Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)

[Rainking12]

Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide
and the potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it
now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things
that work for me as a benzo and for it's powerful nad
properties...

[William St]

Rainking123123 wrote:

> Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide
> and the potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it
> now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things
> that work for me as a benzo and for it's powerful nad
> properties...

I'm thinking of going on some niacin but am concerned about
side effects (I have "metabolic disorder", hypertension,
hyperlipidemia and am overweight; on a lo-carb diet for 4 days
now). I'd like a resonable source for the niacin and some
guidance on what to watch out for.

Thanks

Bill

[Mad McFarq]

Why not just take a normal dose of niacin via a vitamin pill?

"Rainking123123" <natureabor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6adf6a42.0212051120.7d42db36@posting.google.com...
> Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide
> and the potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it
> now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things
> that work for me as a benzo and for it's powerful nad
> properties...

[Diane Rich]

On 5 Dec 2002 11:20:37 -0800, natureabor@hotmail.com
(Rainking123123) wrote:

>Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide
>and the potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it
>now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things
>that work for me as a benzo and for it's powerful nad
>properties...

http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=Page-pt=Ge-
neral-pageId=103

Diane Richardson referen@bway.net

[Doe]

>Subject: Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)

http://www.doctoryourself.com/niacin.html

Who loves ya. Tom Jesus was a vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com









Jesus was a vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Moses
was a mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html

[Doe]

>Subject: Re: Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)

http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/doctor_yourself.html

Abram Hoffer, M.D., says:

"About Megadose Niacin:

"The factoid niacin causes liver damage is analyzed thoroughly
by William Parsons Jr, who shows that niacin will often
increase liver function tests but that these increases do not
arise from liver pathology. (Parsons WB Jr: Cholesterol
Control Without Diet: The Niacin Solution. Lilac Press,
Scotsdale, Arizona 1998. Reviewed in Journal of Orthomolecular
Medicine, Volume 14, 1999, 3rd quarter.)

Who loves ya. Tom Jesus was a vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com









Jesus was a vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Moses
was a mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html

[Dave Bird]

In article<3df0d834.3962788@news.bway.net>, Diane Richardson
<referen@bway.net> writes:
>On 5 Dec 2002 11:20:37 -0800, natureabor@hotmail.com
>(Rainking123123) wrote:
>
>>Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose niacinamide
>>and the potential for liver damage? I'm currently taking it
>>now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's one of the few things
>>that work for me as a benzo and for it's powerful nad
>>properties...
>
>http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=Page-pt=G-
>eneral-pageId=103

2. Individuals with high cholesterol may benefit from
pharmacological doses of nicotinic acid, one form of
niacin. It has been shown to significantly lower blood
levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as
reduce risk of nonfatal heart attack and stroke in the
Coronary Drug Project. Pharmacological doses of the
vitamin (over 1 gm/day) are not without risk, however.
Flushing, nausea and vomiting may occur. Liver damage
leading to hepatitis has been seen. Large doses of the
vitamin used for cholesterol reduction should only be used
under the supervision of a physician.
#############################
##########################

I would reckon you need liver function tests every 3 to 4
weeks. High-dosing with this material really needs the
support of a medically trained person AND -- I don't think
even they could get an adequate handle on it just with the
unaided senses -- access to lab tests.

--
____ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ \_ ___.. .-''/(::::("_o(*)::("-
_o(*)::("_o''/(*)::("_o(*)::("_o'(*):::(@__o /\~~/\
/\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~/\ /\~~~/\ If you're not the
lead huskie, then the view never changes.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Diane Rich]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:38:15 +0000, Dave Bird
<dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article<3df0d834.3962788@news.bway.net>, Diane Richardson
><referen@bway.net> writes:
>>On 5 Dec 2002 11:20:37 -0800, natureabor@hotmail.com
>>(Rainking123123) wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone uncovered any new regarding high dose
>>>niacinamide and the potential for liver damage? I'm
>>>currently taking it now at large doses (2-8g/day) as it's
>>>one of the few things that work for me as a benzo and for
>>>it's powerful nad properties...
>>
>>http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=Page-pt=-
>>General-pageId=103
>
> 2. Individuals with high cholesterol may benefit from
> pharmacological doses of nicotinic acid, one form of
> niacin. It has been shown to significantly lower blood
> levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as
> reduce risk of nonfatal heart attack and stroke in the
> Coronary Drug Project. Pharmacological doses of the
> vitamin (over 1 gm/day) are not without risk, however.
> Flushing, nausea and vomiting may occur. Liver damage
> leading to hepatitis has been seen. Large doses of the
> vitamin used for cholesterol reduction should only be
> used under the supervision of a physician.
> #############################
>##########################
>
> I would reckon you need liver function tests every 3 to 4
> weeks. High-dosing with this material really needs the
> support of a medically trained person AND -- I don't think
> even they could get an adequate handle on it just with the
> unaided senses -- access to lab tests.

