety Disorders and Transient Symptoms of Anxiety

Treatment for patients with anxiety should be initiated with a dose of 0.25 to 0.5 mg given three times daily. The dose may be increased to achieve a maximum therapeutic effect, at intervals of 3 to 4 days, to a maximum daily dose of 4 mg, given in divided doses. The lowest possible effective dose should be employed and the need for continued treatment reassessed frequently. The risk of dependence may increase with dose and duration of treatment.

In all patients, dosage should be reduced gradually when discontinuing therapy or when decreasing the daily dosage. Although there are no systematically collected data to support a specific discontinuation schedule, it is suggested that the daily dosage be decreased by no more than 0.5 mg every 3 days. Some patients may require an even slower dosage reduction.

Panic Disorder

The successful treatment of many panic disorder patients has required the use of XANAX at doses greater than 4 mg daily. In controlled trials conducted to establish the efficacy of XANAX in panic disorder, doses in the range of 1 to 10 mg daily were used. The mean dosage employed was approximately 5 to 6 mg daily. Among the approximately 1700 patients participating in the panic disorder development program, about 300 received XANAX in dosages of greater than 7 mg/day, including approximately 100 patients who received maximum dosages of greater than 9 mg/day. Occasional patients required as much as 10 mg a day to achieve a successful response.
Underlined emphasis mine.

psychtreatment.com (http://www.psychtreatment.com/xanax_dosage.htm):Anxiety Disorder

The usual starting Xanax dosage is 0.25 mg to 0.5 mg taken three times a day. This Xanax dosage may then be increased every three to four days to a maximum daily dose of 4 mg, divided into smaller doses.

Panic Disorder

The usual starting Xanax dosage for panic disorder is 0.5 mg taken three times a day. This amount can then be increased by 1 mg a day, every three to four days. You may be given a dose from 1 mg up to total of 10 mg per day, depending upon your needs. The typical Xanax dosage is 5mg to 6 mg a day. Your doctor will need to reassess your medication needs periodically to determine whether they are still appropriate.
Again, underlined emphasis mine.

PDRHealth.com (http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/rx/rx-mono.aspx?contentFileName=Xan1491.html&contentName=Xanax&contentId=641):Anxiety disorder

The usual starting dose of Xanax is 0.25 to 0.5 milligram taken 3 times a day. The dose may be increased every 3 to 4 days to a maximum daily dose of 4 milligrams, divided into smaller doses.

Panic disorder

The usual starting dose of regular Xanax is 0.5 milligram 3 times a day. This dose can be increased by 1 milligram a day every 3 or 4 days. You may be given a dose from 1 up to a total of 10 milligrams, according to your needs. The typical dose is 5 to 6 milligrams a day.

If you're taking Xanax XR, the usual starting dose is 0.5 to 1 milligram once a day taken in the morning. Depending on your response, the dose may be gradually increased by no more than 1 milligram every 3 or 4 days. The usual effective dose is 3 to 6 milligrams a day. Some people may need a larger dose to relieve their symptoms. Others, including older adults and those with liver disease or other serious illnesses, may need to use lower doses.
Again, underlined emphasis mine.

DrugLib.com (http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/xanax/indications_dosage/):Dosage should be individualized for maximum beneficial effect. While the usual daily dosages given below will meet the needs of most patients, there will be some who require doses greater than 4 mg/day. In such cases, dosage should be increased cautiously to avoid adverse effects.

Anxiety Disorders and Transient Symptoms of Anxiety

Treatment for patients with anxiety should be initiated with a dose of 0.25 to 0.5 mg given three times daily. The dose may be increased to achieve a maximum therapeutic effect, at intervals of 3 to 4 days, to a maximum daily dose of 4 mg, given in divided doses. The lowest possible effective dose should be employed and the need for continued treatment reassessed frequently. The risk of dependence may increase with dose and duration of treatment.

In all patients, dosage should be reduced gradually when discontinuing therapy or when decreasing the daily dosage. Although there are no systematically collected data to support a specific discontinuation schedule, it is suggested that the daily dosage be decreased by no more than 0.5 mg every 3 days. Some patients may require an even slower dosage reduction.

Panic Disorder

The successful treatment of many panic disorder patients has required the use of XANAX at doses greater than 4 mg daily. In controlled trials conducted to establish the efficacy of XANAX in panic disorder, doses in the range of 1 to 10 mg daily were used. The mean dosage employed was approximately 5 to 6 mg daily. Among the approximately 1700 patients participating in the panic disorder development program, about 300 received XANAX in dosages of greater than 7 mg/day, including approximately 100 patients who received maximum dosages of greater than 9 mg/day. Occasional patients required as much as 10 mg a day to achieve a successful response.
Again, underlined emphasis mine.

I want to make myself perfectly clear: There is no way in hell I am going to tell a single person here that I feel that they should in any way alter their (taking of) doses from what their doctor has instructed them. I refuse to even get into that type of discussion here, because it would be irresponsible of me and potentially harmful to anyone who could stand to be hurt by it. It's simply not going to happen. What I will discuss are the actual data out there that lay out pretty clearly the recommended dosages and why they are what they are. I will not address anyone's anecdotal dosages of xanax, that is between the people themselves and their doctors, and none of my damned business.

As long as we're clear on the above, joobie, I'm willing to discuss with you whether or not I do indeed have a flawed understanding of how xanax works. Are we both cool with that?

[luchog]

I have to disagree. If you have an animal who is suffering because of a disroder that breed is prone to, not treating that condition constitutes abuse. The question of whether it is morally wrong to breed that animal is totally unrelated.
I notice that you completely ignored the word "routine". Try reading it again with that word included, and you might actually understand what i was saying.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pardon? I think you've confused who bears the burden of proof here. Unless you can provide evidence for how chimps react to the dosage of Xanax he was receiving, you have no evidence that it contributed at all. I suspect it probably contributed, but that's neither here nor there.Since when does saying something possibly contributed require proof while saying something absolutely did not contribute not require proof?

There is no question all animals do not react consistently to all psychoactive drugs. A paradoxical reaction to Xanax was POSSIBLE.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The typical recommended dosage path for Xanax consists of regular daily dosages, not popping them like asprin to cure a headache. Note: Please read all the way to the bottom before responding....You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the difference between establishing a therapeutic equilibrium for a drug response and the onset or acute effects of a drug.

From the drug insert: (http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2003/21434_xanax_lbl.pdf)Absorption
Following oral administration of XANAX (immediate-release) Tablets, alprazolam is readily absorbed. Peak concentrations in the plasma occur in one to two hours following administration. Plasma levels are proportional to the dose given; over the dose range of 0.5 to 3.0 mg, peak levels of 8.0 to 37 ng/mL were observed. ... the mean plasma elimination half-life of alprazolam has been found to be about 11.2 hours (range: 6.3-26.9 hours) in healthy adults. The mean absolute bioavailability of alprazolam from XANAX XR Tablets is approximately 90%, and the relative bioavailability compared to XANAX Tablets is 100%.(emphasis mine)

Side effects:Psychiatric system disorders: Frequent: irritability, insomnia, nervousness, derealization, libido increased,
restlessness, agitation, depersonalization, nightmare;(emphasis mine)

And I believe the news reported the woman gave the chimp 10 mg. That dose is on the high side.The suggested total daily dose ranges between 3 to 6 mg/day. Dosage should be individualized for maximum beneficial effect. While the suggested total daily dosages given will meet the needs of most patients, there will be some patients who require doses greater than 6 mg/day. In such cases, dosage should be increased cautiously to avoid adverse effects.


As for the timing, "minutes before the attack", that could mean longer. Anyone taking a patient history knows people are not all good historians. The drug was in tea, meaning it would have been dissolved. That makes absorption faster. And now the woman denies all this which is likely because she's in trouble for it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chimp Attack Highlights Increased Drug Use Among Pets (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090220-chimp-attack-xanax.html)But in dogs, drugs such as Xanax can reduce inhibition, worsening aggression problems, Bain said. Dogs that are both fearful and aggressive, for example, may lose their fear and lash out.

"We use [anti-anxiety medications] with caution in aggressive animals, by all means," she said.

Other side effects of Xanax, noticed in dogs and cats, include excitement, irritability, and increased affection.

[GreNME]

Since when does saying something possibly contributed require proof while saying something absolutely did not contribute not require proof?

You're asking to prove a negative, that's why. There is no evidence to show something around five minutes is enough time for any drug, let alone xanax, to have affected any behavior. And it's obviously clear by your follow-ups to this statement that you're not just saying "possibly contributed" and are instead trying your best to find whatever confirmation you can to support such a conclusion at the omission of the obvious data that contradict such a conclusion.

There is no question all animals do not react consistently to all psychoactive drugs. A paradoxical reaction to Xanax was POSSIBLE.

There's no question that all people do not react consistently to all psychoactive drugs, so unless you have some specific evidence pertaining directly to this case (and you don't, read below), then you're speculating with absence of evidence.

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the difference between establishing a therapeutic equilibrium for a drug response and the onset or acute effects of a drug.

Well, since you're making accusations up on-the-fly like that, why don't we take a look at your evidence.

From the drug insert: (http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2003/21434_xanax_lbl.pdf)Absorption
Following oral administration of XANAX (immediate-release) Tablets, alprazolam is readily absorbed. Peak concentrations in the plasma occur in one to two hours following administration. Plasma levels are proportional to the dose given; over the dose range of 0.5 to 3.0 mg, peak levels of 8.0 to 37 ng/mL were observed. ... the mean plasma elimination half-life of alprazolam has been found to be about 11.2 hours (range: 6.3-26.9 hours) in healthy adults. The mean absolute bioavailability of alprazolam from XANAX XR Tablets is approximately 90%, and the relative bioavailability compared to XANAX Tablets is 100%.(emphasis mine)

You should probably avoid quote-mining from text you link to (perhaps you don't expect people to actually read the links?). The full text:Absorption
Following oral administration of XANAX (immediate-release) Tablets, alprazolam is readily absorbed. Peak concentrations in the plasma occur in one to two hours following administration. Plasma levels are proportional
to the dose given; over the dose range of 0.5 to 3.0 mg, peak levels of 8.0 to 37 ng/mL were observed. Using a specific assay methodology, the mean plasma elimination half-life of alprazolam has been found to be about 11.2 hours (range: 6.3-26.9 hours) in healthy adults.

