Glenn Morton wrote:
>Judy Toronchuk wrote of my quote from Carl Baugh:
>>Although I am in neuroscience I have never read anything
>>about individuals responding to pink light, but I can tell
>>you that norepinephrine (also called noradrenalin) is
>>hardly a tranquilizer. It is structurally nearly
>>identical to adrenalin and affects the body and brain in
>>an almost identical manner.
I know this is hair-splitting at the EM level, and I don't
want to detract from a consideration of the awe-
inspiring imbecility of Mr. Baugh's writings. But
the statements above regarding norepinephrine and
epinephrine are inaccurate. Norepi is, in fact, a
powerful sedative if applied to the right cells
in the brain. (For aficionados, this would be the
locus coeruleus, the area of the brain that actually
makes and secretes norepi. It turns out that
an autofeedback loop activates alpha-2
receptors on the same neurons and can shut
down LC activity.) The structural similarity to
epi is irrelevant: the effects of interest are
controlled by the receptors, not by the
chemical messengers themselves. The above
statements suggest that norepi should be
considered a stimulant just because it
looks like epi, which is considered a
stimulant. All these generalizations are
flawed by attributing activity (in the
brain especially) to the nature of the
chemical messenger. Big mistake.
Baugh makes it too, though he's so
pervasively ignorant that it's hard to even
attribute specific errors to his claims.
>One shouldn't expect Baugh to pay much attention to
>the science or to reality. That is what makes Baugh
>such an interesting and entertaining individual.
Mr. Baugh's abuses of science and reason are
indeed perversely entertaining. I guess it would
be funnier if it weren't so bloody easy to acquire
credibility with otherwise measurably intelligent
evangelicals. Sigh.
Stephen Matheson
Biology Department
Calvin College
matheson@calvin.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 17:59:16 EST