drugs

[Guest guest]

In article <36DDD625.B48BF76F@...>, stonk1

<stonk1@...> writes

>From: stonk1 <stonk1@...>

>

>Hi DR. Chiu,

>

>I need to know if Augmentin wil effectively lower my ASO titre. I

>finally decided to ask my doc about the RX and he ordered amoxil. At the

>same time I started a sinus infection so I figuered that would work. I

>have taken 6 days of amoxil and I still have green nasal discharge. I

>know amoxil and Augmentin are the same almost sooo can I use Augmentin

>instead? Its the only thing that works for my sinuses. If your answer is

>yes, will 500mgms bid be OK?? How long should I take it???

Augmentin is probably better for your sinuses than Amoxil but it is

unlikely that Strep are responsible for your sinusitis.

If you want to clear the Strep, just plain old penicillin is all you

should need.

-------

Regards, Dr Graham Chiu

Prospective Internet Observational Study in Arthritis

Home Page http://www.compkarori.com/arthritis/

Contribute at http://www.compkarori.com/arthritis/contrib.htm

Data Entry at http://www.compkarori.com/cgi-local/piosa.cgi

[Guest guest]

At 17:46 20/07/99 -0400, you wrote:

Hi Barbara ann,

I'm the guy who went to grade school in the backwoods of Georgia and still

can't spell

without a spell checher. My 24yr old friend (f) after having AIH for 5

months is now

off prednisolone (same effects as prednisone)and is only taking 100 mg per

day of

azathioprene(Imuran). Getting along fairly well except sleeps longer hours

and fatigue

sets in after a day at the office.

I haven't had a lot to say but I do read the postings and I am impressed by

the courage

and the will to make the best life possible, inspite of all the pain, ackes

suffering and

anxiety that Autoimmune conditions with the drugs bring down upon

unsuspecting people.

I find that many times when reading the postings, that I am wondering what

drugs and how

much could this person be taking to cause these systems. The postings would

have more meaning

to me and I would learn much more if the drugs and amounts were stated.

Just being friends

is very important but understanding causes also makes one feel better.

" We need to look the enemy streight in the face before we really know how

to fight him "

In surfing the net, I see that a good deal of research is going on. But how

much is directed

at finding cures, rather than developing more and better drugs. We need to

make finding cures

profitable.

Best wishes to you all. This Albert from Perth, Australia

***********************************************

>From: barbara ann <barbara99ann@...>

>

>Hi Lori,

>I was in the neoral study at the time. Half of us

>took cyclosporin and the rest took neoral. It was a

>double blind study so not even the docs knew which

>form we were taking. I was getting the drugs for free

>which was very nice, I could have stayed in the study

>for two years. But after 15 months it stopped working

>so I was taken out of the study and put on prograf.

>Nine months later I was taken off pred. I never

>bothered to find out which drug I was taking and since

>they're exactly the same composition (just different

>emulsion) it really didn't matter. If one didn't work

>then neither would the other. The prograf is also

>made from a fungus but there's no odor whatsoever and

>the capsules are in 1mg doses so they're nice and

>small. Your right though, whatever works. I'm very

>thankful that if I had to have a transplant, at least

>it was at a time after the 'wonder' drugs were

>developed....

>Stay well,

>Barbara Ann

>AIH Transplant Recipient

>

>

>

>

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

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 08/24/1999 3:40:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

DaniGran@... writes:

<<

Boy you asked a tough question. What drugs am I on... well....

Dyazide, Zoloft, Predisone, Provera, Buspar, Enbrel, Arthrotec, Ambien,

Xanax

(sometimes to sleep), Prilosec, and Lortab.

How about you? What are you taking?

le

>>

le...well you've got me beat, thats for sure. I am on MTX, Enbrel,

Synthroid, and now Prednisone...and one hydrocodone a day.

Would you mind telling me how many Lortab you are prescribed a day? I want

some info to tell my doctor when I go back the 1st.

I do not want to ask for something outlandish, but if it is within reasonable

bounds to have more than one a day then I sure do need it .

Annette

[Guest guest]

,

I take a combo of MTX and Arava. I take 25 mg of MTX weekly, with injections

in my upper thigh. (I give these to myself.) I take 30 mg of Arava daily.