The mean absolute bioavailability of alprazolam from XANAX XR Tablets is approximately 90%, and the relative bioavailability compared to XANAX Tablets is 100%. The bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of alprazolam following administration of XANAX XR Tablets are similar to that for XANAX Tablets, with the exception of a slower rate of absorption. The slower absorption rate results in a relatively constant concentration that is maintained between 5 and 11 hours after the dosing. The pharmacokinetics of alprazolam and two of its major active metabolites (4-hydroxyalprazolam and α-hydroxyalprazolam) are linear, and concentrations are proportional up to the recommended maximum daily dose of 10mg given once daily. Multiple dose studies indicate that the metabolism and elimination of alprazolam are similar for the immediate-release and the extended- release products.

Food has a significant influence on the bioavailability of XANAX XR Tablets. A high-fat meal given up to 2 hours before dosing with XANAX XR Tablets increased the mean Cmax by about 25%. The effect of this meal on Tmax depended on the timing of the meal, with a reduction in Tmax by about 1/3 for subjects eating immediately before dosing and an increase in Tmax by about 1/3 for subjects eating 1 hour or more after dosing. The extent of exposure (AUC) and elimination half-life (t1/2) were not affected by eating.

There were significant differences in absorption rate for the XANAX XR Tablet, depending on the time of day administered, with the Cmax increased by 30% and the Tmax decreased by an hour following dosing at night, compared to morning dosing.

Underlined emphasis mine, but the whole is more important. In case you aren't understanding what you're reading there, allow me to explain. First and foremost, the entire quoted text is comparing the rapid-release Xanax XR to normal Xanax, and even in the XR version of the drug the beginning average absorption time is more than an hour and continues for an average of nearly 12 hours but can last as long as a day depending on the individual, the time of day, what they've had to eat, and the physical properties of the individual themselves. However, what you failed to take note of in your quote-mining was that even this paper used subjects taking the drug on a daily dosage basis, as is explained further down in the PDF:CLINICAL EFFICACY TRIALS

The efficacy of XANAX XR Tablets in the treatment of panic disorder was established in two 6-week, placebo- controlled studies of XANAX XR in patients with panic disorder.

In two 6-week, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled studies in patients meeting DSM-III criteria for panic disorder, patients were treated with XANAX XR in a dose range of 1 to 10 mg/day, on a once-a-day basis. The effectiveness of XANAX XR was assessed on the basis of changes in various measures of panic attack frequency, on various measures of the Clinical Global Impression, and on the Overall Phobia Scale. In all, there were seven primary efficacy measures in these studies, and XANAX XR was superior to placebo on all seven outcomes in both studies. The mean dose of XANAX XR at the last treatment visit was 4.2 mg/day in the first study and 4.6 mg/day in the second.

In addition, there were two 8-week, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled studies of XANAX XR in patients with panic disorder, involving fixed XANAX XR doses of 4 and 6 mg/day, on a once-a-day basis, that did not show a benefit for either dose of XANAX XR.

The longer-term efficacy of XANAX XR in panic disorder has not been systematically evaluated. Analyses of the relationship between treatment outcome and gender did not suggest any differential responsiveness on the basis of gender.

In other words, your linked FDA study even used the drug in daily dosages for the study being cited. I'd ask you why that's so, but the reason is the one I've already been pointing out: that's what the recommended practice for dosage is to achieve efficacy.

Side effects:(emphasis mine)

And I believe the news reported the woman gave the chimp 10 mg. That dose is on the high side.

That dose is on the high side for anxiety, and within the recommended dosages for panic disorder, but that's neither here nor there. You're still focusing on the Xanax causing the irritability when the woman already reported that the chimp was irritable prior to administering the drug (and doing so in under the reported absorption time listed in your own link).


As for the timing, "minutes before the attack", that could mean longer. Anyone taking a patient history knows people are not all good historians. The drug was in tea, meaning it would have been dissolved. That makes absorption faster. And now the woman denies all this which is likely because she's in trouble for it.

"[C]ould mean longer," you say? And what would make the woman change her story from about five minutes to between an hour or two? Your attempts at incredulity regarding the timing (and appealing by anecdote) aside, can you provide any evidence that the drug was administered anywhere close to the known absorption window? No, you can't, because you're allowing your desire to confirm a conclusion color your search for information regarding what happened. That is no better than someone defending a cold-reader for their vague supposed hits while ignoring all of the obvious misses, and you're attempting to over-complicate the scenario to fit your predetermined conclusion.

Chimp Attack Highlights Increased Drug Use Among Pets (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090220-chimp-attack-xanax.html)
But in dogs, drugs such as Xanax can reduce inhibition, worsening aggression problems, Bain said. Dogs that are both fearful and aggressive, for example, may lose their fear and lash out.

"We use [anti-anxiety medications] with caution in aggressive animals, by all means," she said.

Other side effects of Xanax, noticed in dogs and cats, include excitement, irritability, and increased affection.

More quote-mining confirmation bias. Nowhere in the article does it state that the administering of xanax to the chimp might have caused the incident. Instead, the article uses the incident as a springboard for a more important (and unrelated) issue: the increasingly common practice of using psychoactive drugs to treat animals with various behavioral problems. I've already pointed this out (in the post you earlier dismissed), as the use of such drugs in animals is problematic because there is no way to accurately judge the efficacy of the drug since the animals cannot communicate how they are feeling in specific terms like people can. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the article switches the focus on drugs used on dogs, and doesn't elaborate on the use of the drugs on apes. In fact, the gorilla mentioned in the article you link, Johari, actually benefitted (http://www.animalsvoice.com/edits/editorial/news/features/zoos_drugs.html) from the administration of Prozac, as it allowed her to re-join her group. The problem with psychoactive drug use on animals is less of a problem in higher-functioning animals like apes and more of a problem with domestic animals, which is something the article you link fails to specify and instead uses the popular public incident to launch into a mostly unrelated subject. In other words: a red herring. No wonder you linked it.

Care to try again, this time taking into account the full text of the things you're quoting instead of relying on confirmation bias, arguing through supposition and anecdote, and unsubstantiated accusations about my understanding to try to make your case? Thus far I've not only provided three separate medical-related sources on the typical recommended dosage for Xanax, but I've also used your linked FDA paper to point out that even they followed the typical recommended dosages to achieve the results they reached. I'm fairly certain that any study you find on the absorption, efficacy, and half-life of the drug on the body is going to include using the recommended daily dosage. That's not something I know by accident or through coincidence, but through having read these things before and through understanding how the drug is supposed to be used, among other reasons. To add to that, my own personal studies on how these apply to animal behavior can be included as well, of which I'd match my understanding against what you've displayed so far with quote-mining any day. Why you're unwilling to admit that perhaps you're jumping the gun or that I may actually have a pretty good point here speaks far more about yourself and your own understanding at this point than it does my own, because I'm relying on the actual medical recommendations and studies on the efficacy of the drug, while so far you've yet to post a medical source contradicting it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you cannot prove the negative, GreNME, how is it you can make the claim?

[GreNME]

The answer to your question is Occam's Razor, plain and simple. The constant bringing up of Xanax being a mitigating factor is a red herring because zero evidence exists to support it. You have yet to provide any evidence, and despite your protestations to the contrary there is no reason to assume the Xanax had any causal relationship to the attack. There is a genuine concern about people giving psychoactive drugs to pets, but that is an issue completely unrelated to this case for reasons I've already given, namely that there is little to no likelihood that the drug in question was in enough of a phase of absorption to have any effect and that there was no regular dosage in order to have been a previous contributing factor. I don't have to prove the negative, I simply have to prove the actual known conditions of efficacy for the drug and point out that the assertion I am saying could not be true has a complete lack of evidence. Thus far, that's precisely what I've done, including using the study you linked yourself.

Does that sufficiently answer your question?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The answer to your question is Occam's Razor, plain and simple. The constant bringing up of Xanax being a mitigating factor is a red herring because zero evidence exists to support it. You have yet to provide any evidence, and despite your protestations to the contrary there is no reason to assume the Xanax had any causal relationship to the attack. There is a genuine concern about people giving psychoactive drugs to pets, but that is an issue completely unrelated to this case for reasons I've already given, namely that there is little to no likelihood that the drug in question was in enough of a phase of absorption to have any effect and that there was no regular dosage in order to have been a previous contributing factor. I don't have to prove the negative, I simply have to prove the actual known conditions of efficacy for the drug and point out that the assertion I am saying could not be true has a complete lack of evidence. Thus far, that's precisely what I've done, including using the study you linked yourself.

Does that sufficiently answer your question?You continue to confuse the fact I said something was possible with the idea I somehow said it was probable or it did occur.

You claim it is not possible then waver to say it isn't likely. Which is it, not possible or not probable?

[ImaginalDisc]

You continue to confuse the fact I said something was possible with the idea I somehow said it was probable or it did occur.

You claim it is not possible then waver to say it isn't likely. Which is it, not possible or not probable?

It's also possible that malicious pixies crawled in the simian's ear and took over his brain, taking him for a joy ride of carnage and mayhem.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's also possible that malicious pixies crawled in the simian's ear and took over his brain, taking him for a joy ride of carnage and mayhem.Actually, that is not possible.

I really don't understand what the problem is here.

I cited the side effects of Xanax and they included a number of things which were consistent with increased agitation.

I noted the peak plasma levels were rather rapid, not the therapeutic equilibrium GreNME mistakenly cited.

I cited the expert opinion of "animal-behavior expert Bonnie Beaver of Texas A&M University's College of Veterinary Medicine" who stated "Xanax can reduce inhibition, worsening aggression problems".

