drugs

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:53:43 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

> In a message dated 2/7/04 3:33:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> This is certainly true 'by definition'. But he was saying that it was a

>> 'radical change' that occurred by definition, which I think is ludicrous.

>

> When I first read your initial email, I was going to right that I shouldn't

> have used the word " radical. " But on second thought, it seems accurate. I

> know Mike knows much more about brain physiology than I do, so I'll let

> him point out where I'm going wrong, but I consider " radical " to essentially

> mean " fundamental. " More macroscopically, there is no fundamental change in

> how

> the brain works as a system. But more microscopically, that system is

> dependent on very " radical " changes to billions of its individual parts.

>

> Chris

>

>

You are trying very hard to justify a totally ludicrous statement. I think

that if you are saying

1. that a thought, which is a MACROSCOPIC process, as we understand a

thought

2. represents a physiological change in the brain's physiology

3. that even if there is no " fundamental change in how the brain works as a

system "

4. the change cah be considered " radical " because

5. individual parts are changed radically

That is really a stretch. By fundamental, we WOULD be talking here about a

difference in the way that the brain works, rather than a change in x number

of its individual microscopic parts. An analogy might be someone saying

that, after eating a meal, that their physiology has just been radically

changed, and defending this position by the fact that many of their

microscopic parts have been altered. This is silly - by 'radical change' in

this sense, we are talking about a radical change in the way the system

works. This is a linguistic point, not a physiological one, and you are

simply defending an indefensible position.

[Guest guest]

Well, definitely not flying a plane or driving, but surgery would be ok.

From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:20:31 -0800

< >

Subject: Re: Drugs

>> Pot doesn't incapacitate you in any way <<

What could you possibly mean by that? I've seen plenty of stoned people and

they are slow to react, spaced out, and their thought process is obviously

muddied. How on earth can you say pot doesn't incapacitate you? You think

someone should be driving or flying a plane or doing surgery while stoned?

Christie

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 01:40:05 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

> In a message dated 2/7/04 11:36:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> Sorry, not an expert in brain physiology, but I think that common sense

>> suffices. Although, given that this common sense is radically altering the

>> physiology of my brain, who knows what to think.

>

> I meant that it was radically altering specific parts of the system, not how

> the integrated system works. In other words, you could turn a light on in a

> room in your house, and you are radically altering the position of the switch

> and the activity of the light bulb, but the way the system functions remains

> the same. If you disagree with me semantically, fine, maybe I'm saying this

> wrong. But do you understand what I'm *trying* to say?

>

Sure. It's totally different than what you were saying initially. Given your

current usage, ANY brain activity would be considered a radical change of

its physiology, which kind of subverts the original intended (and

conventional) meaning of radical, doesn't it?

> In any case - what your> saying doesn't make sense to me. First of all,

>> semi-permanent <>radical. Itcould be a semi-permanent change, but an

>> extremely

>> small and subtle one,could it not?

>

> It could, but whether it is small or fundamental depends on what context

> you're looking at it in. So, for example, say your brain is made of billions

> of

> switches that can get turned on or off, as if it were some binary system (for

> the sake of simplification.) If one switch gets turned " on " that was

> previously in the " off " position, you've made a radical change to that

> *switch*, but

> relative to the *brain* you've made an extremely small and subtle one.

>

Please. Given that a change in the brain's physiology consists of, at the

smallest level, radical changes in components, every change would then be

radical. But you used 'radical' for emphasis. Why can't you just admit that

you were wrong? You were totally wrong, I caught you in it, and you changed

the meaning of the word radical so that you wouldn't have to admit it. It's

transparent. Totally.

> And in any case, I'm not sure what exactly you would mean by

>> implying that this semi-permanent change is somehow definitional of

>> thought...if I have a similar thought to the one I had last Thursday, or

>> recall a dream or experience that I've had a 100 times, this causes a

>> 'semi-permanent' change to my brain physiology?

>

> I believe it does, especially if you form a memory of that recollection.

>

So, you think that there is a mapping of specific thoughts to specific brain

physiologies? Wittgenstein pretty much demolished that years ago, and if you

want to make that claim, I think that the burden of proof is on you.

> I suppose that if what you > mean is that

>> 1. there is nothing other than physiology going on when we think

>

> I'm not saying that, but there is a physiological component to it, always.

>

If there is always a physiological component to thought, but that is not all

that thought is, then I'm not sure how you can argue that every thought must

bring on a permanent physiological change.

>> 2. any thought, whether we've had it or not, changes the state of our

>> brains, simply because it changes the history of what we have thought

>> then, I suppose that this is true by definition.

>

> I think that that's true.

>

Well, except that we get back to the fact that you're assuming a mapping of

thoughts to specific physiological brain states, which is a HUGE assumption,

and one that you would have to provide evidence for.

>> However, 1. is a rather strong statement. And again, you are a long way

>> from

>> showing that this produces a radical change.

>

> I think I'm just using the word differently than you.

Incorrectly and disingenuously.

>I might be using it

> wrongly. But I'm trying to elaborate enough that it's clear what I mean,

> regardless of whether that's a valid use of " radical " -- which it seems to be

> to me.

>

Sure, if you're describing microscopic changes. But you weren't.

> That is an incredibly strong

>>

>> statement, istn't it, that every time we have a thought the physiology of

>> our brain RADICALLY changes? My god, man, everyone would practically have to

>> wear ear plugs if that were so.

>

> Did I say that the brain radically changes, or did I say that radical changes

> occur in the brain? I meant the latter.

>

Didn't you say that, by definition, the brain's physiology radically changes

when you have a thought?

Here it is

" First of all, any thought process or perception radically alters the

physiology of the brain. In fact, thought itself, physiologically, IS, by

definition and manifestation, a radical

altering of brain phsyiology. "

Now you're saying that essentially, a thought is simply like ANY other

biological activity, because at the most microscopic level, there are

radical changes to its components. But that isn't radical in the sense you

were talking about. Give it up!