The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer
drugs that reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce the
risk of heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer, they
also have few side effects. They are called "statin" drugs and
any physician around would happily provide a prescription for
one of them to anyone with a high cholesterol level. There
have been additional studies showing these same drugs seem to
protect from Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis too. They are
marketed under such names as Zocor and Lipitor.

Diane Richardson referen@bway.net

[Paul Chefu]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:00:40 GMT, referen@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:

>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer
>drugs that reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce
>the risk of heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer,
>they also have few side effects. They are called "statin"
>drugs and any physician around would happily provide a
>prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>cholesterol level. There have been additional studies showing
>these same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's and
>multiple sclerosis too. They are marketed under such names as
>Zocor and Lipitor.

Statins aren't without their side effects. Though they may be
infrequent, they can be extremely severe. In addition, there
is a growing sense among users that the rate of side effects
has been drastically understated by the manufacturers.
Personally, I wouldn't touch Lipitor with a 10-foot pole. To
see what some users are saying about their experiences, take a
look at http://www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipitor/d-
efault.htm

Paul

[Diane Rich]

On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:12:40 GMT, Paul Chefurka
<paul@chefurka.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:00:40 GMT, referen@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer
>>drugs that reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce
>>the risk of heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer,
>>they also have few side effects. They are called "statin"
>>drugs and any physician around would happily provide a
>>prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>>cholesterol level. There have been additional studies
>>showing these same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's
>>and multiple sclerosis too. They are marketed under such
>>names as Zocor and Lipitor.
>
>Statins aren't without their side effects. Though they may be
>infrequent, they can be extremely severe. In addition, there
>is a growing sense among users that the rate of side effects
>has been drastically understated by the manufacturers.
>Personally, I wouldn't touch Lipitor with a 10-foot pole. To
>see what some users are saying about their experiences, take
>a look at http://www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipito-
>r/default.htm

I have no need to. I've been taking Zocor for 2 years now, and
have not experienced any side effects at all. My mother is
also on them (at age 80) and hasn't had any problems either.

Diane Richardson referen@bway.net

[Paul Chefu]

On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:19:12 GMT, referen@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:12:40 GMT, Paul Chefurka
><paul@chefurka.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:00:40 GMT, referen@bway.net (Diane
>>Richardson) wrote:
>>
>>>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer
>>>drugs that reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce
>>>the risk of heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer,
>>>they also have few side effects. They are called "statin"
>>>drugs and any physician around would happily provide a
>>>prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>>>cholesterol level. There have been additional studies
>>>showing these same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's
>>>and multiple sclerosis too. They are marketed under such
>>>names as Zocor and Lipitor.
>>
>>Statins aren't without their side effects. Though they may
>>be infrequent, they can be extremely severe. In addition,
>>there is a growing sense among users that the rate of side
>>effects has been drastically understated by the
>>manufacturers. Personally, I wouldn't touch Lipitor with a
>>10-foot pole. To see what some users are saying about their
>>experiences, take a look at http://www.dispace.com/message_-
>>boards/drugs/Lipitor/default.htm
>
>I have no need to. I've been taking Zocor for 2 years now,
>and have not experienced any side effects at all. My
>mother is also on them (at age 80) and hasn't had any
>problems either.

If you're going to tout statins as a panacea you should
educate yourself as to their complete effect profile. The fact
that you and your mum haven't experienced any side effects
isn't a reasonable basis on which to conclude that they are
safe for everyone (the sample size is just a tad small). As
much as they have helped many people, there are those whose
lives have been devastated by statins. For some, alternatives
like niacin and policosanol (or even just ignoring mildly
elevated cholesterol) may be much safer.

