From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-tryptophan

Tryptophan is an essential amino acid involved in human nutrition. It is one of the 20 amino acids encoded by the genetic code (as codon UGG). Only the L-stereoisomer appears in mammalian protein, but the D-stereoisomer is occasionally found in natural materials (for example, the marine venom peptide contryphan[1]). A distinguishing structural characteristic of tryptophan is that it contains an indole functional group.

further down:

Tryptophan supplements and EMS

In 1989, a large outbreak (1500 cases including at least 37 deaths) of a disabling autoimmune illness called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) was traced by some epidemiological studies[26][27][28] to L-tryptophan supplied by a Japanese manufacturer, Showa Denko KK.[29] It was further hypothesized that one or more trace impurities produced during the manufacture of tryptophan may have been responsible for the EMS outbreak.[30][31] However, many people who consumed Showa Denko L-tryptophan did not develop EMS and cases of EMS have occurred prior to and after the 1989 epidemic. Furthermore the methodology used in the initial epidemiological studies has been criticized.[32][33] An alternative explanation for the 1989 EMS outbreak is that large doses of tryptophan produce metabolites which inhibit the normal degradation of histamine and excess histamine in turn has been proposed to cause EMS.[34]
Most tryptophan was banned from sale in the US in 1991, and other countries followed suit. Tryptophan from one manufacturer, of six, continued to be sold for manufacture of baby formulas. A Rutgers Law Journal article observed, "Political pressures have played a role in the FDA's decision to ban L-tryptophan as well as its desire to increase its regulatory power over dietary supplements."[35]
At the time of the ban the FDA did not know, or did not indicate, that EMS was caused by a contaminated batch,[36][37] and yet even when the contamination was discovered and the purification process fixed, the FDA maintained that L-tryptophan was unsafe. In February 2001 the FDA loosened the restrictions on marketing (though not on importation), but still expressed the following concern:

"Based on the scientific evidence that is available at the present time, we cannot determine with certainty that the occurrence of EMS in susceptible persons consuming L-tryptophan supplements derives from the content of L-tryptophan, an impurity contained in the L-tryptophan, or a combination of the two in association with other, as yet unknown, external factors."[29]

Since 2002, L-tryptophan has been sold in the U.S. in its original form. Several high quality sources of L-tryptophan do exist, and are sold in many of the largest health food stores nationwide. Indeed, tryptophan has continued to be used in clinical and experimental studies employing human patients and subjects.
In recent years in the U.S., compounding pharmacies and some mail-order supplement retailers have begun selling tryptophan to the general public. Tryptophan has also remained on the market as a prescription drug (Tryptan), which some psychiatrists continue to prescribe, particularly as an augmenting agent for people who are unresponsive to antidepressant drugs.[citation needed]

and from
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listse ... 37992.html

an excerpt from:
pills-a-go-go
Jim Hogshire©1999
Feral House©1999

The Strange Case of
George Bush and Eli Lilly

Bush was practically a secret employee of Eli Lilly while both Vice-President and President, and very obviously did specific work on Lilly's behalf. Lilly tried to deny all of this (including Bush's stint on their Board of Directors) when Pills-a-Go-Go researched the matter. Alexander Cockburn cited PaGG articles on this and other subjects in his Nation column,
"Beat the Devil."

In March of 1992, President Bush suddenly announced that the $4 billion genetic-engineering industry could grow to $50 billion by the end of the decade "if we let it." To help "let it," the administration proposed speeding the FDA's approval process for biotech drugs only.

But since biotech drugs don't grind through the approval system any more slowly than other pharmaceuticals, why should the president single them out?

The answer is easy! The administration's move is a payoff to an old friend—Eli Lilly. It is not the first time the President put himself on the line for the Indianapolis drug manufacturer—George Bush and Eli Lilly worked
together for two decades, perhaps even longer, depending oil when you figure Bush's career there really began.

Lilly has had a special relationship with the backroom aspects of government ever since it obtained the rights to manufacture and market methadone, the synthetic narcotic invented by the Germans during World War II. Essentially war spoils, Lilly continues as the country's largest producer of methadone (brand name Dolophine) for use in hospitals, junkie clinics, and where ever else federal money flows in as funding.

In 1953, when LSD’s inventor Albert Hoffman would not supply the CIA with his new compound for use In their mind experiments, Lilly began making acid for the agency. It even devised a method to mass produce the stuff and seriously discussed the possibility of manufacturing it by the ton, for use as a battlefield weapon.

