Science Attacks The Mystery Of Tylenol

nm1m writes "For decades, millions of physicians have advised their patients to take acetaminophen - the drug behind "aspirin-free" pain relievers like Tylenol - without understanding how or why the popular medicine works. Now, a professor at Brigham Young University has discovered what could be the enzyme the drug attacks to relieve pain."

Comments

That's a bit disconcerting

[Cecil]

That they didn't really know what this drug was doing... mind you I guess that's what most drugs do.

It just kind of underlines how little we know about the human body and the chemicals that operate it.

Re:That's a bit disconcerting

[rakslice]

You sound pretty bitter. Now, of course, you could just be letting off steam here, and at work you're the most focused level-headed person around; if so, great. It's just that "I've kicked so many engineer's asses I need new shoes" doesn't really suggest that, and when it comes down to it, that doesn't really cut it as a reason to have antipathy toward universities. I mean, grads from one kind of program, and an applied program at that (when it's pretty common knowledge that universities do theoretical programs best and applied ones horribly)? I don't think so.

I'd wager that your lack of a degree isn't holding you back unfairly nearly as much as your apparent attitude problem is. Generally there's nothing worse than an employee with a huge chip on their shoulder (typically, refusing to ask for help when they need it, arguing with other employees and being uncooperative, and otherwise trying to prove themselves at the expense of just doing the job).

Yes, it's often assumed by those hiring for technical positions that a college/university degree education is more comprehensive than it actually is, and so people without degrees are getting the short end of the stick. This really pisses you off; I can relate. But that's between you and employers who make bad hiring decisions. There's no reason to take it out on people with degrees. You may want to lose the chip, and use the effort you're spending stabbing at windmills doing something more productive.

And, as for your comments about the uselessness of a degree eductation in general, most of it is just posturing. For example, in the same way that simply going through a CS degree program doesn't make you a decent programmer, no amount of on-the-job experience can make you good at evaluating and selecting complex algorithms if you don't have the math background to do the runtime analysis properly.

Anyway, back to(ward) the topic... I have an armchair interest in the philosophy of science. And, everyone I know in biological/medical sciences, who I remember talking to about it, would agree that we know very little about the functioning of the human body when it comes right down to it, and more importantly (since we were talking about research in to the action of pain killers) embraces the scientific process as a useful tool. So, I have to wonder how you've decided that the opposite view is predominant in the academic community, having never set foot in a university as you say. Is it pure speculation? Paranoia? I can't really tell.

Re:That's a bit disconcerting

[rakslice]

>>(5k$ after taxes, Oh Canada!)
Ah, you're Canadian. I can stop saying college/university now. =) [For those outside the loop, this is because all degree-granting institutions in Canada are universities... Those that are strictly colleges only give diplomas.]

>>Ok, I agree. Now how dare you assume that the math knowledge CAN ONLY COME FROM A UNIVERSITY?

I'm not assuming that. I'm only assuming that most people aren't up to learning material that complicated (e.g. a good half a term course worth of graph theory with enough concentration on inductive proofs to really be useful for design), on their own, when most people going through a degree program have serious trouble with it, even with the help available from profs, tutors, and other students. And I don't mean to suggest that a degree program is the only way to learn this kind of thing even in an educational setting; dome 2 yr. cet/cis/mis diploma programs get to that level of complexity, and in any case employers will often (well, they should, anyway) pay for specialized training to fill important gaps in their employees' knowledge. All I mean to point out is that at least some of the things learned in a degree program that aren't learned often in shorter programs or through experience are actually useful.

Back for more later, perhaps.

Re:How Tylenol Works?