And I can tell you from experience as a medical provider who takes patient histories 5 days a week, patients don't judge time accurately. So we don't know if the woman gave the Xanax 5 minutes or 35 minutes before the actual attack. We don't know how much was given or what being dissolved in tea would do to the rate of absorption, but it would at least speed it up somewhat. (It's interesting that xanax is not soluble in water, but is soluble in alcohol. This adds to the evidence we don't really know exactly what the chimp was given.)

From this evidence I said it could have contributed to the chimp's aggression. I didn't say it did contribute or that the chimp's natural behavior was not the main contributor to the incident.

Neither you nor GreNME have posted anything that makes me change that assessment.

It's curious, however, why either of you are so invested in the drug not having contributed. It makes no sense to me since being a health care provider who actually prescribes drugs, I am familiar with paradoxical reactions and they are not so rare as to think something like Occam's Razor applies here.

[GreNME]

You continue to confuse the fact I said something was possible with the idea I somehow said it was probable or it did occur.

No, I continue to say that you're promoting a red herring by trying to include a factor that is unnecessary and unprovable (by you). That isn't to say that an examination of the liver couldn't determine at what level absorption might have been at the time of the chimp's death, but you're going to be hard-pressed explaining what the absorption level would have been at around five minutes, considering all possible medical documentation out there makes it clear that absorption takes much longer than that to start.

You claim it is not possible then waver to say it isn't likely. Which is it, not possible or not probable?

Going by the available medical documentation-- including the documentation you provided-- the answer is both. Since you have yet to provide a shred of evidence indicating otherwise, I stand by the medical documentation out there rather than by your unsubstantiated suspicion.

It's also possible that malicious pixies crawled in the simian's ear and took over his brain, taking him for a joy ride of carnage and mayhem.
Actually, that is not possible.

It's as possible as what you've suggested, because it's using precisely the same amount of actual evidence as what you've suggested.

I really don't understand what the problem is here.

That is correct, you don't understand, and instead you're coming to conclusions for whatever reasons you have based on suspicion and whatever other intangible motives that might be there. That's questionable enough when evaluating situations with people, but in this case we're dealing with an animal's behavior where the clear signs of the behavior exhibited in the attack were mentioned being present well before the attack or the woman giving the chimp any medications. You've used confirmation bias in the sources you have used, even though one of those sources actually contradicted your misquotations of it.

I cited the side effects of Xanax and they included a number of things which were consistent with increased agitation.

You also skipped over that fact that those side effects were recorded as being present in people who were on daily dosages, not single-instance. Again, you're noting possible hits while ignoring the glaring misses in your citations-- clear confirmation bias.

I noted the peak plasma levels were rather rapid, not the therapeutic equilibrium GreNME mistakenly cited.

Except the levels you were pointing out were in people taking a regular daily dosage, not one-shot doses, which again is attempts to note possible hits while ignoring the glaring misses-- more confirmation bias.

I cited the expert opinion of "animal-behavior expert Bonnie Beaver of Texas A&M University's College of Veterinary Medicine" who stated "Xanax can reduce inhibition, worsening aggression problems".

In dogs. Yet you ignored the example that was also in the article about the ape who was actually aided by medication. Again, attempts to note possible (but misdirected) hits while ignoring the glaring and obvious misses-- strengthening your confirmation bias.

And I can tell you from experience as a medical provider who takes patient histories 5 days a week, patients don't judge time accurately. So we don't know if the woman gave the Xanax 5 minutes or 35 minutes before the actual attack. We don't know how much was given or what being dissolved in tea would do to the rate of absorption, but it would at least speed it up somewhat. (It's interesting that xanax is not soluble in water, but is soluble in alcohol. This adds to the evidence we don't really know exactly what the chimp was given.)

Anecdotes do not equal data. I've discussed this case with a veterinarian who took part in the clinical studies of Prozac in the 1980's (on rats) who has verified that even in smaller animals a few minutes of a single dose is not enough to accurately determine absorption. I'm not using that as a data point because it's anecdote, and am still relying on the fact that medical documentation still places absorption at 1-2 hours, so whether the difference in time was five minutes or thirty-five minutes, that still places absorption by a 200-pound animal with nearly-human physiology nearly a half hour off the low end of the mark, which would require assumption of not only using a dissolved solution but also an empty stomach and a high metabolic rate in the animal-- none of which you've bothered to even attempt to examine as a factor in your claims.

From this evidence I said it could have contributed to the chimp's aggression. I didn't say it did contribute or that the chimp's natural behavior was not the main contributor to the incident.

And you can't say it did contribute, because none of the evidence supports such an assertion. So, instead, you're sticking to the vague "could have" statement without accepting that all current medical documentation puts the likelihood of the drug having been a factor out or the realm of probability, while the fact that the chimp had already been exhibiting aggressive behavior removes the need of the drug as a possibility.

Neither you nor GreNME have posted anything that makes me change that assessment.

No, and I suspect that there's very little that would give you reason to admit that you're incorrect anyway. You seem more determined to be 'right' than you do to be accurate.

It's curious, however, why either of you are so invested in the drug not having contributed. It makes no sense to me since being a health care provider who actually prescribes drugs, I am familiar with paradoxical reactions and they are not so rare as to think something like Occam's Razor applies here.

And again with the vague personal attack. I'm not "invested" in whether the drug contributed, I am instead concerned that people not include woo-ish mental exercises to come to conclusions as to why what happened actually happened. The main reason why the attack happened was that the woman anthropomorphized an animal that may have seemed to exhibit human behavior but was not. The issue at hand is people trying to keep wild animals as domestic pets. Trying to turn it into an issue of drug reactions gone wrong is a misdirection from the reality of the situation, which is that chimpanzees make dangerous house pets regardless of drug treatments being involved. There is a growing issue with pet owners using behavior-modifying drugs with their domesticated animals, but that is a completely separate issue than this case despite what conclusions news agencies are attempting to jump to. Accusing me of having an agenda because I'm focusing on the actual causes instead of following the flight of fancy with no evidence might be effective as an emotional argument, but when critical thinking is applied to the reasons you've given so far nothing you've tried to argue as supporting your statements holds any water.

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, that is not possible.

I really don't understand what the problem is here.

I cited the side effects of Xanax and they included a number of things which were consistent with increased agitation.

I noted the peak plasma levels were rather rapid, not the therapeutic equilibrium GreNME mistakenly cited.

I cited the expert opinion of "animal-behavior expert Bonnie Beaver of Texas A&M University's College of Veterinary Medicine" who stated "Xanax can reduce inhibition, worsening aggression problems".

And I can tell you from experience as a medical provider who takes patient histories 5 days a week, patients don't judge time accurately. So we don't know if the woman gave the Xanax 5 minutes or 35 minutes before the actual attack. We don't know how much was given or what being dissolved in tea would do to the rate of absorption, but it would at least speed it up somewhat. (It's interesting that xanax is not soluble in water, but is soluble in alcohol. This adds to the evidence we don't really know exactly what the chimp was given.)

From this evidence I said it could have contributed to the chimp's aggression. I didn't say it did contribute or that the chimp's natural behavior was not the main contributor to the incident.

Neither you nor GreNME have posted anything that makes me change that assessment.

It's curious, however, why either of you are so invested in the drug not having contributed. It makes no sense to me since being a health care provider who actually prescribes drugs, I am familiar with paradoxical reactions and they are not so rare as to think something like Occam's Razor applies here.

You have no evidence it contributed. What you have is a correlation. You must provide proof that it contributed. "Possible" is a weasel word. It's possible I am Elvis's love child. It's possible the moon is made of cheese. It's possible that a drug developed for and tested on humans that was given in uncertain amounts to a non-human primate with unknown regularity had an unknown effect - which is saying very little.

Sure, if you were in a position to investigate the case I'd encourage you to follow your suspicion, but until and unless you can dig up something more substantial it's merely possible.

[Travis]

Wow. I am so terribly sorry I started all this unpleasantness with my little observation.

[GreNME]

I don't think you started it, Travis. It is weird (and stupid) that the woman was giving the chimp Xanax, which is a perfectly logical and reasonable observation on your part. I thought it was odd as well, especially given her explanation as to why she was doing it, which reminds me of people who give benadryl to their dogs who are 'overactive' (which is a dangerous practice).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow. I am so terribly sorry I started all this unpleasantness with my little observation.No worries. I'm certainly not concerned about the views of people who ignore relevant evidence and simply repeat over and over, it isn't there. It's curious is all.

[joobie]

The typical recommended dosage path for Xanax consists of regular daily dosages, not popping them like asprin to cure a headache. Note: Please read all the way to the bottom before responding.

[snippo]

As long as we're clear on the above, joobie, I'm willing to discuss with you whether or not I do indeed have a flawed understanding of how xanax works. Are we both cool with that?

believe it or not, i have read the inserts before.

do you want to now make a claim that every time it's prescribed PRN the doctor is wrong and you are right? because it is prescribed PRN a whole freaking lot.

Wow. I am so terribly sorry I started all this unpleasantness with my little observation.

your observation is correct, don't be sorry. you do not need to take xanax repeatedly for it to be effective and only someone that had never taken an effective dose would claim that.

is someone claiming that it's being prescribed grey label as a placebo for anxiety attacks?

[joobie]

i cannot get the picture to show up, but my prescription for xanax (generic: alprazolam) says take as needed (PRN). do you think i should sue my doctor for malpractice? i mean, it would be dangerous to prescribe a psychoactive drug in a manner it wasn't meant to be used...

[joobie]

here you go:

is my doctor a quack? should i sue? should i also sue the pharmacists involved? they are obviously complicit.

[GreNME]

I'm sorry, joobie, but I already made it clear that I'm not going to argue about whether someone here is taking the prescription from their doctor incorrectly. That is something that is between the person and their doctor, and it's not a line I feel comfortable crossing.