Given this kind of coziness with spooks and the military it's not surprising that in 1977, after Jimmy Carter fired Bush as head of the CIA, Lilly promptly put him oil their board of directors. Although Bush had no experience in pharmaceuticals and, indeed, no particular business expertise beyond running CIA front company, Zapata Oil, he "worked" for Lilly for the next two years.

Bush fails to include this in his official biography, Lilly, too, seems to want to forget the whole thing. According to the corporation’s librarian, Bush has never worked there! EventualIy one spokesman for Lilly admitted Bush
had been on the payroll, but refused further comment. The matter, for all practical purposes, remains secret.

George Bush conveniently forgot about his job at Eli Lilly in 1979 when he began running for President the first time. He sought to cover his Lilly assets by omitting them on his financial disclosure form, thus concealing more than $80,000 worth of stock he had in the company. He even went so far as to claim he had divested himself of all Lilly stock in 1978. When he got caught in the lie, his lawyer regretted the "factual inaccuracy" and Bush pressed on as Lilly's secret employee—by now in the guise of Vice-President of the United States. He used this position to lobby the government to lower taxes on Lilly's Puerto Rican investments. At that very same time the IRS was getting aggressive with Lilly in seeking hundreds of millions of dollars it said the company had avoided paying by pretending those profits had been generated in tax-sheltered Puerto Rico. Bush eventually made such a pest of himself, hectoring the state department, that the Supreme Court issued an order to him to abandon his lobbying efforts, as they were illegal.

As luck would have it, Bush's actions may have been illegal but the law specifically exempts both the president and tile Vice President from prosecution in such conflict-of-interest eases. In the end, Bush kept his job and Lilly kept the tax shelter. The grateful company continued its heavy financing of the Republican party. It also helped finance Dan Quayle, who had "come from no here" to serve as Bush's second in command when Bush became President in 1988. One of Quayle's aides on the Vice Presidents Competitiveness Council also owns a sizable chunk of Lilly stock.

So it's not surprising that Quayle's Council should recommend certain alterations in the FDA drug approval process—especially in ways that were sure to benefit Ell Lilly in particular. Just to be positive it all worked out though, Lilly executives did conduct a secret meeting with the Council just before the Vice President emerged with his new recommendations to relax pollution controls on one of Indiana's largest polluters (Lilly) and to make crucial changes in the FDA handling of biotech drugs.

Bush and Quayle might not otherwise have stuck their necks out so far for Lilly if it weren't that the company was in the midst of a massive shift in direction to save itself from an ever-bleaker future. Lilly knew if things didn't get better in the early '90s, the company could have found itself in serious trouble. One thing, Lilly had no new drugs "in the pipeline." While other pharmaceutical companies were introducing new drugs at an unprecedented rate, Lilly still had only Prozac, which accounted for an enormous percentage of the company's entire earnings. Competitors to Prozac were already coming over the walls, and Prozac was dealing with some 60 lawsuits and the negative publicity they caused. The Church of Scientology launched a ferocious and effective media attack on the pill and Prozac was in trouble.

For another thing, the FDA had inspected Lilly at least nine times in the preceding three years and cited the company for improper manufacturing practices, failure to file timely reports with the government and—contamination problems in its cherished Puerto Rico facilities. The company's stock was falling hard. In May of '92 Barron's went so far as to advise its readers to avoid Lilly stock, even though it promoted optimistic investment in a number of other pharmaceutical companies.

To save the company, Lilly had begun to buy up impoverished biotech firms with promising but under-funded projects while dumping its more traditional moneymakers. For instance, in exchange for its worldwide capsule
manufacturing operation (Qualicaps) Lilly got the rights to sell its human insulin in Japan. Quite an interesting trade for a "conservative" company.

It began to invest in a small North Carolina research firm to research a biotech drug delivery system. Lilly money is even behind the ultra-cool "Shainan Pharmaceuticals," which makes its money by stealing the recipes of South American medicine men and working out patents for them.

pps. 56-57

Rick Reuben wrote:And tipcat thinks that C/NC is no place for opinions, but that's a level of idiocy I can barely think about, let alone correct.

Your attacks are so Republican-y. You just push people around. When you start treating people with respect...is when types like yourself cease to play right into the hands of the Karl Roves of this world.

So many members of the board are tired of your increasingly transparent intellectual "bullying."