Frankly your "I have no need to" comes across like someone
sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La la la la
I can't hear you!" From what I've seen there is a growing
groundswell of opinion among statin users that is skeptical
and downright negative on both the risks and the benefits of
these drugs. To deny that such information is important is
blinkered at best, and reprehensible at worst.

Paul

[Dave Bird]

In article<jhi2vukqh9e8i374pm820kp87ap8u9dr0m@4ax.com>, Paul
Chefurka <paul@chefurka.com> writes:
>On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 23:00:40 GMT, referen@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>The saddest part of this is that there are now much safer
>>drugs that reduce cholesterol and triglycerides and reduce
>>the risk of heart attack and stroke. Besides being safer,
>>they also have few side effects. They are called "statin"
>>drugs and any physician around would happily provide a
>>prescription for one of them to anyone with a high
>>cholesterol level. There have been additional studies
>>showing these same drugs seem to protect from Alzheimer's
>>and multiple sclerosis too. They are marketed under such
>>names as Zocor and Lipitor.
>
>Statins aren't without their side effects. Though they may be
>infrequent, they can be extremely severe. In addition, there
>is a growing sense among users that the rate of side effects
>has been drastically understated by the manufacturers.
>Personally, I wouldn't touch Lipitor with a 10-foot pole. To
>see what some users are saying about their experiences, take
>a look at http://www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipito-
>r/default.htm

There's a whole bunch of stuff listed under cardio-vascular
system, lipid reduction (not an area I know much about).
Honestly, if it was me, I'd just get referred to somebody on
the medical side of the cardio-vascular ward at my local
hospital: there is a certain amount of study and experience
required in prescribing :->. The first thing I would try is
just going to the appropriate professional; only if things
went badly and repeatedly wrong, would I start trying to
figure it out for myself instead.

BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA precursor)?
what's the connection??

-- .---. It was once believed that a million monkeys at a
million { o o } keyboards would eventually type the works of
Shakespeare, _(---)_ but the Internet has since disproved this
theory. / \

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird rambled on about "Re:
Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)." Our champion De-Medicalizing
in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>The first thing I would try is just going to the appropriate
>professional; only if things went badly and repeatedly wrong,
>would I start trying to figure it out for myself instead.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The typical smn attitude! :)

You got it precisely backwards.

The final determination of what is best for the patient is
both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering
De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people,
encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the
categorization of life's problems as medical.

[Paul Chefu]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:48:42 +0000, Dave Bird
<dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA precursor)?
> what's the connection??

It's a date-rape drug. I didn't notice this thread was being
cross-posted to that ng or I'd have trimmed the list.

Paul

[Steve Harr]

"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
news:lt67vu4ig93kcku2sqdvic6c66b34hqnag@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:48:42 +0000, Dave Bird
> <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> > BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA precursor)?
> > what's the connection??
>
> It's a date-rape drug. I didn't notice this thread was being
> cross-posted to that ng or I'd have trimmed the list.
>
> Paul

It's not a date rape drug. It's still sold in Europe, and
unless you're willing to postulate the Europeans enjoy being
raped or encouraging rape, you're going to have to revise
your ideas.

Yes, GHB (sold in health food stores until 1990 in the US) did
get smeared as a "date rape drug" by those who wanted to make
is as illegal as LSD (which they succeeded in doing,
amazingly). Just like Rohypnol (also still sold in Europe).
But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs can't
defend themselves, they are subject to mob rule and false
imprisonment, too.

Much to the loss of society. When it was legal, I was using
GHB as part of a very successful resuscitation cocktail in
animal research-- it damps out post anoxic seizure activity
beutifually and with no side effects. Now, I can't get the
stuff, courtesy of the asses to said it had no legitimate
recognized medical use.

Well, they are right-- it doesn't. And if you can keep
experimenters from getting it, it never will.

SBH

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."