> >

>> Well, no it doesn't. I don't care how much of an endorphin high you get

>> from

>> exercising, I can tell the difference (ridiculously easily) between that

>> sensation and that of doing drugs. And if there is such a close association

>> between thought (and experience, I imagine, by implication) and brain

>> physiology, then obviously then it affects the brain in different ways.

>

> Yes, but I believe the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

LOL! Well, it's sure different for me. What you are saying is absolutely and

totally different than my experience.

> For

> example, dopamine is one of the main chemicals involved in both highs, but in

> different amounts. I don't remember much pot physiology, but from what I

> recall, it somehow traps dopamine in the brain, so you get a greater buildup

> of

> dopamine and it lasts longer.

I really doubt that pot does nothing else other than activates dopamine in

the brain. That's pretty silly. Is dopamine psychoactive, or just calming?

[Guest guest]

Well, damn. If I knew you were going to concede, I wouldn't have bothered

with the previous post

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 01:42:50 EST

Subject: Re: Drugs

In a message dated 2/7/04 11:41:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> That is really a stretch. By fundamental, we WOULD be talking here about a

> difference in the way that the brain works, rather than a change in x number

> of its individual microscopic parts. An analogy might be someone saying

> that, after eating a meal, that their physiology has just been radically

> changed, and defending this position by the fact that many of their

> microscopic parts have been altered. This is silly - by 'radical change' in

> this sense, we are talking about a radical change in the way the system

> works. This is a linguistic point, not a physiological one, and you are

> simply defending an indefensible position.

You're right, that does sound kind of absurd. I was thinking of thought in

terms of individual cells and how they are altered, but that clearly wasn't

conveyed in what I said, so I shouldn't have used the word " radical " in that

sentence, unless I'd written an entirely different sentence. I concede.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 2:27:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Sure. It's totally different than what you were saying initially. Given

> your

> current usage, ANY brain activity would be considered a radical change of

> its physiology, which kind of subverts the original intended (and

> conventional) meaning of radical, doesn't it?

Rather, I'm saying the same thing, and revealing how poorly I had formulated

my initial sentence.

Did you think I meant to distinguish " thought " from " ANY brain activity " ? My

whole point was that any perception, and any function of the " mind " is

likewise a function of the brain and has a chemical and physiological basis. I

didn't make that point clearly, as evidenced by this extended subthread. The

word

" radical " wasn't important to my point, and I now see that it's

true-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless usage only served to obscure my actual

point.

> Please. Given that a change in the brain's physiology consists of, at the

> smallest level, radical changes in components, every change would then be

> radical.

Exactly. What I said was true, but utterly meaningless.

> But you used 'radical' for emphasis.

No, I didn't. I didn't intend for " radical " to be a functional word

vis-a-vis my point. If anything, I said it because I was in a rush.

Why can't you just admit that

> you were wrong?

I did... I bet you wrote this email before you read my following email, kind

of like I'm probably wasting my time by responding to this one before I read

your others. Oh well <g>

You were totally wrong, I caught you in it, and you changed

> the meaning of the word radical so that you wouldn't have to admit it. It's

> transparent. Totally.

This just isn't true. I wrote the word " radical " without thinking it

through, having something specific in mind, not realizing that my sentence

didn't in

any way properly convey what I had in mind. I had in mind the cellular level,

at which changes *are* radical, not the systemic level. However, it wasn't

until you pointed out the analogy with the gastric system that I thought of how

this would sound in conversation to someone on the receiving end and realized

how absurd it is.

>

> >And in any case, I'm not sure what exactly you would mean by

> >>implying that this semi-permanent change is somehow definitional of

> >>thought...if I have a similar thought to the one I had last Thursday, or

> >>recall a dream or experience that I've had a 100 times, this causes a

> >>'semi-permanent' change to my brain physiology?

> >

> >I believe it does, especially if you form a memory of that recollection.

> >

>

> So, you think that there is a mapping of specific thoughts to specific brain

> physiologies? Wittgenstein pretty much demolished that years ago, and if you

> want to make that claim, I think that the burden of proof is on you.

I already said that I know little about brain physiology. I can't attempt to

" prove " it because I really don't know what I'm talking about. I've been

trying to explain what I had in my mind when I used the word, not trying to

speak

authoritatively. I thought I expressed that clearly when I prefaced my

statements by saying that you might know much more than I do, in which case you

can

point out to me where I'm going wrong.

> If there is always a physiological component to thought, but that is not

> all

> that thought is, then I'm not sure how you can argue that every thought must

> bring on a permanent physiological change.

I don't think it's even possible for thought not to bring on a physiological

change. I don't think these changes are necessarily " permanent, " but I think

they are for the most part long-term, or " semi-permanent " if you will. Do you

believe that we can have thoughts without simultaneous brain activity? I

don't.

>

> >>2. any thought, whether we've had it or not, changes the state of our

> >>brains, simply because it changes the history of what we have thought

> >>then, I suppose that this is true by definition.

> >

> >I think that that's true.

>

> Well, except that we get back to the fact that you're assuming a mapping of

> thoughts to specific physiological brain states, which is a HUGE assumption,

> and one that you would have to provide evidence for.

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. It seems to me that you're

referring here, to the idea that any thought results in, or is caused by,

physiological activity within the brain. Are you suggesting that that is false?

> Didn't you say that, by definition, the brain's physiology radically

> changes

> when you have a thought?

>

> Here it is

> " First of all, any thought process or perception radically alters the

> physiology of the brain. In fact, thought itself, physiologically, IS, by

> definition and manifestation, a radical

> altering of brain phsyiology. "

Fair enough. That's even worse than I remembered it. I guess I remembered

what I was thinking of rather than what I wrote. Since I've been maintaing the

same position since my initial clarification, couldn't you give me the

benefit of the doubt that I'm being honest?

> >>Well, no it doesn't. I don't care how much of an endorphin high you get

> >>from

> >>exercising, I can tell the difference (ridiculously easily) between that

> >>sensation and that of doing drugs. And if there is such a close

> association

> >>between thought (and experience, I imagine, by implication) and brain

> >>physiology, then obviously then it affects the brain in different ways.

> >

> >Yes, but I believe the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

>

> LOL! Well, it's sure different for me. What you are saying is absolutely and

> totally different than my experience.