Rick Reuben wrote:

tmidgett wrote:In case you have not realized it, you are arguing with a couple of insensitive, solipsistic hacks, who get more rude and more irritating when you try to reason with them.

The tmidgett process:

Give his gold-plated opinion, which can barely be gazed upon by mere mortals.

Disappear for several days the first time some heretic doesn't accept the opinions of tmidgett as gospel, or when some infidel dares to confront tmidgett on his facts.

Then, return to make weepy 'I died for the sins of the message board' speech.

Your suffering is immense. We know. You can find this tmidgett process repeated in threads on the Iraq War, on 9/11, on hedge funds, on the mortgage market, and god knows where else. tmidgett has divorced me six times already, I think. Somehow, I carry on.

I'll leave the space below available for the usual sycophants to weigh in.

LAME.

it's not a process. I like the way Tim thinks. even if I disagree (which is almost never), his points are always well thought out and considerate, and never seem self-inflating.


I think more folks could strive for that. this place would be better if they did. If his 'stepping in', in other threads seems familiar, maybe it's just an indication of the lack of ability to communicate with each other here about certain topics and not a reflection of Tim being self-servine. it's pretty terrible how it's gotten here, considering that we're all just ssome dorks who post on a message board.

Ricky Bobby, many of your favourite points of discussion have gotten to where people don't listen any more, and just screech and screech. It's not fun. It's not productive, and nobody's learning a damn thing.

it's not all of them, but many.

Rick Reuben wrote:

space junk wrote:It is an annoyingly officious term, but I don't know a good substitute for it. It's when you are chemically and biologically fucked. This is not the same as misery, sadness, mental anguish, angst, self loathing, being down in the dumps, glumness, self pity, moroseness, bad luck, bad job, broken heart, whatever. A severe chemical imbalance in the brain.

Yes, it's not the same. Do you think any people with these conditions:

misery, sadness, mental anguish, angst, self loathing, being down in the dumps, glumness, self pity, moroseness, bad luck, bad job, broken heart

are on antidepressants? Should they be? Maybe you don't realize it, space junk, but you are pointing out the same problem I've been pointing out in this thread- that people who are not chemically depressed are being medicated as if they were.

I am sorry that you are a cock.

kerble wrote: I like the way Tim thinks. even if I disagree (which is almost never), his points are always well thought out and considerate, and never seem self-inflating.

I fail to see what was well thought out or considerate about him taking exception to my use of one word, rolling his eyes, refusing to discuss the matter (or accept my partial retraction of that one word) then insulting me to another board user.

He has offered precisely zero well thought out points on this particular thread as far as I can see.
He has informed us how the pills work chemically.
That is it.
He has then decided who can and who can't talk about the matter and (on the basis of what?) decided who knows anything about the matter.

I'm feeling there's an 'it' gang around here who get away without criticism with doing the exact things they criticise others for.

Its bollocks is what it is.

Rick should just leave Happy and Bored alone, after being asked numerous times, but he is at least, amid his vitriol, trying to talk about the matter mentioned in the title.

Everybody else seems terrified of doing so.
Which, I suppose, is instructive in itself.

[Post deleted - no fuck this.]

The weirdest bit on this whole thread is where Bob starts laying in to happyandbored for saying he "doesn't know whether antidepressants are over-prescribed". Apparently not being sure of something is a sign of weakness? I cannot understand this position at all.

One point I don't think anyone's made so far (although I'll admit to having skimread some of it), relates to the doctor's position in this whole shebang. Bob, Earwicker and a few others have characterised many doctors as being too trigger happy with anti-depressants - prescribing them too easily, dishing them out to and Tom, Dick or Harriet who comes through the door moaning about being down in the dumps. But what else is a doctor to do, when a patient comes to her ostensibly exhibiting the symptoms of an illness? Sure, with depression being what it is, a certain amount of scepticism is healthy. It is, after all, a very easily misdiagnosed illness, and a doctor should want to be as sure as possible of a positive diagnosis before they propose a course of anti-depressants. But how far can they take that scepticism without overstepping the boundaries of their role as a doctor?

I go to a doctor and say, "Doc, I'm really depressed, I need help here." She says to me "Sorry to hear it. Do you exercise enough? Have you thought about practical ways in which you can tackle this? Try eating better, take up squash or something, focus on the positives in your life, and come back if you don't feel better in three months." Three months later I show up again, and say "Doc, I did all that you said and I still feel shit, in fact I feel worse"... what can she then do? The symptoms of this illness I may or may not have mainfest themselves in behaviours rather than actual physical signifiers*, so all she has to go on is what she sees and what I tell her. Perhaps I'm looking for an easy fix, perhaps I didn't follow her advice, perhaps I'm just some self-absorbed goth boy who wants a bit of attention. How is she to know this? How might she make this judgement call? And does she have the right to? Before her she has someone who as far as she can judge, is suffering from depression. It is her role as a doctor to treat the illness I appear to have.