[Paul Chefu]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:48:40 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
>news:lt67vu4ig93kcku2sqdvic6c66b34hqnag@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:48:42 +0000, Dave Bird
>> <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, is the "ghb" gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GABA
>> > precursor)? what's the connection??
>>
>> It's a date-rape drug. I didn't notice this thread was
>> being cross-posted to that ng or I'd have trimmed the list.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>
>It's not a date rape drug. It's still sold in Europe, and
>unless you're willing to postulate the Europeans enjoy being
>raped or encouraging rape, you're going to have to revise
>your ideas.
>
>Yes, GHB (sold in health food stores until 1990 in the US)
>did get smeared as a "date rape drug" by those who wanted to
>make is as illegal as LSD (which they succeeded in doing,
>amazingly). Just like Rohypnol (also still sold in Europe).
>But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
>subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs
>can't defend themselves, they are subject to mob rule and
>false imprisonment, too.
>
>Much to the loss of society. When it was legal, I was using
>GHB as part of a very successful resuscitation cocktail in
>animal research-- it damps out post anoxic seizure activity
>beutifually and with no side effects. Now, I can't get the
>stuff, courtesy of the asses to said it had no legitimate
>recognized medical use.
>
>Well, they are right-- it doesn't. And if you can keep
>experimenters from getting it, it never will.
>
>SBH

Sorry to ruffle your feathers, Steve. I'm obviously an example
of the successful marketing exercise conducted by the drug
lords (sorry, czars...). I wasn't aware of the legitimate uses
of GHB, only the lurid newspaper stories (and Nick Nolte's
recent DUI arrest). I agree wholeheartedly that the
criminalization of most of these substances amounts to a witch
hunt founded in the puritanical fear that someone, somewhere
might be having a good time.

Paul

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:48:40 -0700,
"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
>subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs
>can't defend themselves, they are subject to mob rule and
>false imprisonment, too.

G'day G'day Steve,

At a school where I taught there was a student with hands
coming out of her shoulders. We were told it was the result of
thalidomide. For a while there was some speculation that
thalidomide didn't cause the deformities but merely allowed
deformed fetuses to survive. It sounded rather like clever
evasion and I was under the impression that this suggestion
had been refuted. That said ... when things are not in the
media spotlight one loses track of the nuances in how the fate
of these matters unravel with time.

Are you saying that after all the hoopla had died down
thalidomide wasn't implicated in the deformities?

If you are not then please elucidate the point you are making.

Thanks,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Steve Harr]

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:oh98vuo9moe8qt76gooh9n2kkcbv57191r@4ax.com...
> This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:48:40
> -0700, "Steve Harris"
> <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> >But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
> >subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs
> >can't defend themselves, they are subject to mob rule and
> >false imprisonment, too.
>
> G'day G'day Steve,
>
> At a school where I taught there was a student with hands
> coming out of her shoulders. We were told it was the result
> of thalidomide. For a while there was some speculation that
> thalidomide didn't cause the deformities but merely allowed
> deformed fetuses to survive. It sounded rather like clever
> evasion and I was under the impression that this suggestion
> had been refuted. That said ... when things are not in the
> media spotlight one loses track of the nuances in how the
> fate of these matters unravel with time.
>
> Are you saying that after all the hoopla had died down
> thalidomide wasn't implicated in the deformities?
>
> If you are not then please elucidate the point you are
> making.
>
> Thanks,

Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing
years. But for women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as
all males, it might be very helpful for cancer, leprosy, and
certain autoimmune diseases. But it got vilified for 30 years
and we lost all that time.

There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones.
Just bad combos of particular drugs and particular people. The
specifics of which, if your IQ is over room temp, you can
often figure out.

--
Steve Harris You can email me at sbharris123@ix.netcom.com But
remove the numerals in the address first.

==============================

Our nada who art in Nada Nada be thy nada..