I'm not talking about the perceived experience; I'm talking about the

physiology. There are lots of *quantitative* differences is physiology that

result

in *qualitative* differences in experience.

Again, I didn't make the statement in response to you, but in response to

Judith. So please try to take into account the point Judith was making.

Perhaps

I misunderstood her, but it seemed to me she was implying that there was a

quantitative moral distinction between having fun by manipulating your

physiology versus having " real " fun, as if such manipulation was false fun. The

point

I'm trying to make in response (and obviously having a hard time doing it) is

that *any* kind of fun is had through the manipulation of physiology. My

point isn't that exercise affects you in the same way as drugs, giving you the

same experience; it's that there is no distinction between the two in terms of

one manipulating hormones and one not. Both are different forms of doing the

same thing-- manipulating hormones to achieve an experiential state that one

desires.

>

> >For

> >example, dopamine is one of the main chemicals involved in both highs, but

> in

> >different amounts. I don't remember much pot physiology, but from what I

> >recall, it somehow traps dopamine in the brain, so you get a greater

> buildup

> >of

> >dopamine and it lasts longer.

>

> I really doubt that pot does nothing else other than activates dopamine in

> the brain. That's pretty silly. Is dopamine psychoactive, or just calming?

As I said, I don't remember what I learned about it years ago very well. I'm

sure it does lots of things, but what I'd read is that dopamine is one of its

primary mechanisms. I don't think it just activates it, I think it somehow

traps it, by locking it in the BBB, but again I'm going off distant memory. I

don't understand the difference between psychoactive and calming. Dopamine is

necessary to maintain stamina during exercise, so it must do more than calm.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/8/04 2:21:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Yes, I think that the fact that a brain is necessary for thought pretty

> much

> proves that. But I do think that it is impossible (both conceptually and

> factually) to describe thoughts by describing the underlying brain activity.

> Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I'm not sure that when one is talking about

> physiological change, one is referring to the fact that on a microcosmic

> level there have been changes that have taken place. I think that you would

> be talking about higher level changes.

Then we're in agreement. I don't see any reason to think changes in the

overall system occur (not that I have any idea, but it doesn't seem particularly

sensible).

> no. I am referring to the fact that it would be impossible, even with a

> complete description of someone's brain, to figure out what they were

> actually thinking. Or conversely.

Oh. Of course.

I don't know whether that will always be true or not. I didn't get the

impression that we understand it very well right now.

> I guess I'm saying that I doubt that there aren't qualitative differences

> in

> the physiology also. If one were able to generate an exaggerated runner's

> high, would it feel like a marijuana high? That seems absurd to me, but that

> would be what you are implying.

Probably not, for the simple fact that they probably affect some of the same

hormones in different proportions. However, I do get highs lasting about 10

seconds from lifting weights that are similar to drugs. The room gets very

bright, colors intensify, and I get some sort of euphoric speed-like high.

> Well, I'd distinguish however between activities where the primary intent

> involves doing so, and activities where, it is as a result of the fact that

> engaging in ANY activity one is manipulating physiology in some sense.

I think that distinction could be made at some level, but I don't think it

can be made at a moral level. If one suggests that manipulating your hormones

and physiology to have fun is an illegitimate form of fun, I think that

illegitimates all fun.

> Not sure of the point here. I don't exercise because of how it makes me

> feel

> afterwards - I do it primarily because it's good for me. That is not why I

> did, and still occasionally do drugs.

I do it for lots of reasons. But I consider it " fun, " and I think it makes

me feel good, and both of those things are considerably affected by the

hormonal changes it produces.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:56:05 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

> In a message dated 2/8/04 2:27:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> Sure. It's totally different than what you were saying initially. Given

>> your

>> current usage, ANY brain activity would be considered a radical change of

>> its physiology, which kind of subverts the original intended (and

>> conventional) meaning of radical, doesn't it?

>

> Rather, I'm saying the same thing, and revealing how poorly I had formulated

> my initial sentence.

>

> Did you think I meant to distinguish " thought " from " ANY brain activity " ? My

> whole point was that any perception, and any function of the " mind " is

> likewise a function of the brain and has a chemical and physiological basis.

> I

> didn't make that point clearly, as evidenced by this extended subthread. The

> word

> " radical " wasn't important to my point, and I now see that it's

> true-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless usage only served to obscure my actual

> point.

>

>

>> Please. Given that a change in the brain's physiology consists of, at the

>> smallest level, radical changes in components, every change would then be

>> radical.

>

> Exactly. What I said was true, but utterly meaningless.

>

>> But you used 'radical' for emphasis.

>

> No, I didn't. I didn't intend for " radical " to be a functional word

> vis-a-vis my point. If anything, I said it because I was in a rush.

>

> Why can't you just admit that

>> you were wrong?

>

> I did... I bet you wrote this email before you read my following email, kind

> of like I'm probably wasting my time by responding to this one before I read

> your others. Oh well <g>

>

yeah. Your 'confession' came immediately after. I accept your explanation.

>

>> If there is always a physiological component to thought, but that is not

>> all

>> that thought is, then I'm not sure how you can argue that every thought must

>> bring on a permanent physiological change.

>

> I don't think it's even possible for thought not to bring on a physiological

> change. I don't think these changes are necessarily " permanent, " but I think

> they are for the most part long-term, or " semi-permanent " if you will. Do you

> believe that we can have thoughts without simultaneous brain activity? I

> don't.

>

Yes, I think that the fact that a brain is necessary for thought pretty much

proves that. But I do think that it is impossible (both conceptually and

factually) to describe thoughts by describing the underlying brain activity.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I'm not sure that when one is talking about

physiological change, one is referring to the fact that on a microcosmic

level there have been changes that have taken place. I think that you would

be talking about higher level changes.

>>

>>>> 2. any thought, whether we've had it or not, changes the state of our

>>>> brains, simply because it changes the history of what we have thought

>>>> then, I suppose that this is true by definition.

>>>

>>> I think that that's true.

>>

>> Well, except that we get back to the fact that you're assuming a mapping of

>> thoughts to specific physiological brain states, which is a HUGE assumption,

>> and one that you would have to provide evidence for.

