Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 is right,we should be concerned about what happens in Columbia. Modern Myth of the day from another list I have seen the light. So, um, if one is, say, a bit underendowed, there is a way to get sufficient attention anyway? Do you happen to have an address for these women? I have a, uh, "friend" who could use some help... --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 > I have seen the light. So, um, if one is, say, a bit underendowed, there is > a way to get sufficient attention anyway? Do you happen to have an address > for these women? I have a, uh, " friend " who could use some help... I guess I could use a drug problem like these guys have too. Heck, NA tells me I'm powerless over dope anyway.... I've taken Step 1, I know that I'm licked, reckon it's only fair that these chicks get licked too... P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 Pete, that Cleavage of Death story has been around a couple of weeks on allegedly respectable news wires. I keep waiting for it to be exposed (hee hee) as a hoax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2001 Report Share Posted June 9, 2001 > CROCK OF SHIT. No drug is powerful enough to incapacitate someone like that, > not while maintaining harmlessness to the person who is wearing it on their > breast.Just shows you how stupid people can be. Mike. I wondered this if they put it on their nipples, but so long as they avoided them, then your 100% wrong; the skin is designed to keep things out, and it's perfectly possible they could put something on their breasts that could affect someone badly when taken into the mouth. The nipples of course might provide an entry point, and as that is what the men are likely to be most interrested in then that could be a problem. However afaik it may still be possible because even the nipples are not sufficiently porous enough to allow a significant amount to enter. In addition, the women may use the drug recreationally themselves and hence have a tolerance to it the men dont have. However, I'm not suggesting I actually BELIEVE this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2001 Report Share Posted June 9, 2001 I dunno, Pete, I just rubbed some ketamine on my breasts five minutes ago and I'm starting to feel rather loopy... Hey, I wonder what Hannibal Lector gave to that dude that got him so whacked out he was willing to cut off his face and feed it to his dogs? Wow, I have a sudden urge to strip naked and challenge the LAPD to a wrestling match!!!! > > CROCK OF SHIT. No drug is powerful enough to incapacitate someone > like that, > > not while maintaining harmlessness to the person who is wearing it > on their > > breast.Just shows you how stupid people can be. Mike. > > I wondered this if they put it on their nipples, but so long as they > avoided them, then your 100% wrong; the skin is designed to keep > things out, and it's perfectly possible they could put something on > their breasts that could affect someone badly when taken into the > mouth. The nipples of course might provide an entry point, and as > that is what the men are likely to be most interrested in then that > could be a problem. However afaik it may still be possible because > even the nipples are not sufficiently porous enough to allow a > significant amount to enter. In addition, the women may use the drug > recreationally themselves and hence have a tolerance to it the men > dont have. However, I'm not suggesting I actually BELIEVE this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2001 Report Share Posted June 9, 2001 From Pete, " ...the skin is designed to keep things out, and it's perfectly possible they could put something on their breasts that could affect someone badly when taken into the mouth. " Yes and no. Skin is designed to *both* keep things out and let things in. That's what transdermal patches are for. Medication comes in via the skin. And there are other substances, and right now I can't remember specifically what, that will be absorbed into the body through the skin. So I find the story implausible. There'd be a good chance that some of the drug would be absorbed into the woman's body. Cheers, nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 CROCK OF SHIT. No drug is powerful enough to incapacitate someone like that, not while maintaining harmlessness to the person who is wearing it on their breast.Just shows you how stupid people can be. Mike. The Columbian Problem > is right,we should be concerned about what happens in Columbia. Modern > Myth of the day from another list: > > >In Colombia, three women have been arrested for luring men > >into licking their breasts, thereby drugging them, and > >finally stealing their wallets and cars. The women, who are > >all in their teens and early twenties, would smear powerful > >narcotics on their breasts, and when the men licked them > >they would be rendered unconscious and helpless against the > >theft. > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 The skin is not an effective barrier against molecular sized objects. many drugs are available in transdermal patch type delivery