This combo has really helped me. I take lots of other stuff too. I am

trying a mouthwash known as " Stanford Mouthwash " . My mother in law was given

this for her mouth sores from Sjogrens. Well, it's great stuff. Any

pharmacy can make it. It's half Benadryl and half Lidocane. Not sure of

spelling. Anyway, it works wonders.

Amy

[Guest guest]

Gillian,

I'm with you about reaching a certain quoto on prescribing a drug and you get a

kick back. I think it goes on here too...On my last tube of Dovonex it says

Manufactured by Leo Laboratories,Ltd, Dublin, Ireland...then says

Distributed by Westwood Squibb Pharmaceuticals, Buffalo, N.Y....this Westwood

Squibb also manufacture the old stand by Balnetar Bath Soak I still use. Ive

used it since '76 and my body doesn't think it can live without that yummy tar

smell. HA. I kind of think it's facinating to check and see where our ointments,

meds etc are manufactured.

How is your hand after your fling on the ground? Is it still sore? I'm glad you

are getting some relief from your shoulder also. It does wonders for ones moral

when something begins to work again without pain. It's like discovering a new

package just for you under the Christmas tree. You thought you checked all of

them, but one must have slipped by you and there it is. All wrapped in pretty

paper and tied with a big bow.

Have a good week....Donna

[Guest guest]

Hi Gillian,

I always enjoy your letters and notes. You have such a way of putting things that just seem to perk me up. I had a dumb allergy shot yesterday and it's thrown a kink in my system of sorts. Got up feeling pretty good, tied into the old house work and by noon it was down hill from there. I don't think it's a reaction, I just haven't had one (shot)since November and I think it was a shock.

I've been seeing a reflexologist every two weeks...she's really good and I feel good afterwards. She has been concerned with my feet swelling so much and not going down. We've been running a little experiment...if I watch TV at night I roll a golf ball around on the floor with my feet...one at a time of course. And not hard enough to bruise my feet. I am happy to report that I've had skinny feet for 4 days now. I have no idea if it's the working of the areas with the ball or if its just time for them not to swell. But thank God for the relief. Now if I could just get the ankle on the right foot to not be sore...I'd be in great shape.

I am glad the doctor ck'd that hand of yours. It was a concern to me. How's the shoulder since the shot? I've them in my feet(shots of cortisone) and it gives great relief. But then when it wears off sometimes it gets bad again, and sometimes it doesn't for a long time.

Have a great week...try to stay out of trouble. I know that cramps your style, but try.

God Bless...Donna

Gillian Rowe <roweg@...> wrote:

Hi DonnaWell the Pharmaceutical Industry has many fingers in many pies. As Patientswe always complain at the attitude of the medical experts, cost of drugs,bad treatment. Perhaps before complaining, we should try and put the shoesof the Pharmaceutical Industry on. As with any organisation, it is run at aPROFIT. As with any business, competition is high. And as with the IrishGovernment, there are many Brown Envelopes being passed around! We have FOURTribunals at the moment, all looking into corruption! One good thing to comeout of it, our LOBBYISTS have to now be REGISTERED, so if they have anoffence against them, they cannot be lobbyists. In fact rumours at themoment, they are going to BAN lobbyists!Yes my GP came out while I was collecting my blood test results and saw theHAND! Obviously he was concerned, asked me what I had done? I told him itwas a very long story, between the injection in my shoulder, to an emptywhiskey bottle. Odd because he backed up out into the Hall Way!Yes shame you did not TELL me this AFTER my injection! If I had thought, " Ihave a new arm, that rotates in all directions " , then perhaps I would not besustaining damage now. I would have sheltered it from taking the full forceof my fall and would be very gentle in throwing the ball for Hermes!However I am always suspicious of ANYTHING wrapped in pretty paper and tiedin a bow, because that is how I dress my PAIN! Gee if I told them it was mypain, they would not accept it, but a parcel in pretty paper with a bow,well they always accept them!Love and God BlessGillian------------------------------------------------------------------------Get paid for the stuff you know!Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!1/2200/2/_/494167/_/957368942/------------------------------------------------------------------------Please visit our new web page at:http://www.wpunj.edu/icip/paWe are currently discussing new chat times. moderates a chat on arthritis atwww.about.com on Thursday evenings, so check thatout in the meantime! E mail at RA@... for details.

[Guest guest]

Hey Tove,, did any of those prescription drugs help??