>

> Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. It seems to me that you're

> referring here, to the idea that any thought results in, or is caused by,

> physiological activity within the brain. Are you suggesting that that is

> false?

>

no. I am referring to the fact that it would be impossible, even with a

complete description of someone's brain, to figure out what they were

actually thinking. Or conversely.

>> Didn't you say that, by definition, the brain's physiology radically

>> changes

>> when you have a thought?

>>

>> Here it is

>> " First of all, any thought process or perception radically alters the

>> physiology of the brain. In fact, thought itself, physiologically, IS, by

>> definition and manifestation, a radical

>> altering of brain phsyiology. "

>

> Fair enough. That's even worse than I remembered it. I guess I remembered

> what I was thinking of rather than what I wrote. Since I've been maintaing

> the

> same position since my initial clarification, couldn't you give me the

> benefit of the doubt that I'm being honest?

>

Sure.

>>>> Well, no it doesn't. I don't care how much of an endorphin high you get

>>>> from

>>>> exercising, I can tell the difference (ridiculously easily) between that

>>>> sensation and that of doing drugs. And if there is such a close

>> association

>>>> between thought (and experience, I imagine, by implication) and brain

>>>> physiology, then obviously then it affects the brain in different ways.

>>>

>>> Yes, but I believe the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

>>

>> LOL! Well, it's sure different for me. What you are saying is absolutely and

>> totally different than my experience.

>

> I'm not talking about the perceived experience; I'm talking about the

> physiology. There are lots of *quantitative* differences is physiology that

> result

> in *qualitative* differences in experience.

>

I guess I'm saying that I doubt that there aren't qualitative differences in

the physiology also. If one were able to generate an exaggerated runner's

high, would it feel like a marijuana high? That seems absurd to me, but that

would be what you are implying.

> Again, I didn't make the statement in response to you, but in response to

> Judith. So please try to take into account the point Judith was making.

> Perhaps

> I misunderstood her, but it seemed to me she was implying that there was a

> quantitative moral distinction between having fun by manipulating your

> physiology versus having " real " fun, as if such manipulation was false fun.

And I basically agree with your point.

> The point

> I'm trying to make in response (and obviously having a hard time doing it) is

> that *any* kind of fun is had through the manipulation of physiology.

Well, I'd distinguish however between activities where the primary intent

involves doing so, and activities where, it is as a result of the fact that

engaging in ANY activity one is manipulating physiology in some sense.

> My

> point isn't that exercise affects you in the same way as drugs, giving you the

> same experience; it's that there is no distinction between the two in terms of

> one manipulating hormones and one not. Both are different forms of doing the

> same thing-- manipulating hormones to achieve an experiential state that one

> desires.

Not sure of the point here. I don't exercise because of how it makes me feel

afterwards - I do it primarily because it's good for me. That is not why I

did, and still occasionally do drugs.

>

>>

>>> For

>>> example, dopamine is one of the main chemicals involved in both highs, but

>> in

>>> different amounts. I don't remember much pot physiology, but from what I

>>> recall, it somehow traps dopamine in the brain, so you get a greater

>> buildup

>>> of

>>> dopamine and it lasts longer.

>>

>> I really doubt that pot does nothing else other than activates dopamine in

>> the brain. That's pretty silly. Is dopamine psychoactive, or just calming?

>

> As I said, I don't remember what I learned about it years ago very well. I'm

> sure it does lots of things, but what I'd read is that dopamine is one of its

> primary mechanisms. I don't think it just activates it, I think it somehow

> traps it, by locking it in the BBB, but again I'm going off distant memory. I

> don't understand the difference between psychoactive and calming. Dopamine is

> necessary to maintain stamina during exercise, so it must do more than calm.

>

Well, probably knowing less about the physiology than you, I would bet that,

while there are some similarities, there are certainly qualitative

differences between the physiology of getting high, and the physiology of a

runner's 'high'.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:28:58 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

>> Well, I'd distinguish however between activities where the primary intent

>> involves doing so, and activities where, it is as a result of the fact that

>> engaging in ANY activity one is manipulating physiology in some sense.

>

> I think that distinction could be made at some level, but I don't think it

> can be made at a moral level. If one suggests that manipulating your hormones

> and physiology to have fun is an illegitimate form of fun, I think that

> illegitimates all fun.

>

While I don't agree with the point of view, I don't see any inherent

contradiction in asserting that it is wrong to purposely manipulate your

hormones and physiology to have fun, whereas it is not wrong to have fun in

ways where this change is simply the byproduct of engaging in human

activity.

[Guest guest]

& Gene,

It's my understanding from the book Lights Out! Sleep, Sugar and Survival

that anything ingested or even experienced before activates serotonin

receptors which either a) activates melatonin to relax you or make you

sleepy or activates dopamine, making you impulsive and hungry. Can be

physical hunger as dopamine comes on in morning and is the protein craving.

Can be impulsive hunger for more of whatever besides protein activated it.

T.S. Wiley sees hardly anyone left in the country with normal low serotonin

(impulse control), high dopamine (sharp, focused) during the day due to

stress that has fried serotonin receptors. Serotonin lowering drugs when

tested on mice to a bottomed out serotonin state produced no impulse

control, terrible, sexual frenzy and extreme aggression. The extreme low

serotonin increased dopamine, the balance and created the focused,

intensity.

Wanita

wrote:

> > For

> > example, dopamine is one of the main chemicals involved in both highs,

but in

> > different amounts. I don't remember much pot physiology, but from what

I

> > recall, it somehow traps dopamine in the brain, so you get a greater

buildup

> > of

> > dopamine and it lasts longer.

Gene wrote:

> I really doubt that pot does nothing else other than activates dopamine in

> the brain. That's pretty silly. Is dopamine psychoactive, or just calming?

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:59:25 -0800

Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

>Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

>> But you tried it right? So far the only two people I've ever met who

>> haven't

>> smoked pot are my grandparents, and if you count internet friends, the

>> two who

>> piped up today.

