Adrenaline/Epinephrine is toxic.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Reason: most people (upwards of 80%) I ever injected with it or saw injected with it died within the hour.

Wow, that was easy.

I shall from now on be an expert on all matters at all and discuss them with so-called "experts" :D.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Toke]

Good point, and people who get chemotherapi have much higher mortality rate than the population at average.:D

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

See? It's really not that hard.

Angioplasty causes cancer, I guess vaccination does, too :D.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Good point, and people who get chemotherapi have much higher mortality rate than the population at average.:D

And many more people die in hospital than elsewhere. :scared:

[Toke]

Use homeopatics, no known medical sideeffects.:D

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Being an expert is so cool. Just pick a topic and fire away. Maybe I should build a bridge or design a perpetuum mobile :) ...

[INRM]

Yeah epinephrine is toxic if you injected yourself with a large enough dose. Though I'm not sure how valuable a statement that is, water in high enough doses is toxic.


INRM

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Yeah epinephrine is toxic if you injected yourself with a large enough dose. Though I'm not sure how valuable a statement that is, water in high enough doses is toxic.


INRM

I do know the properties of the stuff :D
If I were to inject myself with, say, an ampoule right now it would make for a thorough test of my cardiovascular system, possibly killing me for a number of reasons/by different mechanisms.

That is not what this thread is about ;)

[T.A.M.]

I am an experts in experts, and I can certify with my expertise that you are an expert.

TAM:)

[Roma]

[QUOTE=Dr. Tobias Fünke;4457127] most people (upwards of 80%) I ever injected with it or saw injected with it died within the hour.
QUOTE]

Is there something you want to confess? :cool:

[JimBenArm]

[quote=Dr. Tobias Fünke;4457127] most people (upwards of 80%) I ever injected with it or saw injected with it died within the hour.
QUOTE]

Is there something you want to confess? :cool:
Yes, I think he wanted to confess to being an expert.

[GreyICE]

MSDS says Adrenaline is reasonably safe. Course it doesn't mention injection. Generally seems like a bad idea to ingest, but won't kill you.

https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/08641.htm

Epinephrine is reasonably toxic, and has a quite reachable LD50. Seems like a perfectly terrible idea to ingest, have skin contact with, or in any way biologically interact with the stuff in any but the smallest dosage.

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/EP/(-)-epinephrine.html

[Wudang]

Epinephrine is reasonably toxic, and has a quite reachable LD50. Seems like a perfectly terrible idea to ingest, have skin contact with, or in any way biologically interact with the stuff in any but the smallest dosage.

As I recall the adrenaline used by boxers for cuts is 1/1000 dilution. Can't seem to get it in UK pharmacies any more - was great for shaving cuts.

[GreyICE]

As I recall the adrenaline used by boxers for cuts is 1/1000 dilution. Can't seem to get it in UK pharmacies any more - was great for shaving cuts.

Heh, I know they're the same thing. MSDS amuses me because it's so utterly worthless to the layman and I love to confuse people.

As I recall offhand (and seem to have confirmed with a quick google), Adrenaline is okay. Checking the toxicity, it seems like it has several toxic compounds that include it/can form from it. I have no idea how easy it is to form them, but I think that would be the major problem with having it readily available. Having a reasonably safe substance generally available that sometimes morphs into a highly toxic substance if it reacts with other chemicals would probably be a poor idea, especially if it was meant to be applied topically (and thus stored in a location like a drawer for a long period of time).

I could be barking up a stupid tree, it's possible the reaction needed to create the toxic compounds is stupidly complicated and quite unlikely to accidentally form. But some of these things are as easy as "Direct sunlight for several minutes."

[Freethinker]

Reason: most people (upwards of 80%) I ever injected with it or saw injected with it died within the hour.


That proves it to me!

From this thread we can conclude that chemotherapy and adrenaline are bad, but homeopathy is good...........If we suspend logic and common sense.

[paximperium]

Reason: most people (upwards of 80%) I ever injected with it or saw injected with it died within the hour.
You are not doing it correctly. I have a success rate of over 90%.