_________________________________________________________________

Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Tami....I am on Mobic. I was on Vioxx for almost two years and it

worked so well for me but then stopped working for some reason. It

was a combination of things I guess because the PA got really really

bad. I then tried Bextra but that did nothing and then tried Mobic.

The Mobic (in conjunction with MTX) is working really well. I was

super sick this week (bronchitis and sinus infection) and had to skip

the Mobic because I was, pardon me, throwing up all day and it was a

waste to take it and the next day I really noticed the difference. I

took it that next day and by the following day I was back on the

track again. I like the med. I think it's considered the " number 4 "

after vioxx Medicine. My rheummie likes it a lot and he was a lead

doc on the Vioxx trials.

best,

> Made it back to the rheumy finally after missing the last appt. I

got a cortisone shot in my knee and keeping my fingers crossed it

helps for awhile.

> I was put on Azulfidine and Mobic.

> Is anyone else on these or this combination and can give me some

insight ??

> much thanks

> Tami

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info. Mobic is the fourth one I been on so I must be going in

order. Its also the most expensive...:-(

Anyway, so far so good..keeping my fingers crossed.

Tami

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 12:52:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> The " tools " that you list do not alter the functions of the brain the way

> drugs do.

Judith,

This simply isn't true. 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.

But more importantly, many of those activities alter the brain in EXACTLY the

way drugs do. Have you ever heard of " runner's high " ? Exercise mimics

marijuana use with the same hormones-- e.g. dopamine and adrenaline, and thus

sports

or weightlifting very closely mimics the effects of marijuana.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:07:15 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

>

> This simply isn't true. 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.

>

'radical'? 'By definition'. Please....

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@

> > This simply isn't true. 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.

> >

>

> 'radical'? 'By definition'. Please....

@@@@@@@@@@

" by definition " , yes;

" radical " , no.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

> I think that you're exactly making my point.

@@@@@@@

hehe, oops. Yeah, Now i see i was making your point!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

I think that you're exactly making my point. if you're talking about a

physiological description of thought (to the degree that one would be able

to do that accurately, which I think is quite overestimated by many) then by

definition you must be talking about some change of the brain's physiology.

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.

From: " Anton " <michaelantonparker@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:25:00 -0000

Subject: Re: Drugs

@@@@@@@@@@@@

> > This simply isn't true. 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.

> >

>

> 'radical'? 'By definition'. Please....

@@@@@@@@@@

" by definition " , yes;

" radical " , no.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

You're forgiven.

From: " Anton " <michaelantonparker@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:43:13 -0000

Subject: Re: Drugs

> I think that you're exactly making my point.

@@@@@@@

hehe, oops. Yeah, Now i see i was making your point!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Okay,-

Say you smoke your pot and I pick up a book.

When I read I can immerse myself totally in the book. The outside world

ceases to exist.

Say that's the same for you and your pot.

If something happens to break my concentration in the book within seconds I

am back to full mental function.

If you needed your full capacities how long would it be from the time you

felt the effects of your first puff until you had total control? And I mean

actual total control. Not drug induced impression of control.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

In a message dated 2/7/04 12:52:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> The " tools " that you list do not alter the functions of the brain the way

> drugs do.

Judith,

This simply isn't true. 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.

But more importantly, many of those activities alter the brain in EXACTLY

the

way drugs do. Have you ever heard of " runner's high " ? Exercise mimics

marijuana use with the same hormones-- e.g. dopamine and adrenaline, and

thus sports

or weightlifting very closely mimics the effects of marijuana.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 2:57:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >This simply isn't true. 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.

> >

>

> 'radical'? 'By definition'. Please....

Gene,

If you know much more about brain physiology feel free to fill me in or show

me where I'm going wrong, but what I meant is that thought process occurs by

semi-permanent alterations in brain physiology. I don't understand it very

well, and I'm not sure how well it's understood in the scientific community, but

one of the key features of the nervous system is that CNS cells are capable of

long-term potentiation, where the way a nerve cell responds to a stimulus is

permanently altered by a depolarization occuring before the first

depolarizaiton has finished.

My point wasn't that thoughts affect the brain in the way that drugs do--

though exercise does-- it was that any form of fun or anything else that is

stimulating affects is essentially " brain-altering " and has a physiological

basis.

This may seem irrelevant, but the reason I said it is because I perceived

Judith to be taking a moral stand between physiology-based fun and immaterial

forms of fun, as if the ghost should have the fun rather than the machine, and I

think it's a false dichotomy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 5:18:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If you needed your full capacities how long would it be from the time you

> felt the effects of your first puff until you had total control? And I mean

> actual total control. Not drug induced impression of control.