I've provided the evidence supporting what I'm saying, and I've gone into more detail than just arguing the recommended dosages. I've also pointed out the glaring fact that the animal was already showing aggressive behavior prior to the attack and prior to being given the drug, as well as highlighting the absorption times, which are double even the 35-minute claim made by skeptigirl. I've pointed out the constant confirmation bias throughout skeptigirl's post attempting to cite data, and I've pointed out that there's no need to include the drug as a factor when the behavior was already present.

I will let you know that I am (and have been) aware that there are doctors who will prescribe it as needed, but that doesn't change the actual data that's out there on the drug, all of which is based on regular dosages. If what you take according to your prescription helps you, then far be it from me to tell you that you're doing it wrong. However, regarding the case of the chimp who attacked someone, there is insufficient (as in no) data to support that this dose that was administered shortly before the attack had anything to do with the attack itself.

[joobie]

well, let me tell you this - i don't think the drug had anything to do with the attack.

as an anecdote though, i'll tell you that people who aren't somewhat tolerant to taking it sometimes lose a little bit of control...they stop caring not so much about what they do but what the repercussions of what they do. it is kind of hard to explain if you don't have any experience of taking it, though (or wxperience with people that have abused it).

i apologize if i took a somewhat confrontational tone.

[GreNME]

I didn't take what you were saying as confrontational. It's just one of those areas where I get uncomfortable for my own (hopefully obvious) reasons. I do also know about what you're saying regarding the drug reducing inhibitions and causing disregard of repercussions. It's something that's a common concern in many medications that treat the same things Xanax does (as well as a few similar conditions). I understand it because I'd been on several of those drugs several years ago and had experienced what you describe with a couple of them (prompting a change in prescription). I no longer use any of those medications, but I do remember how they affect someone in ways that are difficult to describe in a clinical fashion.

But yeah, in the end what I'm sticking to is the likelihood of the drug having been present in the chimp's body for long enough to have had any effects at all, to which I would have to say there is none. As for the use of the drug with people, I take a firm stance that it's between the person taking the drug and their doctor. When it comes to use of drugs with animals, mainly pets, I'm a bit more opinionated because I do have knowledge and experience with animal experience and plenty of study on the effects of many drugs on different animals-- more than just knowing that you aren't supposed to give a dog some tylenol (which could kill them).

[joobie]

i do know that sometimes animals (by which i mean dogs and cats) are prescribed drugs in the same class - for example if you are driving across country with your pet your vet might give you some to keep it quiet...which i don't necessarily agree with.

i agree that "people drugs" should not be administered to a pet without the proper precautions - talk to your vet, please!

[GreNME]

I definitely agree there. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

No worries. I'm certainly not concerned about the views of people who ignore relevant evidence and simply repeat over and over, it isn't there. It's curious is all.

Pot. Kettle.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've not ignored any evidence, ID. I addressed the points which were made.

I addressed the rate of absorption. In addition, I have expertise in this area having a license to prescribe drugs while GreNME has demonstrated a lack of expertise confusing therapeutic equilibrium with onset of drug reaction and peak blood levels after ingestion.

The fact the drug could have contributed does not ignore or contradict the claims it didn't necessarily contribute. Occams razor does not apply. It is not a mandate that one ignore all contributing variables and only choose a single variable to explain an incident.

And I supported my position citing the known potential drug reaction.

Which points have I failed to address?

You two, OTOH, have not addressed the objection I have made to Occam's Razor, the rate of absorption, or the reliability of a patient's history. And continuing to call a potential variable a red herring is simply false.

Could Xanax affect the aggressiveness of an animal? Of course it could. A red herring would be something that was not potentially related to the chimps behavior.

[ImaginalDisc]

You have insufficient data on non-human primate reaction to the drug, information about the dosage he was taking, the frequency, and how long he had been taking it.

You have nothing.

[GreNME]

I've not ignored any evidence, ID. I addressed the points which were made.

Making excuses for ignoring something is not addressing them.

I addressed the rate of absorption. In addition, I have expertise in this area having a license to prescribe drugs while GreNME has demonstrated a lack of expertise confusing therapeutic equilibrium with onset of drug reaction and peak blood levels after ingestion.

Are you saying that you're a doctor? How much experience have you had studying the effects of a drug like Xanax on non-human animals? I've had two direct experiences (in assistance capacity) and have access to someone who has handled clinical trials for his post-doctoral work on a number of related drugs. You keep dancing around the issue that the effects and dosages of Xanax are well-documented so that your contradictory assertions aren't shown to be lacking substantiation. Your problem, not mine.

The fact the drug could have contributed does not ignore or contradict the claims it didn't necessarily contribute. Occams razor does not apply. It is not a mandate that one ignore all contributing variables and only choose a single variable to explain an incident.

Unless you can somehow demonstrate how, in any recordable and repeatable fashion, the drug can achieve absorption more than 12 times faster than its known absorption rate in a chimp, then your "could have" claim does not apply. Since I'm pretty certain that the absorption rate would have been very similar to that of a human of the same weight (200 pounds)-- though you can feel free to demonstrate otherwise-- then yes, Occam's Razor dictates that it is an irrelevant variable.

And I supported my position citing the known potential drug reaction.

In a study that used regular daily doses. Funny how you continually ignore that fact to support your confirmation bias.

Which points have I failed to address?

All of them.

You two, OTOH, have not addressed the objection I have made to Occam's Razor, the rate of absorption, or the reliability of a patient's history. And continuing to call a potential variable a red herring is simply false.

You have a long way to go to show that the absorption would have bee 12 times faster in this single-dose case than in cases of the quick end of absorption in those receiving daily dosages. Reliability of a patient's history? More red herring nonsense. You're now getting to the point where you want to argue a slew of unrelated material just so you don't have to admit that perhaps you jumped the gun. Again, that's your problem, not mine.

Could Xanax affect the aggressiveness of an animal?

Not if it hasn't been absorbed.

Of course it could. A red herring would be something that was not potentially related to the chimps behavior.

No, a red herring is something that could not possibly be a factor, like the fact that you keep arguing absorption but can only show evidence of absorption in those who receive regular daily doses, which is completely unrelated to this case. You may as well be arguing that a Volkswagen beetle only gets two miles to the gallon by showing evidence of a city bus getting two miles to the gallon.

You're not even presenting a convincing argument to ImaginalDisk, who has already stated a suspicion that would tend to agree with your original statement. Since you're not even presenting an argument that someone who would prefer to agree with you finds adequate, perhaps you should re-evaluate your approach here and re-think how you're presenting it. Maybe the problem here isn't everyone else.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have insufficient data on non-human primate reaction to the drug, information about the dosage he was taking, the frequency, and how long he had been taking it.

You have nothing.Insufficient data to say something was possible?

Is there something about the definitions of, 'could have contributed', and, 'did contribute', that you don't get?

[luchog]

Insufficient data to say something was possible?

Is there something about the definitions of, 'could have contributed', and, 'did contribute', that you don't get?
Without real, substantive supporting evidence, the former is just meaningless speculation; and the latter baseless assertion.

So far, no evidence has been provided that supports either "could have" or "did"; and what evidence is available supports "could not have under the circumstances presented".

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I find bizarre in this exchange is the claim that known drug reactions and the confession later withdrawn that the chimp was given Xanax is supposedly not evidence, while a chimp that was used to the company of people and had only bitten someone in the past is claimed as evidence it reverted to an extremely aggressive state without unusual provocation.

So speculating it reverted to its instinctual aggression is considered not speculating, but exhibiting behavior consistent with a known drug reaction is considered speculation.

This animal bit someone in the past. It never acted in such an extreme way. In addition, not all chimps, in the wild or in captivity are this aggressive. If they were it wouldn't have taken Jane Goodall decades of observation before observing such behavior.

[GreNME]

In addition, not all chimps, in the wild or in captivity are this aggressive. If they were it wouldn't have taken Jane Goodall decades of observation before observing such behavior.

Now you're just making stuff up. Goodall noticed plenty of aggressive behavior-- between the chimps she observed. Comparing Goodall's research with this situation is the height of either ignorance or desperation on your part.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is plenty of evidence here that pet chimp aggression of the specific severity in this incident is extremely rare. Aggression is common, and fatal attacks common under certain circumstances. But the severity of this attack was not typical for a pet chimp under these circumstances.

Was it impossible? Obviously not. Could it have just been the chimp's nature. Yes. Is it certain nothing else was involved? No way. That is pure speculation.

Is it based on some evidence? Yes. So is the potential for the Xanax to have contributed.



More Males Chimps Means More Territorial Patrols, Study Shows (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051018072735.htm)Scientists have known for about 25 years that the patrols and fatal attacks occur, the question has been what accounts for the varying number and frequency of these patrols and attacks.

Researchers hypothesized that five variables might impact the number of patrols: food availability, hunting activity, the presence of estrous females, intruder pressure, and male party size....

..."The take home of all of this is that male numbers seem to matter, they find strength in numbers in doing this behavior, and they find strength in making these attacks," Mitani said.

Chimps are our closest living relatives, and it's tempting to draw analogies between human and chimp behavior, especially because it's very rare for mammals to seek out and attack neighbors in this way. But Mitani said the situation is much more complicated than that.

Male-Female Aggression in Chimpanzees
(http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/department/research/biological/nnf_aggression.html)Male chimpanzees sometimes show extreme levels of aggression and violence towards females (Muller 2002)....

...There is good evidence from my preliminary analysis that male aggression in chimpanzees does function as sexual coercion, in all three forms. Male chimpanzees use aggression to achieve mating – grabbing a female and holding her down while copulating (forced copulation), and repeatedly targeting a female until she copulates (harassment) after which the aggression stops. There are also indications that aggression against females not showing sexual swellings (intimidation) leads to future compliance. Such aggression is a “consistent and regular” aspect of the lives of female chimpanzees, to the extent that they will experience it repeated in a time-frame of days to weeks.Not the kind of agression which would be expected to maim and kill.