systems, especially narcotics. I say again this story is a crock of shit. Mike. Re: The Columbian Problem > > > CROCK OF SHIT. No drug is powerful enough to incapacitate someone > like that, > > not while maintaining harmlessness to the person who is wearing it > on their > > breast.Just shows you how stupid people can be. Mike. > > I wondered this if they put it on their nipples, but so long as they > avoided them, then your 100% wrong; the skin is designed to keep > things out, and it's perfectly possible they could put something on > their breasts that could affect someone badly when taken into the > mouth. The nipples of course might provide an entry point, and as > that is what the men are likely to be most interrested in then that > could be a problem. However afaik it may still be possible because > even the nipples are not sufficiently porous enough to allow a > significant amount to enter. In addition, the women may use the drug > recreationally themselves and hence have a tolerance to it the men > dont have. However, I'm not suggesting I actually BELIEVE this story. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 > The skin is not an effective barrier against molecular sized objects. many > drugs are available in transdermal patch type delivery systems, especially > narcotics. I say again this story is a crock of shit. Mike. > ----- Original Message ----- On the contrary, it often is. Do you dissolve when you take a shower when those water molecules get in? Of course *some* drugs can penetrate yes - but not necessarily all. Some drugs cannot be administered by this method, and also therpaeutic dsages are a lot less than wipeout doses - the girls may have been high but funbctional. I agree the story is likely shit, but not impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 I have already andswered this general point, but I will say here that the skin isnt *designed* to let things in - it just does in some cases. Why would anyone bother using needles if you could just rub a drug in for the same effect? I dont think so. > From Pete, " ...the skin is designed to keep > things out, and it's perfectly possible they could put something on > their breasts that could affect someone badly when taken into the > mouth. " > > Yes and no. Skin is designed to *both* keep things out and let things in. That's what > transdermal patches are for. Medication comes in via the skin. And there are other > substances, and right now I can't remember specifically what, that will be absorbed into > the body through the skin. > > So I find the story implausible. There'd be a good chance that some of the drug would be > absorbed into the woman's body. > > Cheers, > > nz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when you soak in a > bathtub. Mike. Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic pressure as it seeps in to your bloodstream! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when you soak in a bathtub. Mike. Re: The Columbian Problem > > > The skin is not an effective barrier against molecular sized > objects. many > > drugs are available in transdermal patch type delivery systems, > especially > > narcotics. I say again this story is a crock of shit. Mike. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > On the contrary, it often is. Do you dissolve when you take a shower > when those water molecules get in? > > Of course *some* drugs can penetrate yes - but not necessarily all. > Some drugs cannot be administered by this method, and also therpaeutic > dsages are a lot less than wipeout doses - the girls may have been > high but funbctional. I agree the story is likely shit, but not > impossible. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when you soak > in a > > bathtub. Mike. > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic pressure as > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > Pete, But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, perhaps more if one is dehydrated. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic pressure as > > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, >perhaps more if one is dehydrated. Yes, but this is water soaked into the epidermis, not going right through into the bloodstream! Given how small a water molecule is, I'm surprised skin patches work. The answer is probably that only a small amount of a drug is needed to get through to be effectiuve, and the whoile point is that they are intedned to release it slowly. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 > Given how small a water molecule is, I'm surprised skin patches work. > The answer is probably that only a small amount of a drug is needed to > get through to be effectiuve, and the whoile point is that they are > intedned to release it slowly. > > P. Sounds fair enough. I suspect it's safe to say that the efficiency of skin-absorbtion is, erm, not easily predicted! ;-) Once upon a time, I worked on prostaglandin research (drugs used in synchronization of oestrus, induction of " labour " etc.) These are indeed fairly large molecules, assumed to be skin absorbed and potentially active at the very low (sub-microgram?) level. There was a sex issue too - ISTR it was " tacitly " assumed that female employees of child-bearing were NOT to work on them, precisely because of the potential for aborting unsuspected pregnancies, merely by skin contact. I'm not sure this was ever tested since the staff were almost exclusively male - A sign of (those) times or another dubious of " advantage " of being male? ;-) Mack (Heheh, such imagery - exploding in the bath(tub)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 >From: "Mike" >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: <12-step-free > >Subject: Re: Re: The Columbian Problem >Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:45:03 -0400 > >I am not a chemist or a pharmacologist, but it is not strictly due to the >size of the molecule. There is much to do with biochemistry that makes >certain chemicals(drugs) more permeable through membranes than other >chemicals . Mike. Mike - I think you are on the right track. Take dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) for example. Horse medicine originally, has been used both internally and externally by humans. Very large molecule. Applied topically, it is known for deep penetration to relieve both deep muscle inflamation and joint pain. Many baseball and football players promoted its use even when not approved by the FDA. A real fad during the early 80s. Internal use was for cystitis, as I recall. Side effect: may cause breath to smell strongly of asparagas. Oh Well. Hang in there, A.Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Absolutely Mike. Glad to see your back in this challenging thread! P. > > > > > Given how small a water molecule is, I'm surprised skin patches > > work. > > > The answer is probably that only a small amount of a drug is needed > > to > > > get through to be effectiuve, and the whoile point is that they are > > > intedned to release it slowly. > > > > > > P. > > > > Sounds fair enough. I suspect it's safe to say that the efficiency of > > skin-absorbtion is, erm, not easily predicted! ;-) Once upon a time, > > I worked on prostaglandin research (drugs used in synchronization of > > oestrus, induction of " labour " etc.) These are indeed fairly large > > molecules, assumed to be skin absorbed and potentially active at the > > very low (sub-microgram?) level. There was a sex issue too - ISTR it > > was " tacitly " assumed that female employees of child-bearing were > > NOT to work on them, precisely because of the potential for aborting > > unsuspected pregnancies, merely by skin contact. I'm not sure this > > was ever tested since the staff were almost exclusively male - A sign > > of (those) times or another dubious of " advantage " of being male? ;-) > > > > Mack > > > > (Heheh, such imagery - exploding in the bath(tub)! > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Yeah, but not from takin' a friggin' bath for cryssake. And what the hell as this got to do with the problem of poor women's breasts in Columbia, you ethnocentric bigot? <VBG> > > > > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when you soak > > > in a > > > > bathtub. Mike. > > > > > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic pressure as > > > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, perhaps > > more if one is dehydrated. > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Watts - of all that is to be said about Colombia, you brought up this crap to mock any real interest or concern in that area. Go pop a pill. Re: The Columbian Problem > Yeah, but not from takin' a friggin' bath for cryssake. And what the > hell as this got to do with the problem of poor women's breasts in > Columbia, you ethnocentric bigot? <VBG> > > > > > > > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when > you soak > > > > in a > > > > > bathtub. Mike. > > > > > > > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic > pressure as > > > > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, > perhaps > > > more if one is dehydrated. > > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 > Maybe I missed something-when did I get declared an 'ethnocentric >bigot' ? It was parody of , which in judging by his response, has had no difficulty in recognizing himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Pete wrote: > Given how small a water molecule is, I'm surprised skin patches work. > The answer is probably that only a small amount of a drug is needed to > get through to be effectiuve, and the whoile point is that they are > intedned to release it slowly. Pete, I am guessing that these patches include some kind of solvent or other chemical that carries the drug through the skin. If you look at some PDR entries for, say, antifungal creams, you'll see that they actually do tests on cadaver skin (yuck) to see how well these solutions penetrate. Now, here's a story I heard second-hand, so it might not be true: A friend of a friend of mine had a severe case of back pain. Someone gave him a nice backrub using some kind of moisturizing lotion. That didn't do the trick. So the guy gets some DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, I think) and gets someone