Back to the Top
A couple of years ago someone of us has pointed out that this discussion will
never end. The current discussion proves that point. I have no intention to
re-iterate it. Rather, I would like to thank Andrew for the nice illustration of
the very nature of the issue. We have to be aware of what we are observing and
of what we are estimating. I am in sympathy with the 'puristic' approach of Nick
and Hans, which, according to my understanding, is essential from clinical view
point. Saying that, I have to add that I disagree with Nick's statement:
"Absorption and metabolism are just sub-processes". Absorption is a
physiological input process which PK studies, not always properly, try to
estimate in quantitative terms. By the way, Nick, what do you mean under
sub-process: is absorption a sub-process of 'input' and is metabolism a
sub-process of 'elimination'?
As to Roger's note: "All we really have is perceptions", it underlines, if I
correctly understand it, the ambiguity of our interpretations of what we really
observe and thereafter estimate in quantitative way. Am I right Roger?
A few years ago along this discussion I have mentioned that the Arch of
Aristotelian Logic can unify most of the apparently opposite opinions, discussed
by the Forum, treating the relationships between what we really observe and what
we really estimate quantitatively.
Periphrasing Luis, I would to say 'Peace to our souls, but not to our minds'.
Dimiter Terziivanov, MD,PhD,DSc, Professor
Dept. of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology
"ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI"
FACULTY OF MEDICINE
UNIV HOSP "LOZENETZ"
1 Koziak str.
1407 Sofia, BULGARIA
Want to post a follow-up message on this topic?
If this link does not work with your browser send a follow-up message to PharmPK@boomer.org with "CL and V" as the subject
Support PharmPK by using the
Copyright 1995-2011 David W. A. Bourne (firstname.lastname@example.org)