>

>I haven't. Haven't tried any form of tobacco, either, and have never had

>more than a few sips of alcohol or coffee. The weird thing is, my

>grandmother has. I'm from the Southwest, if it matters.

Pot - tried it once, no big deal. But I didn't inhale <giggle>

Tobacco - very guilty. Good for you actually when done correctly. I

subscribe to what the famous Baptist preacher of the 19th century -

Spuergeon - had to say when asked how do you know when you are

smoking too much? " when I'm smoking two at a time. "

Alcohol - ARE YOU KIDDING?!

Coffee - yup, guilty there too. Great carrier for lots of cream <giggle>

>> For the record, I've never dropped acid.

>

>I plead guilty to that one. Fortunately, I was wearing heavy shoes.

No acid. No cocaine. No heroin or anything else of that nature.

>> > Think your generalization is specific to your age group possibly and

>> not

>> > indicative of everyone else in the area.

>>

>> That's probably true. Does anyone know any 18-24 year olds who don't

>> smoke pot? (I don't, and I know there are some, but not many).

I never did and it was quite popular when I was that age.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

Sue,

What drugs do you take? Do you have side effects? Do you still have pain

and stiffness even with the drugs?

Thanks,

ette

>

[Guest guest]

ette, my medications for RA are Enbrel and Bextra. I don't have any

adverse side effects that I'm aware of. I have very little pain and

stiffness, thank goodness. I'm not usually stiff when I get up in the

morning. If I'm cooped up in a car for a few hours, I stiffen up a bit.

I have some minor pain sometimes when it's getting time for my Enbrel

injection. My RA was treated aggressively within the first year, and I

believe that is one reason I am having such a good response to the

meds. Sue

On Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 04:00 PM, Warren Portnoy wrote:

> Sue,

>

> What drugs do you take? Do you have side effects? Do you still have

> pain

> and stiffness even with the drugs?

[Guest guest]

Hi Tom! Well i love #1 but #2 might be thoght of differently if you consider homeopathic medicines...or even in the line of thinking where you consider that too much of ANYTHING is bad......sugar,salt, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.

Nola

[low dose naltrexone] drugs

1.) If drugs are harmful enough that they are stopped when you're pregnant, what makes them less harmful when you're not?Drs. Lendon , Sehnert and Nichael Schmidt.2.) If a drug given to a healthy person makes them sick, how can the same drug make a sick person healthy?Drs. Lendon , Sehnert and Nichael Schmidt.3.)Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature's protest, and pull down the danger signals she errects along the pathway of transgression. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later on even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear, but the patient isleft in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the time. H. Gress, M.D.

[Guest guest]

No way am I'm taking Tysabri! Not for a while at least. Until it's

proven as being safe.

On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:11 AM, tbayuk wrote:

> Health

> New MS Drugs Wait in Limbo

> Advertisement

>

>

> Related Programs:

> MS Treatment: Is It Ever Too Soon?

> Seizures While You Sleep?

> What to do When Epilepsy Medication Fails

> By: Sabo

>

> A year after it was pulled for safety concerns, a promising

> treatment for multiple sclerosis seems poised to return. The drug,

> Tysabri, was pulled off the market last February, after two

> patients developed a rare brain disorder, known as progressive

> multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or PML. A third case was later

> found in a trial that was testing the drug for Crohn's disease,

> another immune disorder.

> Two of the patients eventually died from complications. But an

> internal review by the company that makes Tysabri found no further

> PML cases in any of the patients who used the drug in clinical

> trials. On March 7, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug

> Administration will mull over the risks and make recommendations

> about whether Tysabri should be reinstated

>

> Experts are hopeful. Tysabri, which was approved by the FDA in the

> fall of 2004, is a potent treatment, reducing disease flare ups by

> more than half when added to one of the leading multiple sclerosis

> drugs, Avonex. The FDA recently allowed clinical trials on Tysabri

> to resume.

>

> Yet, concerns remain. How can doctors make sure these rare side

> effects don't show up again, especially if more and more patients

> start to take Tysabri? And equally important, what do these

> troubles mean for similar treatments that are meant to usher in a

> new age of fighting multiple sclerosis?

>

> " We have to get this right, " says Dr. Elliot Frohman of the

> University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, whose patient is

> the lone survivor of PML side effects from the drug. " If we don't

> solve the problems for Tysabri, everything else is dead in the water. "

>

> New Drugs, New Concerns?

> The source of the trouble stems from the way newer drugs like

> Tysabri target the disease. Multiple sclerosis is caused by an

> immune system malfunction, leading to inflammation, which can

> ultimately destroy the protective substance that blankets nerve

> fibers.

>

> Rather than just clamping down on inflammation all together,

> Tysabri goes after a select group of errant immune cells. However,

> these cells also offer some protection against viruses and other

> infections, which means that even the most targeted approach might

> cause unforeseen side-effects.

>

> Newer drugs that follow in Tsyabri's footsteps target different

> abnormalities. But these, too, have the potential to push the

> immune system past its defensive tipping point.

>

> " All these drugs have the same inherent problem, " says Frohman, who

> has studied many of them.

>

> Still, as Tysabri shows, the benefits are appealing. " This is the

> best treatment we've seen, " he says.

>

> As a precaution, Frohman recommends that doctors take blood tests

> of those who are taking Tysabri, should the drug be let back on the

> market. Virtually everyone carries the virus that causes PML. If

> the amount of virus in the blood shoots up, then treatment might be

> stopped in time before the drug can cause any harm.

>

> " We can't let our guard down, " says Frohman.

>

> Stakes are High

> Indeed, Tysabri is the first real test case in a range of new

> strategies that are being studied for multiple sclerosis. The

> mainstay therapy has long been drugs called interferons, which have

> shown modest effects. Newer treatments like Copaxane are approved

> for multiple sclerosis that relapses, but these are not having as

> big an impact on the disease as hoped.

>

> " We are always in need of better treatments, " says Dr.

> O'Looney, the director of biomedical research at the National

> Multiple Sclerosis Society.

>

> In the meantime, doctors rely on a grab-bag of different drugs

> that, while not specifically approved for treating multiple

> sclerosis, do show some help in controlling symptoms.