Lethal Intergroup Aggression by Chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mitani/files/watts_et_al_2006.pdf)Hostilities include aggressive encounters between members of neighboring communities during foraging and during patrols in which members of one community search for neighbors near territory boundaries. Attacks on neighbors involve coalitions of adult males, and are sometimes fatal. Targets include members of all age/sex classes, but the risk of lethal intergroup coalitionary aggression is highest for adult males and infants, and lowest for sexually swollen females....

...Our observations are consistent with the ‘‘imbalance of power’’ hypothesis [Manson & Wrangham, Current Anthropology 32:369–390, 1991] and support the argument that lethal coalitionary intergroup aggression by male chimpanzees is part of an evolved behavioral strategy.

Aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Aggression)

Chimps are highly territorial and are known to kill other chimps. [27] In February, 2009, after a relatively rare incident in which a pet chimp named Travis attacked a woman in Stamford, CT, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a primate pet ban in the United States.[28](emphasis mine)

[GreNME]

There is plenty of evidence here that pet chimp aggression of the specific severity in this incident is extremely rare. Aggression is common, and fatal attacks common under certain circumstances. But the severity of this attack was not typical for a pet chimp under these circumstances.

Was it impossible? Obviously not. Could it have just been the chimp's nature. Yes. Is it certain nothing else was involved? No way. That is pure speculation.

Is it based on some evidence? Yes. So is the potential for the Xanax to have contributed.



More Males Chimps Means More Territorial Patrols, Study Shows (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051018072735.htm)

Male-Female Aggression in Chimpanzees
(http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/department/research/biological/nnf_aggression.html)Not the kind of agression which would be expected to maim and kill.

Lethal Intergroup Aggression by Chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mitani/files/watts_et_al_2006.pdf)

Aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Aggression)(emphasis mine)

Do you quote-mine to support every single argument you refuse to admit you have no evidence about?

Chimps are known to be violent to other chimps, especially males or what they perceive as threats to their social position. This inherently makes them dangerous and stupid to keep as pets. Almost all chimps that become pets are taken when they are children into domestic or highly-trained settings, like for films or television (this particular chimp had an illustrious youth as an actor). Despite taking them at a young age and familiarizing them with people, chimps still have the innate, instinctual responses of aggression relating to how they perceive social structure. This is behind practically every attack involving a chimp kept as a pet, with those that aren't due to that reason involving a chimp attacking a child (thinking it's a monkey) or a person with a woman (which also sets them off).

None of this is news to anyone who knows even the basics of animal behavior regarding chimps. It's not news because it's based directly on research like that of Goodall's, whose writings on chimp behavior support these things completely (and no, I'm not going to quote-mine for you-- go learn yourself a book). That you persist in trying to mine as much text as you can out of context because you refuse to admit that your statement was ridiculous-- not only in that you can cite zero drug research that would support absorption, but in that you are required to quote-mine to argue against chimps' inherent aggressiveness-- is only highlighting just how adamant you are in refusing to simply state "mea culpa" and be done with it.

What exactly is it about admitting that perhaps you jumped the gun that's so incredibly difficult for you? I went back and forth with supplying you numerous links regarding chimp/human relations, most of those involving them being pets ending badly, but thought twice about bothering because you apparently can't even be bothered to glean the context of the links you provide yourself which support the same hypothesis: that chimps are aggressive, and even chimps who only rarely exhibit such behavior (which is the context you mistook in your quote-mining) are ultimately dangerous to either the owners or to the friends or family to the owners when they get older (and more aggressive).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you quote-mine to support every single argument you refuse to admit you have no evidence about?....You call providing supporting evidence quote mining????? That's a new one.

Quote mining implies taking things out of context. If you wish to address anything I posted as being out of context make your case. But just dismissing an argument supported with evidence as quote mining isn't much of a case.


Chimps are known to be violent to other chimps, especially males or what they perceive as threats to their social position. This inherently makes them dangerous and stupid to keep as pets. Almost all chimps that become pets are taken when they are children into domestic or highly-trained settings, like for films or television (this particular chimp had an illustrious youth as an actor). Despite taking them at a young age and familiarizing them with people, chimps still have the innate, instinctual responses of aggression relating to how they perceive social structure. This is behind practically every attack involving a chimp kept as a pet, with those that aren't due to that reason involving a chimp attacking a child (thinking it's a monkey) or a person with a woman (which also sets them off).How many examples of chimps killing or nearly killing humans did you find? How many attacks on humans by pet chimps with an equivalent degree of viciousness did you find?

The rest is a straw man. I've not said chimps were fine pets. I've not said they weren't aggressive. I'm merely pointing out where you've speculated beyond what the evidence supports.

Can a chimp kill a person? Yes.
Can Xanax increase the aggressiveness of an animal? Yes.

None of this is news to anyone who knows even the basics of animal behavior regarding chimps. It's not news because it's based directly on research like that of Goodall's, whose writings on chimp behavior support these things completely (and no, I'm not going to quote-mine for you-- go learn yourself a book).All straw man. I'm very familiar with Goodall's work. She did not see chimp murders and wars until years into her observations at Gombe. She speaks of almost missing it had she stopped her observations sooner.

That you persist in trying to mine as much text as you can out of context because you refuse to admit that your statement was ridiculous-- not only in that you can cite zero drug research that would support absorption, but in that you are required to quote-mine to argue against chimps' inherent aggressiveness-- is only highlighting just how adamant you are in refusing to simply state "mea culpa" and be done with it.

What exactly is it about admitting that perhaps you jumped the gun that's so incredibly difficult for you? I went back and forth with supplying you numerous links regarding chimp/human relations, most of those involving them being pets ending badly, but thought twice about bothering because you apparently can't even be bothered to glean the context of the links you provide yourself which support the same hypothesis: that chimps are aggressive, and even chimps who only rarely exhibit such behavior (which is the context you mistook in your quote-mining) are ultimately dangerous to either the owners or to the friends or family to the owners when they get older (and more aggressive).You haven't made a case anything I posted was out of context.

I'm amazed at the conclusions here that differ from mine. I am merely trying to get at the basis for why we are viewing this matter differently. At the same time, you seem to think that the potential for natural aggressiveness is evidence while the potential for a drug reaction is not evidence. I find those to be equally valid hypotheses.

This degree of aggressiveness is rare, yet you have no problem assigning certainty to your hypotheses. I've not assigned any certainty to either hypothesis, rather, I simply don't see how the evidence rules out the potential for the Xanax to have affected this chimp's behavior.

[GreNME]

You call providing supporting evidence quote mining????? That's a new one.

I call what you're doing quote mining, because you can't seem to explain the context of a single link you provide, instead swiping a sentence or a sentence fragment from each, claiming that it supports your case. The fact that the whole of every single link you've provided in this thread is of a completely different context than what you are trying to draw from it pretty much covers the fact that you're quote mining. I've already pointed that much out the first time you tried to link-quote your way out of admitting your error, so do you really want me to point out your errors on the recent one?

Quote mining implies taking things out of context. If you wish to address anything I posted as being out of context make your case. But just dismissing an argument supported with evidence as quote mining isn't much of a case.

Well, for one, your "emphasis mine" over the incomplete statement "after a relatively rare incident" in the last link you gave, where you completely ignored the context that "relatively rare" is not talking about what you're trying to imply it's talking about. Read your own damned (wikipedia) link, for crissakes. It offers a whole section on human-chimp interactions, though I'd agree that it's sorely lacking in depth if you want to argue that much. You're cherry-picking half a sentence to try to justify a wild assertion on your part without a smidgen of contextual basis, while your other links that give a more descriptive explanation of chimp aggression point out that it's indeed not a "relatively rare" occurrence. You perform these feats of linked quote mines to try to support your rhetoric, when the very links you're providing show how off-context you are!

How many examples of chimps killing or nearly killing humans did you find? How many attacks on humans by pet chimps with an equivalent degree of viciousness did you find?

Hay-zeus, did you even bother reading the next section in your wikipedia link? That alone has a few notable cases. Practically every chimp-as-a-pet case tends to result in someone being hurt in some way, as there are whole populations of these chimps in nature reserves as a condition of their continued survival as opposed to being put down. Again, the freaking wikipedia link you gave itself links to one such case of a couple who were attacked at a reserve for chimps, as they were visiting their own chimp who bit the finger of a friend. How do you miss these things and still claim to be using your links in context?

The rest is a straw man. I've not said chimps were fine pets. I've not said they weren't aggressive. I'm merely pointing out where you've speculated beyond what the evidence supports.

Your entire argument in both this post and the last post I responded to have been long-form red herrings to try to bring the argument further away from the properties of the incident itself, because you can in no way prove any level of absorption that is suppported by any medical documentation of the drug you keep claiming "might have" had an effect despite all evidence pointing to it not having any bearing.

Can a chimp kill a person? Yes.
Can Xanax increase the aggressiveness of an animal? Yes.

More misdirection. The proper question is "Can xanax have an effect on any creature before it is absorbed by the body of said creature?" The answer to that question is "absolutely not."

All straw man. I'm very familiar with Goodall's work. She did not see chimp murders and wars until years into her observations at Gombe. She speaks of almost missing it had she stopped her observations sooner.

You're BS-ing now (and being quite ironic in your accusations of "straw man"). Goodall didn't write about chimps engaging in systematic warfare until two decades into her research, because she was studying the complexity of it and was not jumping to conclusions-- which, ironically (again), you seem to be adept at. Claiming that she didn't notice violence in general is again trying to bring this conversation further away from the incident in the OP.

You haven't made a case anything I posted was out of context.

You may not be convinced of that-- and again I doubt anything I ever say here will change that-- but I bet if others weighed in on the matter they would tell you a different story.

I'm amazed at the conclusions here that differ from mine. I am merely trying to get at the basis for why we are viewing this matter differently. At the same time, you seem to think that the potential for natural aggressiveness is evidence while the potential for a drug reaction is not evidence. I find those to be equally valid hypotheses.