-- Dada Hemingway
==========================

[Sandy]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<SBHarris123@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:oh98vuo9moe8qt76gooh9n2kkcbv57191r@4ax.com...
>> This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:48:40
>> -0700, "Steve Harris"
>> <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >But this only means that drugs (think Thalidomide) can be
>> >subjected to witchhunts like people can, and since drugs
>> >can't defend themselves, they are subject to mob rule and
>> >false imprisonment, too.
>>
>> G'day G'day Steve,
>>
>> At a school where I taught there was a student with hands
>> coming out of her shoulders. We were told it was the result
>> of thalidomide. For a while there was some speculation that
>> thalidomide didn't cause the deformities but merely allowed
>> deformed fetuses to survive. It sounded rather like clever
>> evasion and I was under the impression that this suggestion
>> had been refuted. That said ... when things are not in the
>> media spotlight one loses track of the nuances in how the
>> fate of these matters unravel with time.
>>
>> Are you saying that after all the hoopla had died down
>> thalidomide wasn't implicated in the deformities?
>>
>> If you are not then please elucidate the point you are
>> making.
>>
>> Thanks,
>
>
>Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing
>years. But for women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as
>all males, it might be very helpful for cancer, leprosy, and
>certain autoimmune diseases. But it got vilified for 30 years
>and we lost all that time.
>
>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones.
>Just bad combos of particular drugs and particular people.
>The specifics of which, if your IQ is over room temp, you can
>often figure out.

Eg, heroin is a fine analgesic, and is actually quite harmless
if taken pure and under the dose that stops you breathing.
Even then, if someone has the presence of mind to keep air
going, that will pass.

Sandy

[Dave Bird]

In article<00i6vukki5211hiqnqiakgt3ai7oml6boi@4ax.com>, John
'the Man' <DeMan@[94]> writes:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird rambled on about "Re:
>Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)." Our champion De-Medicalizing
>in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>The first thing I would try is just going to the appropriate
>>professional; only if things went badly and repeatedly
>>wrong, would I start trying to figure it out for myself
>>instead.
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>The typical smn attitude! :)
>
>You got it precisely backwards.
>
>The final determination of what is best for the patient is
>both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.

I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things
myself. But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if
the qualified mechanic can fix it :->

--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN
ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed .........-
........................................................
STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM
=====> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-
-2002May9.html

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09 -0700,
"Steve Harris" <SBHarris123@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing
>years. But for women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as
>all males, it might be very helpful for cancer, leprosy, and
>certain autoimmune diseases. But it got vilified for 30 years
>and we lost all that time.
>
>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones.
>Just bad combos of particular drugs and particular people.
>The specifics of which, if your IQ is over room temp, you can
>often figure out.

G'day G'day Steve,

Something similar could be said of many horticultural sprays
"Just bad combos of particular sprays and particular
ecosystems." The problem seems to be that once the chemicals
are in the system they are difficult to get out and they
spread beyond their intended area of use.

FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have
remained true to form. With the group having lost some of its
stalwarts who did have something worth saying it is reassuring
to find you demonstrating a certain predictable consistency.

Thanks,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Paul Chefu]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:35:48 +1300, Quentin Grady
<quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09
>-0700, "Steve Harris" <SBHarris123@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones.
>>Just bad combos of particular drugs and particular people.
>>The specifics of which, if your IQ is over room temp, you
>>can often figure out.
>
>G'day G'day Steve,
>
>FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have
>remained true to form.

Wow, Quentin - your room temperature is 293? No wonder you get
hot under the collar from time to time ;-)

Paul

[Dave Bird]

In article<0gm9vugu2p4si86g7385pdie915g0600bq@4ax.com>, John
'the Man' <DeMan@[94]> writes:
>Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird rambled on about "Re:
>Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)." Our champion De-Medicalizing
>in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things
>>myself. But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if
>>the qualified mechanic can fix it :->
>
>Obviously, I disagree!
>
>A normal person would only see a doctor for a *major* medical
>problem, *not* for a minor problem. You would see the doctor
>*only* if the minor problem did not respond to home
>treatment.

You are answering a point I did not make. Yes, zero of all I
would not want to trouble the doctor with a minor problem I
could clear up for myself. Then first of all, if a problem
was serious and persistent, I would hope that a qualified
person could sort it out for me. If I found they could not,
then I would trouble myself to understand, and intervene in,
my own treatment.
>
>Your attitude is precisely why health insurance is so
>expensive. :(

We have a national health service. I am afraid I do have
chronic problems which cost it money :-( This was not so
until 5 or 10 years ago.
>
>The final determination of what is best for the patient is
>both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.

FINAL, yes.

