Dude, I really don't even wanna give you a hard time right now but I have to call out bad science when I see it. That's not what this board is about, go run that kinda game to the 14 year olds on bodybuilding.com
First off, you're saying that NMDA isn't excitotoxic at all and you back that up with a study which measures the effect of creatine on NMDA INDUCED EXCITOTOXICTY. How ironic can you get? Unless you have documentation on their methodology showing that they directly injected the NMDA, this abstract is making a case against your argument, if anything.
Second, you said excitotoxicity was "basically non-existant" with the coadministration of creatine and niacin. Here's the actual graph from your study showing the effects of creatine and niacin against the control on NMDA induced excitotoxicity
http://ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0006899300020382-gr2.gif
What does that reduction work out to? maybe 20-30% reduction vs control? Is that really your definition of "basically non-existant" bro?
Listen kids, not everyone on these boards has the time to decipher medical journals, that's why they come here for advice. It ruins the whole principle of these boards when someone tries to throw studies around and totally twist them around because the lay-person cant understand them. Let me take all of the science mumbo jumbo out of the equation here and simply the argument vaughn is trying to make right now...
In a nutshell, his post is saying..."Our product isnt poisionous to your brain because there's a study that shows when you take creatine and niacin, it makes it less 30 percent less poisionous to your brain. My product is meant to be injested orally, while the abstract I provided doesn't specificy how it was given to the test subjects which makes it completely irrelevant, if not contrary to my argument altogether."