[damien_kane]

Well considering a lot of the drugs that fall under the 'controlled substance' category used to be recommended by doctors, I'm guessing a lot.
Cocaine was a cure-all up until the late 1800s, PCP and ketamine were used as anaesthetics until the 60s/70s.
Morphine is still widely prescribed, and I'm pretty sure the doctors don't know too much about it except that its really addictive and it really works (until you develop a tolerance, as is the case with any drug).
Hell, even ritalyn is still widely used, and considering it affects everyone differently (could be an upper, could be a downer, who knows until you try it right?)
I'm guessing many of the original drugs currently on the North American market are only there today because of something akin to a 'grandfather clause'.
I'm sure if it had gone through the 'rigorous' testing todays pharmaceutical companies had to go through to get a drug past the FDA, it would not have made it.

Bear in mind I am not a pharmaceutical chemist and this post did not come out of any textbooks, instead from various sources (some you may feel are questionable) like Discovery channel and my own research into some of the things I have taken over the years. If I'm wrong, correct me so I don't make the same mistake again.

Re:How Tylenol Works?

[Locke!Erasmus]

Those are some interesting ideas.

Regarding morphine in particular, I have read in a couple of places that the more pain a patient is in, the more of morphine and other pain relievers they can tolerate. For example, a patient in late stages of cancer can tolerate doses of morphine that would kill a healthy person.

I apologize but I do not recall the sources for this information.

More importantly...

[km790816]

How Caffeine works...
How Beer works...
How Pot works...

Google is great for finding out important, health-related information. :-)

Re:More importantly...

[Scrameustache]

Aww jeez, not that "pot does the same as heroin" thing again! Sigh.
Lets see, heroin users become physically dependant and quite often die of an overdose. Pot heads can quit in a snap (they'll be grumpy for a week or so, but they won't scream in pain or go nuts) and it has never killed anyone ever in thousands of years of recorded use.
Like the article says, this study proves that pot is as similar to heroin as chocolate. I really don't see any non-propaganda point to these studies.

That cafein article is really interesting though...
Caffeine has some negatives and positives, that much is certain.

Yup! Perks you up in the morning, makes you insomniac at nigh! : )

Re:More importantly...

[tshak]

Ya, pot just makes you stupid after a while. I know it's only anecdotal, but all of my friends who somewhat regulary smoke pot respond slower to dialog. There is also reasonable amount of science backing this up of you google for it. Sure, I don't buy the Pot==Heroin bit, but I'm still not convinced that it's a safe enough substance for public trade and consumption.

Re:More importantly...

[Scrameustache]

I know it's only anecdotal, but all of my friends who somewhat regulary smoke pot respond slower to dialog.

They need some cafein to balance it out : )

I don't buy the Pot==Heroin bit, but I'm still not convinced that it's a safe enough substance for public trade and consumption.

You're right, it isn't 100% safe...I know, lets put people who smoke it in jail! Jail is good for you...having human feces thrown at you fortifies your immune system!

I don't see why warning labels shouldn't be enough.

Now, the people who deal in MSG, THEY should go to jail...scratch that, they should fry.

Re:More importantly...

[tshak]

You make some good points, but I never asserted that it was "a little unsafe" like Red Bull for example. I'm saying that it may be much more dangerous then a lot of us would like to believe. Jail has nothing to do with what's best for the criminal, it has to do with punishment for a crime. If we believe that the trafficking of a substance is dangerous, we want to deter that crime with a serious punishment. If pot is not this substance, then ya, it's kind of rediculous and we should change the laws. I just personally haven't made up my mind yet.

Re:More importantly...

[Scrameustache]

I'm saying that it may be much more dangerous then a lot of us would like to believe.

Yeah, I mean, look at all the babyboomers...they are all braindead by now eh? All the ex hippies all got so brain damaged they became mentally ill and went homicidal and ... oh, no, that's right, they didn't. They became normal middle class drones...damn.

Jail has nothing to do with what's best for the criminal, it has to do with punishment for a crime.

Indeed. I'm saying: Pot smoking should not be a crime. The goal of criminalisation was to protect the public from becoming hopelessly addicted and incurably insane from that evil devil's weed. It was stupid and that mistake should be rectified. They stopped alcohol prohibition when they realised it was a lost cause. but for some reason they keep on with the pot laws as if they were a god-given holy law.