[JimBenArm]

You are not doing it correctly. I have a success rate of over 90%.
I think the fact there are people surviving this means that it's not toxic at all. After all, if it were, how could anyone survive? Huh? Answer that, Mr. Smarty!

[paximperium]

I think the fact there are people surviving this means that it's not toxic at all. After all, if it were, how could anyone survive? Huh? Answer that, Mr. Smarty!
It's just not toxic enough. I'm forced to use the 1:10000 formulation for IV injections.

The 1:1000 concentration is supposed to be used only for skin or muscle injections...damn rules and "evidence".

[Toke]

The 1:1000 concentration is supposed to be used only for skin or muscle injections...damn rules and "evidence".

How dumb do you think we are?
What difference does a zero make, it is just a zero = nothing for **** sake.

If it had been a 2 or 3 you might have had an excuse.

[Toke]

Just look at homeopatics, they have lots of zeroes and it is not the least bit poisonous.
This have a lot less zeroes and must therefore be less toxic.

[paximperium]

How dumb do you think we are?
What difference does a zero make, it is just a zero = nothing for **** sake.

If it had been a 2 or 3 you might have had an excuse.
I apologize. It is not up to the homeopathic 1x10*1000 "concentration" that super homeopathic juice has...modern medicine is just too weak...sniff.

[Toke]

Just admit it, you use the needle, and miss sometimes.

[quarky]

In pre-history, there were no reports of cancer, and everyone ate an organic diet.

[paximperium]

In pre-history, there were no reports of cancer, and everyone ate an organic diet.
True. According to some recordings, some fella named Methuselah lived for a way long time only on chickpeas, sheep milk and sheep's testicles alone...fact.

[paximperium]

Just admit it, you use the needle, and miss sometimes.
Well, occasionally I dilute the epinephrine down and inject air instead.

[Toke]

Ok, that would work too.

[casebro]

It's neither the homeopathic drugs, nor the epinephrine that's deadly. It's obviously the ZEROES that kill people.

Hence the folk wisdom that healthy people state so succinctly at football games- "We're Number ONE!"

But once again, I find myself on two sides of a binary question.

[Skeptiquette]

That is not what this thread is about

What is the point of this thread?

[Toke]

Pointy and hollow, depending of which point you are refering to.

[Walrus32]

Bet you're doing intracardiac injections...right?

[Toke]

Did you know that electronics actually run on smoke, not silicon wafers.
In case it escapes the electronics stop working.

That is something we expert electricians learn in school.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well everyone I've ever given epi to lived. (Well almost everyone, there could have been an ICU patient or two I gave the epi to before the code team arrived.)

Acute allergic reactions, .03ml 1/1000 sq.

I've drawn blood from human patient's hearts, however. 4 inch intra cardiac needle, not an RA line. Anyone want to guess what that was for?

[Toke]

A ritual?

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Well everyone I've ever given epi to lived. (Well almost everyone, there could have been an ICU patient or two I gave the epi to before the code team arrived.)

Acute allergic reactions, .03ml 1/1000 sq.

I've drawn blood from human patient's hearts, however. 4 inch intra cardiac needle, not an RA line. Anyone want to guess what that was for?

Toxicology, postmortem?

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

What is the point of this thread?

Don't really know :) I just couldn't resist.
Been lurking for quite some time and read lots and lots of absolute bullsh!t spouted by people who think what they consider "common sense" and wikipedia enable them to debate an engineer/M.D./pilot/real expert about their respective field of expertise.

[Skeptiquette]

Don't really know I just couldn't resist.
Been lurking for quite some time and read lots and lots of absolute bullsh!t spouted by people who think what they consider "common sense" and wikipedia enable them to debate an engineer/M.D./pilot/real expert about their respective field of expertise.

Fair enough,

I guess, It seemed to me that you may have had me in mind here. (temporal association)

please let me know if my suspicion is founded.