>

> " We do it all the time, " Frohman says of using drugs off-label,

> which is common in some other diseases as well.

>

> The most popular are steroids and non-specific immunosuppressant

> drugs, such as azathioprine. But this could eventually change. At

> least 140 clinical trials are now underway for multiple sclerosis,

> with several new drugs approaching late-stage testing.

>

> Some of the most promising include treatments that are already

> approved for a different disease, such as cholesterol-lowering

> statins, the cancer treatment Rituximab and drugs that are used to

> suppress the immune system after a transplant. Tysabri, which is

> closest to being approved, needs to be injected. But a pill version

> of newer multiple sclerosis treatments are also being studied.

>

> " The good news, " Dr. O'Looney says, " is that there is so much in

> the pipeline that approaches the disease from so many different

> angles. "

>

> Frohman says that his patient who survived PML is a constant

> reminder for researchers to get it right.

>

> " It's been humbling, " he says.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was only taking MTX for the last couple yrs for mine. I just started

Humira a couple months ago so that is only 2. Other than that the only meds I

take

are for my allergies. I do have a prescription for vicodin, but do not take

them to often as they make me nauseated and keep me awake. Before moving here

I was on MTX and plaquanil, but the doc here said that because he was seeing

no difference that the plaquanil was not working so he took me off that and

just kept me on the MTX

In a message dated 3/27/2008 6:35:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

jhoorm01@... writes:

Does anyone here just take one drug for their RA?

I feel like one drug leads to another and I can't believe how many I take.

I worry about my senior years and being able to afford all this med on a

limited income.

Joy

**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL

Home.

(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15 & ncid=aolhom00030\

000000001)

[Guest guest]

I know what you mean Joy! I have a myriad of other

health issues and am on quite a bit of medications!

I take Plaquenil, Sulfasalazine, and Mobic just for

the RA. I have to take Prevacid to protect the

stomach from these medications. For the FMS I take

Effexor XR and Flexeril and Ultram ER, Lunesta for

Insomnia. For a cardiac arrythmia I take Atenolol. I

use Xanax for anxiety. I take Prometrium for OB/GYN

issue, Glucophage for PCOS. I use Pulmicort and

Proventil for Asthma.

--- Joy <jhoorm01@...> wrote:

> Does anyone here just take one drug for their RA?

> I feel like one drug leads to another and I can't

> believe how many I take.

> I worry about my senior years and being able to

> afford all this med on a limited income.

> Joy

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

I take things for almost everything you have listed there too.

MTX, prednisone (down to 1.5mg) arava for the RA

I take toprol xl for irregular heart beat and benicar for bp

Take flovent and singulair for asthma. Take bcp pills too.

And I didn't start taking any of this stuff ...well except for the BCP

until I started on the arthritis meds.

Joy

stephanie <stephieann2@...> wrote:

I know what you mean Joy! I have a myriad of other

health issues and am on quite a bit of medications!

I take Plaquenil, Sulfasalazine, and Mobic just for

the RA. I have to take Prevacid to protect the

stomach from these medications. For the FMS I take

Effexor XR and Flexeril and Ultram ER, Lunesta for

Insomnia. For a cardiac arrythmia I take Atenolol. I

use Xanax for anxiety. I take Prometrium for OB/GYN

issue, Glucophage for PCOS. I use Pulmicort and

Proventil for Asthma.

--- Joy wrote:

> Does anyone here just take one drug for their RA?

> I feel like one drug leads to another and I can't

> believe how many I take.

> I worry about my senior years and being able to

> afford all this med on a limited income.

> Joy

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>

> > Does anyone here just take one drug for their RA?

> > I feel like one drug leads to another and I can't

> > believe how many I take.

> > I worry about my senior years and being able to

> > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > Joy

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> http://www./r/hs

>

well I am only taking one drug and just started it.We all know that

RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking itself.To get to

the root of the problem and supress the immune system and more or

less get it under control I feel is the answer.most doctors favor

this also.To just treat the damage that is occuring does not stop the

maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my knowledge.most

importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen has RA and is

doing well.She also states when you find the right doctor kiss him as

they are out there.This can only be controled. Good luck!

[Guest guest]

I am finding out more and more that Doctors like to give me MULTIPLE

diagnosis (thus mutiple drugs). WHEN in FACT my symptoms can be

explained by one or two diagnosis. I went from taking 24 pills, to

only 3, and hopefully just 2 soon, just by doing my own research

(whith help from my Dad). I just needed to figure out how to convince

my doctors to run the correct tests. COME TO FIND OUT, that most of

my symttoms are due to a hormonal imbalance, which researchers in

Europe how found is related to RA. SO not only has this hormonal

imbalance cause me to have the 20 different diagnosis, including

PCOS, Tachycardia, hypertension, depression/anxiety, gastrointestinal

issues and allergy related asthma and of course wight gainz(I am sure

realted to pbllod sugar issues) etc. BUT, come to find out it is also

making my RA worse. Some research suggests that it may have even

cause my RA?!?!?! I am working on a plan with my father, who is a

naturopathic physician/DC and my MD to try to balance out my

hormones, and so far the prognosis looks better than ever. Soon I

will get to stair step off my Xanax, and maybe only need 1 or 2

medicines along with natural supplements.

I can't even explain how excited I am!

If you don't like taking so many meds or can't afford them, tell your

doctor, I am sure that many of them are redundant or react with one

another and are doing you more harm than good.

After having been in your situation, that is just my opinon. I feel

much better now, than when I was taking 24 pills.

Hope this helps. I will keep everyone update on my symptoms. I am

starting on Progesterone (which is also a birth control) and DHEA

supplements in Two weeks (since is has to coincide with my cycle)

along with other supplements and homeopathic stuff

P.S. I good 14 day detox did me a lot of good too!

> >

> > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their RA?

> > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I can't

> > > believe how many I take.

> > > I worry about my senior years and being able to

> > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > Joy

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > http://www./r/hs

> >

> well I am only taking one drug and just started it.We all know that

> RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking itself.To get to

> the root of the problem and supress the immune system and more or

> less get it under control I feel is the answer.most doctors favor

> this also.To just treat the damage that is occuring does not stop

the

> maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my knowledge.most

> importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen has RA and is

> doing well.She also states when you find the right doctor kiss him

as

> they are out there.This can only be controled. Good luck!