to rub it on his back. Now DMSO is one helluva skin-penetrating solvent and also good for topical pain relief (although I believe in this country it's never been approved for human use. Vets use it for horses, I've heard). If you rub it on your skin, you'll actually be able to TASTE it a few minutes later (or so I've heard, never done it myself). So anyway, this guy applied DMSO to his back, and a few minutes later he was sick as a dog and had to go to the emergency room. Turned out the DMSO had mixed with the lanolin in the lotion on his back and taken it into the guy's bloodstream. Apparently lanolin is not good for you when it gets into the blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Yep Mrreindeer, I thought this also. Thew skin is good at keeping out stuff that gets dissolved in water and hence you might expect to actually run into a lot in the wild, but some organic stuff can get through. P. > Pete, I am guessing that these patches include some kind of solvent > or other chemical that carries the drug through the skin. If you look > at some PDR entries for, say, antifungal creams, you'll see that they > actually do tests on cadaver skin (yuck) to see how well these > solutions penetrate. > > Now, here's a story I heard second-hand, so it might not be true: > > A friend of a friend of mine had a severe case of back pain. Someone > gave him a nice backrub using some kind of moisturizing lotion. That > didn't do the trick. So the guy gets some DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, I > think) and gets someone to rub it on his back. > > Now DMSO is one helluva skin-penetrating solvent and also good for > topical pain relief (although I believe in this country it's never > been approved for human use. Vets use it for horses, I've heard). If > you rub it on your skin, you'll actually be able to TASTE it a few > minutes later (or so I've heard, never done it myself). So anyway, > this guy applied DMSO to his back, and a few minutes later he was > sick as a dog and had to go to the emergency room. Turned out the > DMSO had mixed with the lanolin in the lotion on his back and taken > it into the guy's bloodstream. Apparently lanolin is not good for you > when it gets into the blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 I am not a chemist or a pharmacologist, but it is not strictly due to the size of the molecule. There is much to do with biochemistry that makes certain chemicals(drugs) more permeable through membranes than other chemicals . Mike. Re: The Columbian Problem > > > > Given how small a water molecule is, I'm surprised skin patches > work. > > The answer is probably that only a small amount of a drug is needed > to > > get through to be effectiuve, and the whoile point is that they are > > intedned to release it slowly. > > > > P. > > Sounds fair enough. I suspect it's safe to say that the efficiency of > skin-absorbtion is, erm, not easily predicted! ;-) Once upon a time, > I worked on prostaglandin research (drugs used in synchronization of > oestrus, induction of " labour " etc.) These are indeed fairly large > molecules, assumed to be skin absorbed and potentially active at the > very low (sub-microgram?) level. There was a sex issue too - ISTR it > was " tacitly " assumed that female employees of child-bearing were > NOT to work on them, precisely because of the potential for aborting > unsuspected pregnancies, merely by skin contact. I'm not sure this > was ever tested since the staff were almost exclusively male - A sign > of (those) times or another dubious of " advantage " of being male? ;-) > > Mack > > (Heheh, such imagery - exploding in the bath(tub)! > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 As pure water enters your bloodstream, red blood cells do indeed inflate and pop-that is why intravenous solutions are only about 96%, ( I think it is) water and the rest are solutes, to maintain isotonic equilibrium. Mike. Re: Re: The Columbian Problem > > > watts_pete@... wrote: > > > > > > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when you soak > > in a > > > bathtub. Mike. > > > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic pressure as > > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > > > > Pete, > > But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, perhaps > more if one is dehydrated. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Maybe I missed something-when did I get declared an 'ethnocentric bigot' ? Mike. Re: The Columbian Problem > Yeah, but not from takin' a friggin' bath for cryssake. And what the > hell as this got to do with the problem of poor women's breasts in > Columbia, you ethnocentric bigot? <VBG> > > > > > > > I believe some water molecules DO enter your epidermis when > you soak > > > > in a > > > > > bathtub. Mike. > > > > > > > > Yeah, you but you dont inflate and go pop with the osmotic > pressure as > > > > it seeps in to your bloodstream! > > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > But it is my understanding that one might gain a couple of pounds, > perhaps > > > more if one is dehydrated. > > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.