Yeah, it's really weird that everyone else is getting it wrong and you're the only one getting it right at this point. :rolleyes:

This degree of aggressiveness is rare, yet you have no problem assigning certainty to your hypotheses.

You obviously have not bothered to read your own links. You post one link about aggression between male and female chimps, ignoring the findings that in only 1600 hours of observation nearly 500 incidents of violence occurred, which amounts to practically seven incidents per day. In your PDF link the very first page defies your claim that my 'hypothesis' is incorrect, stating flatly that "[c]himpanzees have hostile intergroup relations throughout most or all of their geographic range," right there in the very first sentence, then going on to define the different ways in which these hostile relations play out. Your link on patrols is not saying what you think it seems to be saying, since the article is more about the social phenomenon of the patrols (where they actually walk in single file and silently, only attacking when they outnumber the neighbors) than it does about aggressiveness in chimps (though the fact that they almost always attack outnumbered neighbors is not surprising). In other words, as I keep having to repeat to you, your own links are betraying your attempts at sounding like you know more than you actually do.

I've not assigned any certainty to either hypothesis, rather, I simply don't see how the evidence rules out the potential for the Xanax to have affected this chimp's behavior.

The evidence rules out the potential because there is no medically possible way that the xanax had time to absorb into the chimp's system. I've already pointed this out a number of times, but you continue on these wild goose chases of mining quotes to avoid having to admit that your own links support my thesis that there is no way the xanax would have absorbed, thus having no method by which to affect the behavior of the chimp in any way.

[GreNME]

A quick recap:

The main determining factors in the assertion that xanax had nothing to do with this situation were that there was no regular dosing occurring that we know of (the animal had no prescription), and as a result any evidence of a fast absorption uptake is not supported by the known medical documentation on the drug itself. Supporting this assertion that the mention of xanax is a red herring would be that the event does not fall outside of normal known chimpanzee behavior, in that they can be unpredictably aggressive, even to the point where they put people into hospitals with the severity of their attacks. As was pointed out in a post from someone else early on, something as simple as the friend wearing her hair differently could have triggered a reaction in the chimp, as well as a myriad of other unknown details about the situation-- anything from the owner being agitated or surprised that day to the friend wearing a different perfume or outfit-- that could have contributed but are not detailed in any of the descriptions due to the scant information by the owner and the unavailability of any other eyewitness accounts (which on their own often tend to have problems with observational details). Still, based on what is known currently of chimpanzee behavior, the incident is perfectly traceable to some factor of the visit that day being misinterpreted by the chimp in some fashion to warrant an aggressive response, and considering the owner has already mentioned that the chimp was behaving agitated and aggressive prior to the attack it's not a leap to assume that whatever the trigger was it didn't have to be very large.

This is one of the dangers of keeping chimps as pets. People, in their everyday interactions, deal with a certain amount of mental compartmentalization and even a fair amount of cognitive dissonance in order to get through our daily lives. Chimps, and admittedly most of the animal kingdom, do not have these same mental and social mechanisms with which to operate, thus making expectations that they integrate peacefully into everyday human interactions a dangerous expectation at best, disastrously inadequate at the worst. Unlike domesticate animals, chimpanzees will not defer to the body language or social signals of the people around them, and will instead act independent of the human behavior present with their own interpretation of what's going on. That some of these actions result in violence or aggression is simply the product of normal chimpanzee social behavior, which includes very physical displays of dominance, frustration, surprise, and prey drive (there's sometimes an element of playfulness, but those don't usually result in broken bones or lacerations and bites). The triggers for such actions are not the same as they are in domestic animals (or not in all cases), and as such instances of chimps under human care are typically kept in environments that remain pretty static and do not require having to regularly deal with unknown elements-- hands-on researchers typically spend weeks or months establishing a non-threatening presence to avoid confrontations.

Given that this information is not new or unknown regarding chimpanzee behavior, the attack itself from the OP is neither surprising nor outrageous, given the environment the chimp was in to begin with (a home setting, treated as a child by the woman). It's tragic nonetheless, but there isn't much complexity to the case based on what is known of chimp behavior. As such, the inclusion of xanax as a determining factor in and of itself becomes rather unnecessary, but it becomes impractical and improbable when the infrequency and timing of the dosage is taken into account. There would not have been sufficient time for the single dose that was administered to have absorbed into the chimp's body to begin having any effect, and as such any assumptions that the dose had somehow affected the behavior of the chimp would require the drug acting in a way that is incongruous with medical research on how the drug interacts with the body when even regular active dosing takes place, let alone when the drug is taken as a single dose. The available medical data not only doesn't support the hypothesis that the drug could have been interacting, the available data contradicts such a hypothesis outright, leaving the simpler explanation of normal chimpanzee behavior as the basis behind the attack that took place.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A quick recap:

The main determining factors in the assertion that xanax had nothing to do with this situation were that there was no regular dosing occurring that we know of (the animal had no prescription), and as a result any evidence of a fast absorption uptake is not supported by the known medical documentation on the drug itself. You are arguing from ignorance here. You were told reaching a therapeutic equilibrium was a misunderstanding of how Xanax works. Yet you persist in this mistake. I have a license to prescribe this drug and do understand the difference between therapeutic equilibrium, peak plasma concentration, and onset of action. You are putting your foot in your mouth continuing to insist that therapeutic blood levels are the same as acute onset of action and peak plasma levels after ingestion.

Some drugs have a delayed therapeutic effect depending on where they act and how well they diffuse into the tissues where the drug effects take place. In addition, sometimes it is the drug metabolites which act.

Neither of these conditions are true for Xanax. We titrate the dose up slowly to avoid a lethal overdose. Xanax has a narrow therapeutic range.

The peak blood levels are reached in as short as an hour. Following oral administration, alprazolam is readily absorbed. Peak concentrations in the plasma occur in 1 to 2 hours following administration. Plasma levels are proportionate to the dose given

The fact a prescriber would start with a low dose and titrate up to a therapeutic dose in a patient has no bearing on a non-prescriber giving a sedative to an agitated pet chimp.

And, the drug could begin to act well before the peak plasma concentration was reached.

This argument fails.



Supporting this assertion that the mention of xanax is a red herring would be that the event does not fall outside of normal known chimpanzee behavior, in that they can be unpredictably aggressive, even to the point where they put people into hospitals with the severity of their attacks. As was pointed out in a post from someone else early on, something as simple as the friend wearing her hair differently could have triggered a reaction in the chimp, as well as a myriad of other unknown details about the situation-- anything from the owner being agitated or surprised that day to the friend wearing a different perfume or outfit-- that could have contributed but are not detailed in any of the descriptions due to the scant information by the owner and the unavailability of any other eyewitness accounts (which on their own often tend to have problems with observational details). Still, based on what is known currently of chimpanzee behavior, the incident is perfectly traceable to some factor of the visit that day being misinterpreted by the chimp in some fashion to warrant an aggressive response, and considering the owner has already mentioned that the chimp was behaving agitated and aggressive prior to the attack it's not a leap to assume that whatever the trigger was it didn't have to be very large.This argument is a straw man. Yet you insist on repeating it.

I have not argued against the hypothesis the Xanax did not significantly affect the behavior. I merely pointed out the level of aggressiveness in this attack was extremely rare which means you have to speculate a rare degree of aggressiveness was purely a natural phenomena. But at the same time you cannot rule out Xanax as a contributing factor.

Because it is a straw man to claim I am saying Xanax had to contrubute, this argument also fails.



This is one of the dangers of keeping chimps as pets. People, in their everyday interactions, deal with a certain amount of mental compartmentalization and even a fair amount of cognitive dissonance in order to get through our daily lives. Chimps, and admittedly most of the animal kingdom, do not have these same mental and social mechanisms with which to operate, thus making expectations that they integrate peacefully into everyday human interactions a dangerous expectation at best, disastrously inadequate at the worst. Unlike domesticate animals, chimpanzees will not defer to the body language or social signals of the people around them, and will instead act independent of the human behavior present with their own interpretation of what's going on. That some of these actions result in violence or aggression is simply the product of normal chimpanzee social behavior, which includes very physical displays of dominance, frustration, surprise, and prey drive (there's sometimes an element of playfulness, but those don't usually result in broken bones or lacerations and bites). The triggers for such actions are not the same as they are in domestic animals (or not in all cases), and as such instances of chimps under human care are typically kept in environments that remain pretty static and do not require having to regularly deal with unknown elements-- hands-on researchers typically spend weeks or months establishing a non-threatening presence to avoid confrontations.

Given that this information is not new or unknown regarding chimpanzee behavior, the attack itself from the OP is neither surprising nor outrageous, given the environment the chimp was in to begin with (a home setting, treated as a child by the woman). It's tragic nonetheless, but there isn't much complexity to the case based on what is known of chimp behavior. ...This rant reflects an emotional attachment to your position.



As such, the inclusion of xanax as a determining factor in and of itself becomes rather unnecessary, but it becomes impractical and improbable when the infrequency and timing of the dosage is taken into account. There would not have been sufficient time for the single dose that was administered to have absorbed into the chimp's body to begin having any effect, and as such any assumptions that the dose had somehow affected the behavior of the chimp would require the drug acting in a way that is incongruous with medical research on how the drug interacts with the body when even regular active dosing takes place, let alone when the drug is taken as a single dose. The available medical data not only doesn't support the hypothesis that the drug could have been interacting, the available data contradicts such a hypothesis outright, leaving the simpler explanation of normal chimpanzee behavior as the basis behind the attack that took place.You've just repeated your false conclusions from the first paragraph about the effects of a single dose of Xanax and the timing of the onset of those effects. I suggest you consider a little more reading on the effect of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system.



Alprazolam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alprazolam)Alprazolam is classed as a high potency benzodiazepine and is a triazolobenzodiazepine,[8][9] that is, a benzodiazepine with a triazole ring attached to its structure. Benzodiazepines produce a variety of therapeutic and adverse effects by binding to the benzodiazepine site on the GABAA receptor and modulating the function of the GABA receptor, the most prolific inhibitory receptor within the brain.