>

[Guest guest]

Good luck on the progesterone! I take Prometrium

(progesterone) for abnormal bleeding and I do not like

it at all. It hasn't helped the problem it is

supposed to be correcting, and it makes me feel worse

in every other health aspect that I have. In my case,

most of my other illnesses are hereditary and were

diagnosed long before my RA.

--- laurenrosepeters <laurenrosepeters@...>

wrote:

> I am finding out more and more that Doctors like to

> give me MULTIPLE

> diagnosis (thus mutiple drugs). WHEN in FACT my

> symptoms can be

> explained by one or two diagnosis. I went from

> taking 24 pills, to

> only 3, and hopefully just 2 soon, just by doing my

> own research

> (whith help from my Dad). I just needed to figure

> out how to convince

> my doctors to run the correct tests. COME TO FIND

> OUT, that most of

> my symttoms are due to a hormonal imbalance, which

> researchers in

> Europe how found is related to RA. SO not only has

> this hormonal

> imbalance cause me to have the 20 different

> diagnosis, including

> PCOS, Tachycardia, hypertension, depression/anxiety,

> gastrointestinal

> issues and allergy related asthma and of course

> wight gainz(I am sure

> realted to pbllod sugar issues) etc. BUT, come to

> find out it is also

> making my RA worse. Some research suggests that it

> may have even

> cause my RA?!?!?! I am working on a plan with my

> father, who is a

> naturopathic physician/DC and my MD to try to

> balance out my

> hormones, and so far the prognosis looks better than

> ever. Soon I

> will get to stair step off my Xanax, and maybe only

> need 1 or 2

> medicines along with natural supplements.

> I can't even explain how excited I am!

> If you don't like taking so many meds or can't

> afford them, tell your

> doctor, I am sure that many of them are redundant or

> react with one

> another and are doing you more harm than good.

> After having been in your situation, that is just my

> opinon. I feel

> much better now, than when I was taking 24 pills.

>

> Hope this helps. I will keep everyone update on my

> symptoms. I am

> starting on Progesterone (which is also a birth

> control) and DHEA

> supplements in Two weeks (since is has to coincide

> with my cycle)

> along with other supplements and homeopathic stuff

>

> P.S. I good 14 day detox did me a lot of good too!

>

>

> > >

> > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> RA?

> > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> can't

> > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> to

> > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > Joy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > ______________

> > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > http://www./r/hs

> > >

> > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> it.We all know that

> > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> itself.To get to

> > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> system and more or

> > less get it under control I feel is the

> answer.most doctors favor

> > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> occuring does not stop

> the

> > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> knowledge.most

> > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> has RA and is

> > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> doctor kiss him

> as

> > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> Good luck!

> >

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

CONGATULATIONS TO YOU, ON STOPPING MEDS!!!! i HOPE to STOP some of my meds SOON

to cuz I really DONT BELIEVE some of them are WORKING!! melyndagamez 3/29/08

5:15p.m.central time

Re: [ ] Re: Drugs

Good luck on the progesterone! I take Prometrium

(progesterone) for abnormal bleeding and I do not like

it at all. It hasn't helped the problem it is

supposed to be correcting, and it makes me feel worse

in every other health aspect that I have. In my case,

most of my other illnesses are hereditary and were

diagnosed long before my RA.

--- laurenrosepeters <laurenrosepeters@...>

wrote:

> I am finding out more and more that Doctors like to

> give me MULTIPLE

> diagnosis (thus mutiple drugs). WHEN in FACT my

> symptoms can be

> explained by one or two diagnosis. I went from

> taking 24 pills, to

> only 3, and hopefully just 2 soon, just by doing my

> own research

> (whith help from my Dad). I just needed to figure

> out how to convince

> my doctors to run the correct tests. COME TO FIND

> OUT, that most of

> my symttoms are due to a hormonal imbalance, which

> researchers in

> Europe how found is related to RA. SO not only has

> this hormonal

> imbalance cause me to have the 20 different

> diagnosis, including

> PCOS, Tachycardia, hypertension, depression/anxiety,

> gastrointestinal

> issues and allergy related asthma and of course

> wight gainz(I am sure

> realted to pbllod sugar issues) etc. BUT, come to

> find out it is also

> making my RA worse. Some research suggests that it

> may have even

> cause my RA?!?!?! I am working on a plan with my

> father, who is a

> naturopathic physician/DC and my MD to try to

> balance out my

> hormones, and so far the prognosis looks better than

> ever. Soon I

> will get to stair step off my Xanax, and maybe only

> need 1 or 2

> medicines along with natural supplements.

> I can't even explain how excited I am!

> If you don't like taking so many meds or can't

> afford them, tell your

> doctor, I am sure that many of them are redundant or

> react with one

> another and are doing you more harm than good.

> After having been in your situation, that is just my

> opinon. I feel

> much better now, than when I was taking 24 pills.

>

> Hope this helps. I will keep everyone update on my

> symptoms. I am

> starting on Progesterone (which is also a birth

> control) and DHEA

> supplements in Two weeks (since is has to coincide

> with my cycle)

> along with other supplements and homeopathic stuff

>

> P.S. I good 14 day detox did me a lot of good too!

>

>

> > >

> > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> RA?

> > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> can't

> > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> to

> > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > Joy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > ______________

> > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > http://www./r/hs

> > >

> > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> it.We all know that

> > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> itself.To get to

> > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> system and more or

> > less get it under control I feel is the

> answer.most doctors favor

> > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> occuring does not stop

> the

> > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> knowledge.most

> > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> has RA and is

> > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> doctor kiss him

> as

> > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> Good luck!

> >

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Yep I had to same problem, and they gave me Estrogen to balance it

out, and my body freaked! I was having periods every other week. it

wasn't until recently that I was like DUH! Progesterone worked in the

past, I had NO sypmtoms until I went on Estrogen based brith control!