When I was 10, I went through a phase where I really hated school, and would do anything to avoid it. One week I just couldn't face it, so I decided to feign illness. Obviously I needed to dupe my mum some way or another in to believing I was really ill, so I took some face paints I had and rubbed white and red in to my cheeks so I looked really grim and pasty, and then held my head against the radiator till I was burning up. When my mum heard me (forcibly) coughing and came to find out why I hadn't got up, I told her I felt sick and had a headache, and she took one look at me, put her hand on my forehead, and said "you look terrible, and you're running a temperature - you'd best stay at home". I kept this up for four days, same routine every morning, but not surprisingly my mum grew pretty sceptical about the whole thing. What was this mystery illness I purported to have anyway? So she decided to haul me off to the doctor's.

I was shitting myself. He was going to expose me for the fraud that I was! I desperately went through the face paint and radiator ritual, and forced as much coughing as I could till my throat felt raw. All the time he was examining me, I was just waiting for him to declare me an imposter, and envisaging the bollocking that would come my way. But did he? Did he fuck. He said I had a viral infection, and that I should take another week of school to get over it. Apparently my glands were swollen. Probably willed them that way.

Was he a bad doctor? Probably not. He'd only got so many symptoms to go on, and I'd foced myself to cough so much that I imagine my throat was red raw, and I suppose my glands were swollen for whatever reason. Maybe he had his doubts, but was he in a position to call bullshit? He had to err on the side of caution. The opposite of guilty until proven innocent. He had to suppose that this illness was real - the consequences of claiming it wasn't if in fact it was outweighed the scope of healthy scepticism. In cases of depression, wrongly dismissing someone who's bipolar as just needing some healthy exercise and a good think about where they're going in life could have pretty serious consequences. No doctor wants a suicide on their hands just because they didn't see why a patient couldn't just keep their chin up and plough on with it, lad.

Of course, a doctor only need take this erring-on the-side-of-caution approach if they believe that depression is an actual medical condition and that it cannot be willed away by all. And they would presumably only prescribe anti-depressants if they felt that they could work. I guess they could reject these two ideas, but then they'd be going against everything that current medical science teaches. Should a doctor do such a thing, due to some anecdotal evidence or a lingering doubt that science might be barking up the wrong tree? No, of course not. The doctor isn't judge nor moral philosopher - her obligation is to do what's best for her patient, and that surely incorporates acknowledging what medical science teaches.

And as for these social conspiracy-type theories - what role do doctors play in this? What would be their motivation to be party to such a conspiracy? Doctors aren't government agents.

I don't really want to get involved any further in this thread as, ironically, it's depressing me. This isn't some big goodbye, it's just that this is an internet message board, and the last thing I need is to let something on it make me sad and angry - I have plenty of that in real life, thanks.


* well, there are actual physical signifiers, it's just that they're located in the brain and we all know the limited scope of neuroscience.

I thought that the route a lot of these debates seem to take was described well a while back:

Angus Jung wrote:"Debates" on the Electrical Audio message boards, whether about music, politics, sports, or pop filters, consist of a few people stating, with varying degrees of coherence and articulation, their particular position with regard to the topic at hand.

And then restating, and restating, and restating, and restating, and restating, and restating, and then restating this position.

I found myself doing this myself, and so tried to stop. I think that this is where much of the vitriol flows, shouting "YES!/NO!" with ever increasing vigour. Perhaps it is a natural result of this form of conversation.

I did like Champion Rabbit's piece on the balloons, though.

On topic, anti-depressants have helped a friend of mine, and had more ambiguous effects on another acquaintance. I'm not voting crap on them. They can lift a fog that prevents one from being productive in almost any way. If you want to improve the external, you need to be on your feet.

You make a good point about a degree of ambiguity in diagnosing mental issues, simmo.

I'll also add that I think SSRI's are a pretty safe drug to take (not the Anna Nicole way) and they have a pretty low liability factor. They're also cheap.

This may or may not already have been mentioned. Sorry if I'm being redundant.

NOT CRAP again!