Alprazolam is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract with a bioavailability of 80–100%. The peak plasma concentration is achieved in 1-2 hours.

Paradoxical Reactions

Although unusual, if the following paradoxical reactions occur, the prescribing physician or other healthcare profressional should be alerted and the medication gradually discontinued:

* muscle twitching and tremor[41]
* aggression [42]
* rage, hostility[43]
* mania, agitation, hyperactivity and restlessness[44][45][46]


Brain-Disabling Effects Of Benzodiazepines (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/benz03.htm) Mania, a psychosis, is a special danger in regard to Xanax. The Drug Facts and Comparisons (p. 1440) makes a specific reference to Xanax in this regard, stating that Anger, hostility and episodes of mania and hypomania have been noted with alprazolam.

The fact that mania is a particular risk with Xanax is generally recognized. As another example, Maxmen and Ward's Psychotropic Drug Fast Facts (1995, p. 287) states that manic reactions are Most often reported with alprazolam.

It also states that rage reactions and violent episodes have especially been observed with Xanax and Valium. Yet another example is The Handbook of Psychiatric Drug Therapy (Third edition, 1995, p. 177) by Hyman, Arana, and Rosenbaum.

It singles out Xanax to observe Increased impulsiveness, euphoria, and frank mania have been reported with alprazolam.

Drug Facts and Comparisons, Psychotropic Drug Fast Facts and the Handbook of Psychiatric Drug therapy are intended for ready reference for physicians for the purpose of alerting them to adverse drug reactions they need to be aware of.

That all three indicate that mania and uncontrollable rage are special problems with Xanax confirms my own clinical observations that this medication is more apt than many others to produce these hyper-excited, aggressive psychotic states.

The FDA's Safety Review and Evaluation of Clinical Data by J. Knudsen (1989) for Xanax for panic disorder once again highlighted its tendency to produce mania.

It included a review of Xanax-induced mania from the literature. It described several cases of mania produced in the panic disorder clinical studies and offered two tables described 14 cases of hypomania and one of mania.

Several attacks developed during the first week of treatment at relatively small doses.

Immediate effects of Benzodiazepines (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/drugAndAlcohol/benzodiazepines.html)The effects of benzodiazepines may last from a few hours to a few days, depending on the dose and type of benzo you take. The immediate effects can include that you:

* feel relaxed
* feel drowsy, sleepy or tired
* have no energy
* become confused or dizzy
* feel really good
* have mood swings
* slur your words or stutter
* can't judge distances or movement properly
* have blurred or double vision
* can't remember things from just a short time ago.
In other words, confusion can occur very shortly after taking the drugs.

Absorption & Distribution (http://curriculum.toxicology.wikispaces.net/Benzodiazepines)All benzodiazepines are lipid soluble drugs that are absorbed fairly rapidly. The rate of absorption is an important variable in determining the clinical effects of benzodiazepines. Rapid rises in serum concentrations lead to greater depth of sedation than slow rises to the same concentrations.

All these drugs are highly protein bound and have volumes of distributions of about 1 L/kg. They distribute well into the central nervous system.(emphasis mine)

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The evidence rules out the potential because there is no medically possible way that the xanax had time to absorb into the chimp's system. I've already pointed this out a number of times, but you continue on these wild goose chases of mining quotes to avoid having to admit that your own links support my thesis that there is no way the xanax would have absorbed, thus having no method by which to affect the behavior of the chimp in any way.:footinmou

You keep digging in your heels, but you are just sinking deeper into a hole. You just don't know what you are talking about here. You call citing pharmacological references on the drug's rate of absorption, peak plasma levels, and recognized paradoxical adverse effects as "quote mining".

Do you think they should take my prescriptive authority away and give it to people who've read a couple drug inserts instead? No need for any pharmacology studies. No need for a medical education. Anyone can figure the stuff out from a few paragraphs, right?

:rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
You're BS-ing now (and being quite ironic in your accusations of "straw man"). Goodall didn't write about chimps engaging in systematic warfare until two decades into her research, because she was studying the complexity of it and was not jumping to conclusions-- which, ironically (again), you seem to be adept at. Claiming that she didn't notice violence in general is again trying to bring this conversation further away from the incident in the OP.....Wow, when this discussion started, I gave you a lot more credit for knowledge than you apparently deserved.

You need to read more about Goodall's work. She has written extensively about almost missing the warfare. It actually didn't start until they stopped giving a large amount of food to the chimps. The practice which grew over time had begun to interfere with the observations. After the banana train stopped, the chimp group fractured into two groups which later went to war that lasted off and on for several years.

It's really as fascinating story. You'd probably find it worth reading.

I can only find books on the Gombe wars and no short source citations with a decent summary. But I did find the dates (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f28v68q270x44669/). Goodall started her observations in 1960. The Chimp war began in 1974 and lasted until 1978.


Wait, I found this summary. (http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/default.asp)In the summer of 1960, 26-year-old Jane Goodall arrived on the shore of Lake Tanganyika in East Africa to study the area's chimpanzee population.

...Through the years her work continued to yield surprising insights, such as the unsettling discovery that chimpanzees engage in a primitive form of brutal “warfare.” In early 1974, a "four-year war" began at Gombe, the first record of long-term warfare in nonhuman primates. Members of the Kasakela group systematically annihilated members of the "Kahama" splinter group. The female chimp who (with her male offspring I believe) carried out serial infanticide murders also didn't occur until many years after Goodall was observing the chimps. National Geo did a documentary on that episode.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's someone's essay citing Goodall's account of the war and the infanticide episode.

"CHIMPANZEE CANNABALISM AND INFANTICIDE" (http://www.essaysample.com/essay/000836.html)In 1972 the chimpanzees of Gombe divided into two groups: the southern group(Kahama)and the northern group(Kasakela). This was the start of what Jane Goodall called the "four year war." In 1974, a gang of five chimpanzees from the Kasakela community caught a single male of the Kahama group. They hit, kicked, and bit him for twenty minutes and left him bleeding from many serious wounds. A month later after this original occurrence another prime Kahama male was caught by three chimps from Kasakela and severely beaten. A few weeks later he was found, terribly thin and with a deep unhealed gash in his thigh. There were three more brutal attacks leaving three more Kahama chimpanzees dead before 1977.(Goodall, 1979:606) By 1978 the northern males had killed all of the southern group and took over both areas. "It seems that we have been observing a phenomenon rarely recorded in field studies-the gradual extermination of one group of animals by another, stronger, group."(Goodall, 1979:608) There is no clear reason for these brutal attacks to have taken place unless that the dominant northern males before the community split, had access to the southern community and they were just trying to attain their land back. "We know, today, that chimpanzees can be aggressively territorial."(Goodall, 1992:14)

In August of 1975, Gilka a chimpanzee mother was sitting with her infant when suddenly Passion, another mother appeared and chased her. Gilka ran screaming but Passion who was bigger and stronger caught up, attacked, seized, and killed the baby. She then proceeded to eat the flesh of the infant and share the gruesome remains with her adolescent daughter, Pom and her infant son, Prof. This was the first observed instance of cannibalistic behavior shown by Passion and Pom.(Goodall, 1992:22) About a year after this incident, Gilka gave birth to another infant and this time it was Pom who seized the baby, but Passion and Prof again shared the flesh. There is no explanation why Passion and Pom behaved as they did.(Goodall, 1992:23)

The paper notes serious injury was extremely rare in the 30 years Goodall observed the chimps except for the war episodes and these murders. These fights can look extremely fierce and the victim screams loudly. But it is rare for a fight between community members to last longer than quarter of a minute, and it is even more unusual for such a fight to result in serious injury.(Goodall, 1992:7) ...

..."Ten very serious attacks on mothers or old females of neighboring communities have been recorded in Gombe since 1970; twice the infants of the victims were killed; one other infant died from wounds."(Goodall, 1979:599)

During the years of their rampaging, a total of ten infants died or disappeared and every instance point to Passion and Pom.(Goodall, 1979:616)


Feel free to "quote mine" the same papers (or others) for support of your opposing view. :rolleyes:

[GreNME]

If there were a "quantity versus quality" award, I'd certainly nominate your posts.

As it stands, I'm celebrating Saint Paddy's today, so I'm not really going to get into it today. I'll come back tomorrow and again point out how you insist on missing the forest through the trees with your confirmation bias.

Have a Guinness! :D

[GreNME]

Had my Guinness, hope you had yours. But I digress...

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing at this point, because now you're making a bunch of accusations at me, using a few technical terms (as strawmen) assuming I've asserted those specific terms. Then you spit out a few links under the assumption of authority, when your other (admittedly authoritative, but contradicting your points) links are pointed out as failing to establish your point. Time after time you've accused me of not having a clue of what I'm talking about, all the while ignoring the constant statements I've made about chimp behavior that unfortunately for you are confirmed by simply looking into more information on Travis the chimp. Unfortunately, the only way you seem to be able to make your case is to bring the discussion further and further away from the details of the incident itself, ignoring the other parts of what happened and focusing with a tight beam of confirmation bias in order to try to make your point.

For example: take a look, if you will, at the following CNN video (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vdmlkZW8vP0pTT05MSU5LPS 92aWRlby91cy8yMDA5LzAyLzE4L2FtLmNhcnJvbGwuY2hpbXAu YXR0YWNrLjAyLjE4LmNubg==). You'll no doubt notice early on where they repeat the red herring about the xanax, and they try to close the video with the xanax-attack connection as well, but watch the actual video itself. The footage you see is Travis, but it's not from 2009. It's from either 2003 or 2005, which were two other high-profile instances of Travis getting out and having to be brought back in by animal control. Those instances required tranquilizers, as did other instances in Travis' history of violent or aggressive behavior. Also described in the video is how Travis didn't only attack Herold's friend but had a police officer cornered in his car, requiring him to shoot Travis. What the video doesn't tell the viewer is that firing more than one shot into the chimp's chest didn't put it down-- it caused Travis to flee. Travis got all the way back into the house and died from blood loss. Still, despite the attempts of the reporters to call the attack "sudden" and to tie it to the xanax, the video also details that the chimp had been acting up all day, and that it had actually gotten loose (broken out) and Travis attacked Nash outside of the home. Again, it needs to be stressed that the video clips of Travis that is shown are from at least one of the previous incidents, not the one where Charla Nash was critically injured.