Everybody is different too. The DHEA I hope will work, it deppends on

the person, some people convert it to estrogen (whiche wouldn't be

good for me) and others covert it to testosterone. So we'll see on

that! I just thought back to the last time that I felt " normal " and I

was on progesterone, not estrogen. From my research progesterone

doesn't promote the production of estrogen, But estrogen lowers a

woman's testosterone levels, and that is where the research is

pointing. Sounds wierd, but my goal is to try to raise my

testosterone to normal, or maybe above normal levels. We'll see, it

can't hurt. But it makes sense with my history and all, and strangely

coincides with the research.

> > > >

> > > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> > RA?

> > > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> > can't

> > > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> > to

> > > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > > Joy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > ______________

> > > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > > http://www./r/hs

> > > >

> > > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> > it.We all know that

> > > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> > itself.To get to

> > > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> > system and more or

> > > less get it under control I feel is the

> > answer.most doctors favor

> > > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> > occuring does not stop

> > the

> > > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> > knowledge.most

> > > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> > has RA and is

> > > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> > doctor kiss him

> > as

> > > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> > Good luck!

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> http://www./r/hs

>

[Guest guest]

What tests did you have them run? I would love to get off some of this stuff.

Joy

>

> > I am finding out more and more that Doctors like to

> > give me MULTIPLE

> > diagnosis (thus mutiple drugs). WHEN in FACT my

> > symptoms can be

> > explained by one or two diagnosis. I went from

> > taking 24 pills, to

> > only 3, and hopefully just 2 soon, just by doing my

> > own research

> > (whith help from my Dad). I just needed to figure

> > out how to convince

> > my doctors to run the correct tests. COME TO FIND

> > OUT, that most of

> > my symttoms are due to a hormonal imbalance, which

> > researchers in

> > Europe how found is related to RA. SO not only has

> > this hormonal

> > imbalance cause me to have the 20 different

> > diagnosis, including

> > PCOS, Tachycardia, hypertension, depression/anxiety,

> > gastrointestinal

> > issues and allergy related asthma and of course

> > wight gainz(I am sure

> > realted to pbllod sugar issues) etc. BUT, come to

> > find out it is also

> > making my RA worse. Some research suggests that it

> > may have even

> > cause my RA?!?!?! I am working on a plan with my

> > father, who is a

> > naturopathic physician/DC and my MD to try to

> > balance out my

> > hormones, and so far the prognosis looks better than

> > ever. Soon I

> > will get to stair step off my Xanax, and maybe only

> > need 1 or 2

> > medicines along with natural supplements.

> > I can't even explain how excited I am!

> > If you don't like taking so many meds or can't

> > afford them, tell your

> > doctor, I am sure that many of them are redundant or

> > react with one

> > another and are doing you more harm than good.

> > After having been in your situation, that is just my

> > opinon. I feel

> > much better now, than when I was taking 24 pills.

> >

> > Hope this helps. I will keep everyone update on my

> > symptoms. I am

> > starting on Progesterone (which is also a birth

> > control) and DHEA

> > supplements in Two weeks (since is has to coincide

> > with my cycle)

> > along with other supplements and homeopathic stuff

> >

> > P.S. I good 14 day detox did me a lot of good too!

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> > RA?

> > > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> > can't

> > > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> > to

> > > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > > Joy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > ______________

> > > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > > http://www./r/hs

> > > >

> > > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> > it.We all know that

> > > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> > itself.To get to

> > > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> > system and more or

> > > less get it under control I feel is the

> > answer.most doctors favor

> > > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> > occuring does not stop

> > the

> > > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> > knowledge.most

> > > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> > has RA and is

> > > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> > doctor kiss him

> > as

> > > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> > Good luck!

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> http://www./r/hs

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hormone panel , DHEA, free testosterone. and then RA factor and CBC

and ANA pre and post therapy. I havn't started yet. It will be more

that a coincidence if my RA factor is negative post therapy?????

We'll See.

It's crazy, I saw all these different doctors, some of them even

thought I had a tumor....and all it might be is hormones! Which can

be controlled (for most people) naturally.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> > > RA?

> > > > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> > > can't

> > > > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> > > to

> > > > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > > > Joy

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > > ______________

> > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > > > http://www./r/hs

> > > > >

> > > > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> > > it.We all know that

> > > > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> > > itself.To get to

> > > > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> > > system and more or

> > > > less get it under control I feel is the

> > > answer.most doctors favor

> > > > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> > > occuring does not stop

> > > the

> > > > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> > > knowledge.most

> > > > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> > > has RA and is

> > > > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> > > doctor kiss him

> > > as

> > > > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> > > Good luck!

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > http://www./r/hs

> >

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

what is a ANA pre?

laurenrosepeters <laurenrosepeters@...> wrote: Hormone panel , DHEA, free

testosterone. and then RA factor and CBC

and ANA pre and post therapy. I havn't started yet. It will be more

that a coincidence if my RA factor is negative post therapy?????

We'll See.

It's crazy, I saw all these different doctors, some of them even

thought I had a tumor....and all it might be is hormones! Which can

be controlled (for most people) naturally.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Does anyone here just take one drug for their

> > > RA?

> > > > > > I feel like one drug leads to another and I

> > > can't

> > > > > > believe how many I take.

> > > > > > I worry about my senior years and being able

> > > to

> > > > > > afford all this med on a limited income.

> > > > > > Joy

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > > ______________

> > > > > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > > > > http://www./r/hs

> > > > >

> > > > well I am only taking one drug and just started

> > > it.We all know that

> > > > RA is an auto immune problem.Our body is attacking

> > > itself.To get to

> > > > the root of the problem and supress the immune

> > > system and more or

> > > > less get it under control I feel is the

> > > answer.most doctors favor

> > > > this also.To just treat the damage that is

> > > occuring does not stop

> > > the

> > > > maine culprit.The damage is not reversible to my

> > > knowledge.most

> > > > importent is to find a good doctor.Kathleen

> > > has RA and is

> > > > doing well.She also states when you find the right

> > > doctor kiss him

> > > as

> > > > they are out there.This can only be controled.

> > > Good luck!

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> > http://www./r/hs

> >

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>