This is impossible to answer because no one ever has " total " control. What

degree of control would you need? Pot doesn't incapacitate you in any way, so

I really don't know what you're asking... though sleeping does.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 11:21:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> 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?

That's a partial incapacitation. Depending on dosage, you might lose 5, 10,

15, 20, or 30, or maybe more of your reaction time, attention span, etc. I

didn't mean to suggest that one had full control of one's self when stoned. I

meant that one never has full control of one's self, and one rarely needs 100%

of one's attention to function at something. So, she'd have to ask a more

specific question for me to respond, and even then it would be almost impossible

to answer.

But emergency situations tend to be sobering, probably for hormonal reasons,

so it's an impossible equation.

No I don't think people should be operating difficult and risky tasks while

stoned.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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?

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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. 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.

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.

> 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. 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 may have misunderstood Judith, but I took her to be making a qualitative

distinction between fun that affected the brain physically and fun that did not.

Also, since she was saying that there was " something wrong with someone " who

found fun in drugs, it seemed to me she was taking a moral position. Thus,

I'm not trying to show that thinking is the same as drugs, or that exercise is

the same as drugs. What I'm trying to show is that there is not clear

dichotomy between physiological and non-physiological forms of fun.

Granted, the practical differences are obvious. I was attempting to disprove

the basis for any moral distinction. Obviously I'm not doing a good job?

> Well, your motives seem good in promoting drug use - I certainly take the

> point of view that everyone should experience a mind altering drug in their

> lifetime - however, your original point which is that the physiological

> affect on the brain brought about by thought is 'radical' 'by definition'

> was ridiculous, and you seem to be conveniently avoiding it now.

No, I'm explaining exactly what I had in mind. If you don't think what I'm

explaining now constitutes a " radical " change within the physiology of the

brain, then, to you, I used the word wrong. But I'm not changing what I meant

or

avoiding it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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]

>> 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]

So you can smoke pot and safely drive a car or operate any other piece of

machinery?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

In a message dated 2/7/04 5:18:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If you needed your full capacities how long would it be from the time you

> felt the effects of your first puff until you had total control? And I

mean

> actual total control. Not drug induced impression of control.

This is impossible to answer because no one ever has " total " control. What

degree of control would you need? Pot doesn't incapacitate you in any way,

so

I really don't know what you're asking... though sleeping does.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:50:14 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Drugs

>

>

> In a message dated 2/7/04 2:57:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>>> This simply isn't true. 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.

>>>

>>

>> 'radical'? 'By definition'. Please....

>

> Gene,

>

> If you know much more about brain physiology feel free to fill me in or show

> me where I'm going wrong, but what I meant is that thought process occurs by

> semi-permanent alterations in brain physiology.

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. In any case - what your

saying doesn't make sense to me. First of all, semi-permanent <> radical. It

could be a semi-permanent change, but an extremely small and subtle one,

could it not? 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 suppose that if what you

mean is that

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

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.

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

showing that this produces a radical change. 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.

> I don't understand it very

> well, and I'm not sure how well it's understood in the scientific community,

> but

> one of the key features of the nervous system is that CNS cells are capable of

> long-term potentiation, where the way a nerve cell responds to a stimulus is

> permanently altered by a depolarization occuring before the first

> depolarizaiton has finished.

>

This is obfuscation. Obfuscation does cause a radical restructuring of the

brain's physiology, but it is mostly a fermentation of the fluid surrounding

the brain.

> My point wasn't that thoughts affect the brain in the way that drugs do--

> though exercise does--

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.

> it was that any form of fun or anything else that is

> stimulating affects is essentially " brain-altering " and has a physiological

> basis.

> This may seem irrelevant, but the reason I said it is because I perceived

> Judith to be taking a moral stand between physiology-based fun and immaterial

> forms of fun, as if the ghost should have the fun rather than the machine, and

> I

> think it's a false dichotomy.

>

Well, your motives seem good in promoting drug use - I certainly take the

point of view that everyone should experience a mind altering drug in their

lifetime - however, your original point which is that the physiological

affect on the brain brought about by thought is 'radical' 'by definition'

was ridiculous, and you seem to be conveniently avoiding it now.

> Chris

>