[Toke]

Don't really know :) I just couldn't resist.
Been lurking for quite some time and read lots and lots of absolute bullsh!t spouted by people who think what they consider "common sense" and wikipedia enable them to debate an engineer/M.D./pilot/real expert about their respective field of expertise.

Nice tread.
And good point.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

.

Fair enough,

I guess, It seemed to me that you may have had me in mind here. (temporal association)

please let me know if my suspicion is founded.

Why would I? Seriously.

[gdnp]

epinephrine is thought to be quite toxic over the long term. It is one of the stress hormones that leads to hypertension and atherosclerosis. There are many references to the subject, such as this one (http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/1).

[Skeptiquette]

I don't know, maybe because I took a dissenting stance on a polarized topic. But then again the only expert who responded was "joobz", and I made it pretty clear I wasn't trying to debate, but rather discuss and learn.

I don't think that it is a bad idea for non-experts to voice their opinions, in fact, if there is a place to do it it is here on the web. As long as they are willing to admit mistakes and therefore continue the learning process, I see it as a good thing.

carry on, and enjoy yourself.

[T.A.M.]

I don't know, maybe because I took a dissenting stance on a polarized topic. But then again the only expert who responded was "joobz", and I made it pretty clear I wasn't trying to debate, but rather discuss and learn.

I don't think that it is a bad idea for non-experts to voice their opinions, in fact, if there is a place to do it it is here on the web. As long as they are willing to admit mistakes and therefore continue the learning process, I see it as a good thing.

carry on, and enjoy yourself.

Who exactly is an expert in your view on vaccines? Will an MD due, or an Immunologist, or and ID specialist?

TAM:)

[casebro]

But perhaps you've missed the point of our cynicism- that even the pros are educated to use the consensus of their field for the background of their actions. It's still a consensus, NOT fact. OH, you'll say "But it's a consensus of the experts", and I'll say "It's still only a consensus".

If experts can't defend against us ingnoranusi , they can't be very expert.

But I took the OP as looking at the stupidity of data. Like, did you know that 80% of stroke victims are taking blood pressure medications at the time?..... nuts, now I'll have to take what I've learned here at the JREF University, and go look for the QALY of BP meds.

[T.A.M.]

But perhaps you've missed the point of our cynicism- that even the pros are educated to use the consensus of their field for the background of their actions. It's still a consensus, NOT fact. OH, you'll say "But it's a consensus of the experts", and I'll say "It's still only a consensus".

If experts can't defend against us ingnoranusi , they can't be very expert.

But I took the OP as looking at the stupidity of data. Like, did you know that 80% of stroke victims are taking blood pressure medications at the time?..... nuts, now I'll have to take what I've learned here at the JREF University, and go look for the QALY of BP meds.

yes drat those darn experts and their learnin...

TAM;)

[luchog]

I don't think that it is a bad idea for non-experts to voice their opinions

Not good or bad, just completely pointless the vast majority of the time. What is worthwhile about voicing opinions based on something you only have a rudimentary, or less, understanding of? Sure, you can voice opinions about an issue even if you're not an expert; but unless you're basing your opinion on the tested and verified work of experts, why should anyone care? Of what use is such an opinion, except to add more noise?

This is why I have that Douglas Adams quote in my sig.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

Not good or bad, just completely pointless the vast majority of the time. What is worthwhile about voicing opinions based on something you only have a rudimentary, or less, understanding of? Sure, you can voice opinions about an issue even if you're not an expert; but unless you're basing your opinion on the tested and verified work of experts, why should anyone care? Of what use is such an opinion, except to add more noise?

This is why I have that Douglas Adams quote in my sig.

I wholeheartedly agree. A few days ago I read a lengthy German thread on Evolution vs. ID and was repeatedly baffled by people who knew next to nothing about neither but felt competent to take on obvious scientists based on, well, what they'd like to be true.
To some people, fact is a matter of taste, like a hairstyle or your favourite brand of cigarettes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Toxicology, postmortem?Right idea, wrong reason but I give you a A for close enough. :D

Post exposure source patient tests on cadavers.