If we believe that the trafficking of a substance is dangerous, we want to deter that crime with a serious punishment.

Indeed. That is why I want the Monosodium Glutamate producers/dealers to get death sentences. Its addictive, it makes people sick, and it causes brain damage in rats (when injected in large doses).

But that doesn't justify the jail sentences for simple possesion. If the dealing is the crime, why is the buyer's life destroyed? (The pot doesn't destroy the pot head's life, the cops do.)
I know a few regular pot smokers (and a bunch of party pot smokers), I don't want their lives destroyed. I don't want them thrown in jail. They can smoke tobacco and drink beer all they want, but a joint could make the police destroy their life. That's not right!

If pot is not this substance, then ya, it's kind of rediculous and we should change the laws. I just personally haven't made up my mind yet.


I propose a very unscientific and dubious experiement: Go rent a heroin movie (Trainspotting or Requiem for a dream) and then a pot movie (Half Baked...can't think of another good one right now), and see if they deserve to be in the same category.

Here's a link that supports your "its bad for you" line of thought.
Here's what I think about it: DUH! Well, if you're smoking pot every day for years and you suddently stop and take a test, of COURSE you'll do bad! And of course students and yungins shouldn't smoke pot! These things (pot, booze, cigarettes) should only be used by grownups, and only when apropriate.
But when you're old enough to vote and go get killed to protect your country. You're also old enough to make your own choices about drinking or eating or smoking what you want. If the governments don't want you too, they should educate you (without lies) and give you resources to help you get back on their idea of the right track. Not destroy you if you use your free will to do things they don't agree to.

Hey, I wouldn't even mind if they kept the dealing laws, because it is possible (if rare) to be addicted to pot, and so anyone who's dealing in it has an incentive to encourage abuse and addiction, but responsible users don't need to be marginalised for their choices.

Re:is this good science?

[sessamoid]

Therefore the way that tylenol works is that it blocks this one enzyme. Since it seems related to pain let's call it COX-3

It's not nearly as simplistic as you assume. The cyclooxygenase enzymes are very well defined. We know them down to the atom. The myriad actions aren't necesarily understood in all parts of the body, but the mechanism by which they're involved in pain response is fairly well-understood. These researchers did not just pick "COX3" as the name out of blind stupidity. I'm assuming that the cyclooxygenase-3 is chemically very similar in both structure and function to the other two. There are at least hundreds and thousands of other enzymes related to pain response, but we don't name them COX just because they're related to pain.

Re:How Tylenol Works?

[sessamoid]

PCP and ketamine were used as anaesthetics until the 60s/70s.

Actually, ketamine is still used occasionally as an anesthetic and for procedural sedations, particularly in children who have fewer side-effects from it. I wasn't in practice in the 60's and 70's, but I don't recall ever hearing about PCP being used as an anesthetic, and it's a doubtful thing considering it has no real value as an anesthetic that I can think of. My experience with PCP is thankfully limited, however.

Morphine is still widely prescribed, and I'm pretty sure the doctors don't know too much about it

Actually the action of morphine on mu opiate receptors in the brain is fairly-well (though not completely) understood.

If I'm wrong, correct me so I don't make the same mistake again.

Request granted. ;)

Tylenol kills brown snakes

[ChadN]

A recent issue of "Science News" magazine (within the past two months), had an article about an experiment where Guam's brown snakes were fed rats stuffed with about 6 acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) tablets. All the snakes that ate the rats later died, even the ones that regurgitated them fairly quickly after swallowing them.

Since the brown snake is an introduced pest, and is highly dangerous to the bird population, this discovery is seen as a way to poison the snakes, with hopefully minor side effects for other animals.

And if I were a lawyer, I'd stick to Ibuprofin (ba-dum-bum)