In the second part of the video (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vdmlkZW8vP0pTT05MSU5LPS 92aWRlby91cy8yMDA5LzAyLzE3L2FtLmludHYuY29yd2luLmNu bg==), the female reporter talks to a wildlife biologist (Jeff Corwin), who basically says the same things I did about chimp behavior-- that they're dangerous to keep in human homes, and can commonly attack. Corwin also makes an incredulous statement about Herold giving the chimp xanax, but in no way affirms the reporters' attempts to link the xanax to the attack. Instead, Corwin posits that the attack was a result of it being a case of territorial aggression, and with more information on the attack-- that it was outside, as Nash was just arriving-- that support his hypothesis. Corwin also goes on to point out that this sort of thing happens often with chimps being kept in human homes, saying that in almost every case it ends tragically.
6HdqQ_YlX5Q

Does Jeff Corwin, a biologist with far more credentials than you or I have, skeptigirl, have no clue of what he's saying? Are you willing to accept the word of an expert in the field making a direct statement on the incident itself, within the context of the incident itself?

However, further diluting the xanax case is the third part of the video (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vdmlkZW8vP0pTT05MSU5LPS 92aWRlby91cy8yMDA5LzAyLzE3L2FtLmNhcnJvbGwuY2hpbXAu cmFtcGFnZS5jbm4=), where the reporter closes with pointing out that the police suspect Lyme disease medication reacted badly. Nevermind the statements just prior to this third segment where an expert points out the obvious, the attempts to link the attack to a thing instead of an understanding of the behavior of these wild animals takes place on the reporters' side, while the expert makes basically the same case I have: that this had to do with regular chimp behavior.

Another video to look at is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsVFDvb588), which is about five minutes long, but the part I want to highlight is at about the 2:00 mark, where a woman who is part of a chimp preserve is speaking about chimps as pets, who also states that time after time, people who have chimps as pets wind up having to turn them in due to their behavior. She states clearly that it's not an issue of "if" regarding injuries from aggression or attacks, it's an issue of "when." This video even specifies the most likely time for "when" with chimps: after they mature into adulthood, where they continue to grow more aggressive, which is going to be supported by any other information on chimp aggression you can find out there.
txsVFDvb588

This video has three more people who have direct experience, skeptigirl. One of the three experienced an attack herself. Do these people not know what they're talking about?

Over and over again, skeptigirl, you're going to get from experts in chimp behavior that the cause of this attack was the fact that the human woman was keeping a chimp in her home as a pet, not some drug interaction. These things happen far too often with no drugs in play for this to be an instance of drug interaction. The fact that you continually refuse to acknowledge this is your own failing, not mine. You keep bringing up Goodall as if that shows some empirical proof of your claims, yet the only information from Goodall you cite is regarding community warfare between chimps. Even in your link to Goodall's page you ignore the context of what's being described, how she had to spend a year just earning their trust so they wouldn't flee, and the bulk of her observations in the 1960's being within the communities, not on the territorial aspects where chimp communities experienced conflict. You're continuing to quote mine, ignoring contextual setting in both your links regarding chimp behavior and in the drug links you provide, none of which establish anything like what you're trying to claim they do and none of them providing any information that would make the drug interaction more applicable to the actual incident at hand.

But that's really beside the point because I've just shown three experts and another person who had a chimp and experienced an attack, and they all say the same thing I've been saying, that this was a result of normal chimp behavior in an out-of-place human setting. Nothing you have (or can) provide in a link is going to be able to refute actual experts on the subject pointing out the facts and reality of the situation. Yet despite my pointing these experts out, I have little doubt you're going to cling tenaciously to your faulty arguments instead of admitting that perhaps you jumped to conclusions instead of critically assessing the facts.

[Alt+F4]

The victim's family is suing the chimp's owner for $50 million. As for the Xanax, police are still waiting for the toxology report to decide on criminal charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/18/chimp.victim/

[GreNME]

Interesting to note that they're also doing a necropsy, which is standard with animal attacks-- the chimps head was probably sent off to a different location so they can check for rabies. Since it came up as a possibility, I wonder also if they're checking for Lyme (it has as much of or more a contributing possibility than the xanax).

Still, if the police wanted to bring criminal charges, they could easily contact any of the people who run chimp reserves that take in former pets. Each and every one would testify that this type of thing is practically a certainty in chimps kept in human homes eventually.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The victim's family is suing the chimp's owner for $50 million. As for the Xanax, police are still waiting for the toxology report to decide on criminal charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/18/chimp.victim/And the law suit (http://www.fox61.com/pages/landing_news/?Chimp-Victims-Family-Files-Lawsuit=1&blockID=242317&feedID=341) also claims that Herold may have given the chimp Xanex that upset him the day of the attack.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I'm not sure what you're actually arguing at this point, because now you're making a bunch of accusations at me, using a few technical terms (as strawmen) assuming I've asserted those specific terms.Well, allow me to clarify it yet again.

Since I have not argued the aggression was unnatural, your claim that I've said it was unnatural behavior is a straw man.

Description of Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.


...
Then you spit out a few links under the assumption of authority, Authority, as in, I have prescriptive authority. It is a license to prescribe drugs that recognizes I have the education and understanding to do so.

Your comments about needing multiple doses of Xanax before an effect will be seen reveal your ignorance about how that drug works.

I don't mean to be insulting, but you insist on repeating the error you made about how Xanax works. You've made no attempt to understand what was wrong with your statements about needing multiple doses of Xanax before an effect occurred. It might dawn on you to check into that mistake considering I posted plenty of evidence for you.


...when your other (admittedly authoritative, but contradicting your points) links are pointed out as failing to establish your point.Care to point out what you think contradicts what?



...Time after time you've accused me of not having a clue of what I'm talking about, all the while ignoring the constant statements I've made about chimp behavior that unfortunately for you are confirmed by simply looking into more information on Travis the chimp.Here again is your straw man.

Since I have not argued the aggression was unnatural, your claim that I've said it was unnatural behavior is a straw man.

...Unfortunately, [snipped paragraphs of irrelevant discussion]...
.... Corwin also makes an incredulous statement about Herold giving the chimp xanax, but in no way affirms the reporters' attempts to link the xanax to the attack. Instead, Corwin posits that the attack was a result of it being a case of territorial aggression, and with more information on the attack-- ....
Does Jeff Corwin, a biologist with far more credentials than you or I have, skeptigirl, have no clue of what he's saying? Are you willing to accept the word of an expert in the field making a direct statement on the incident itself, within the context of the incident itself?Here again is your straw man.

Since I have not argued the aggression was unnatural, your claim that I've said it was unnatural behavior is a straw man.



...[snipped more irrelevant discussion]

Another video to look at is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsVFDvb588), which is about five minutes long, but the part I want to highlight is at about the 2:00 mark, where a woman who is part of a chimp preserve is speaking about chimps as pets, who also states that time after time, people who have chimps as pets wind up having to turn them in due to their behavior. She states clearly that it's not an issue of "if" regarding injuries from aggression or attacks, it's an issue of "when." ...

This video has three more people who have direct experience, skeptigirl. One of the three experienced an attack herself. Do these people not know what they're talking about?

Over and over again, skeptigirl, you're going to get from experts in chimp behavior that the cause of this attack was the fact that the human woman was keeping a chimp in her home as a pet, not some drug interaction. [snipped more repetition of the same straw man]Since I have not argued the aggression was unnatural, your claim that I've said it was unnatural behavior is a straw man.


Hopefully my repeating what I've been arguing will help you understand it.


To summarize, again what I've been saying ....

It's possible the Xanax had nothing to do with the attack.
It's possible the Xanax did increase the chimp's aggressive behavior.

[GreNME]

And the law suit (http://www.fox61.com/pages/landing_news/?Chimp-Victims-Family-Files-Lawsuit=1&blockID=242317&feedID=341)

Holy crap, did you miss the very next two sentences?

Willinger is doing research on cases involving other chimp attacks around the world. “One expert has equated having a chimp in your house like having a time-bomb waiting to go off for no apparent reason."

Epic quote mining on your part.

I'm not misrepresenting your position. You have accused me of epic stupidity for pointing out the same things that animal experts have said. You cite loads of medical research that basically includes the same thing I already said about dosages. You continually attack my credibility, but the only people agreeing with your proposed possibility are reporters.

At this point, skeptigirl, you're just digging your own hole. I'll let you have the last word and be done arguing with you over it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it about the words, straw man, that you don't understand, GreNME?

Since I have not argued the aggression was unnatural, your claim that I've said it was unnatural behavior is a straw man.

To summarize, again what I've been saying ....

It's possible the Xanax had nothing to do with the attack.
It's possible the Xanax did increase the chimp's aggressive behavior.

It's only the second sentence there that you and I disagree on. Yet you continue to argue about the first one.

I think you are continuing to argue the straw man because you cannot defend your argument that, 'the Xanax definitively had nothing to do with the aggression'. You know you screwed up about your assertion there was a need for multiple doses. But you can't face discussing that error. Just admit it was a error and move on. It's a lot simpler than building straw men to tear down.

[Darth Rotor]

Two things Darth learns in this thread:

1) Don't keep a chimp in the home. (Wasn't gonna)
2) But, if the missus insitst on getting a pet chimp, be sure not to give xanax to the chimp unless the vet writes a scrip.
3) For damned sure don't take the chimp's xanax, since chimp might rip face off for so doing.

Thank you all for the ride, and for saving (my) face.

Er, um, three things I learned ...

I'll come in again.

Cardinal Biggles?

DR