-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___. uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:':
:' .:':' :. . : (") #oH| ' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~| < > __
,;;,. \\::// R_) | '-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' '
___..\||/....L\. ...| ____||--|_'--/__\___ ''
.--'''::::::::::::::::::::: \ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^-
';-._.-;'^ LRon Hubbard is shelled by goats in hell
<www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Dave Bird rambled on about "Re:
Niacin and Liver Damage (HA!)." Our champion De-Medicalizing
in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>I have sometimes been forced into messing around in things
>myself. But the FIRST resort of anyone sensible is to see if
>the qualified mechanic can fix it :->

Obviously, I disagree!

A normal person would only see a doctor for a *major* medical
problem, *not* for a minor problem. You would see the doctor
*only* if the minor problem did not respond to home treatment.

Your attitude is precisely why health insurance is so
expensive. :(

The final determination of what is best for the patient is
both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering
De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people,
encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the
categorization of life's problems as medical.

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:21:09 GMT,
Paul Chefurka <paul@chefurka.com> wrote:

>>FWIIW one doesn't require an IQ above 293 to notice you have
>>remained true to form.
>
>Wow, Quentin - your room temperature is 293? No wonder you
>get hot under the collar from time to time ;-)
>
>Paul

Thanks Paul,

While it is possible I richly deserve the comment from
time to time the matter of standard room temperature does
follow certain nationalistic trends. In New Zealand it is
293, in the UK where the prefer five degrees cooler it is
288 and in the USA 527. This could account for the high
proportion of Americans with metabolic disorders ... they
don't need to burn so many calories to stay warm ... but I
doubt it. <grin>

Thanks again, IMHO it is delightful that we can all retain a
sense of humour.

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[Sandy]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:35:48 +1300, Quentin Grady
<quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:18:09
>-0700, "Steve Harris" <SBHarris123@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Thalidomide would be bad to give to women of childbearing
>>years. But for women over 55 and girls under 10, as well as
>>all males, it might be very helpful for cancer, leprosy, and
>>certain autoimmune diseases. But it got vilified for 30
>>years and we lost all that time.
>>
>>There are NO bad drugs, and that includes the illegal ones.
>>Just bad combos of particular drugs and particular people.
>>The specifics of which, if your IQ is over room temp, you
>>can often figure out.
>
>G'day G'day Steve,
>
>Something similar could be said of many horticultural sprays
> "Just bad combos of particular sprays and particular
> ecosystems."

What did you have in mind here?

>The problem seems to be that once the chemicals are in the
>system they are difficult to get out and they spread beyond
>their intended area of use.

I can only think of DDT 50 years ago. Is this what you
had in mind?

Sandy

[Eric Bohlm]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:sobavu4lecanmqfp1i47763me3d9nbin4n@4ax.com:

> While it is possible I richly deserve the comment from
> time to time the matter of standard room temperature does
> follow certain nationalistic trends. In New Zealand it is
> 293, in the UK where the prefer five degrees cooler it is
> 288 and in the USA 527. This could account for the high
> proportion of Americans with metabolic disorders ... they
> don't need to burn so many calories to stay warm ... but I
> doubt it. <grin>

Hehehe. Every so often we get a TV "weatherman" or radio
announcer who tries to make a ratio comparison of
temperatures ("it's twice as hot as it was last week"). I
suppose adopting absolute temperature scales would put an end
to that bit o' fluff.

[Quentin Gr]

This post not CC'd by email On 13 Dec 2002 04:55:07 GMT, Eric
Bohlman <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote:

>Hehehe. Every so often we get a TV "weatherman" or radio
>announcer who tries to make a ratio comparison of
>temperatures ("it's twice as hot as it was last week"). I
>suppose adopting absolute temperature scales would put an end
>to that bit o' fluff.

G'day G'day Eric,

I like the reports of the Canadian weatherman who exclaimed
that there was no temperature today. (It was zero
Fahrenheit.)

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the
blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Quentin Grady rambled on about
"Re: Thalidomide Innocent? Was Re: GHB Re: Niacin and Liver
Damage (HA!)." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>>In New Zealand it is 293, in the UK where the prefer five
>>degrees cooler it is 288 and in the USA 527.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The US uses the Fahrenheit temperature scale. Those
temperature reading are clearly not the Celsius temperature
scale either. Are you on drugs or is New Zealand even stranger
than Eurpope?

Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, you twit!!!

Normal room temperature in the States is around 78 degrees
Fahrenheit.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, non-dairy coffee creamer, being overweight, or
about smoking!