Guest guest Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 In a message dated 11/27/02 3:42:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes: > Like I said, I have been on for about seven years. One internist told me > that a persons adrenals can shut down in as little as four months. I have > tried on two different occasions to go off. I became very sick--like an > end stage AIDS patient--and had lost all bowel control. It was similar to > a colitis attack. On both ocassions, I almost wound up in emergency. An > alternative MD told me that I will have to be on them for the rest of my > life. > Trudy, what dosage are you on and how often per day do you have to take the corticosteroids? When you said you tried getting off of them, how quickly did you drop your dose? I don't usually recommend the man as his protocol failed to do much for me and his theory is way oversimplified in that he thinks CFS is simply adrenal exaustion but that is exactly why he may be of benefit to you b/c of your very problem. I think he has a lot of experience in dealing with folks on corticosteroids for decades and he is Dr. Poesnecker (www.chronicfatigue.org). Maybe try contacting him as he has much experience with the adrenals over his 40 or so year tenure. I would not give up hope just yet that you can't very slowly restart your shut down adrenals. Tell me what he suggests and if he thinks it is possible to eventually get off the corticosteroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 In a message dated 1/11/03 4:11:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes: From ANITA: .. i asked at the liver clinic about my meds last wednesday and they said to keep on them for now and they will keep reviewing after blood tests. Good -- I didn't mean to be a know-it-all (when I don't!); I was just concerned. I've had more than one relative who fell into serious difficulties from being over-prescribed and from not being told when it was time to stop taking something. Harper From JERRY: apparently, not a lot of people accessed this site when I sent it before, so here it is again, click on for description of Raynauds. Jerry, I've noticed that lately you're adding a clear note saying what a website pertains to. That is a big help. Thanks. Harper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 i guess i was raised when sex wasn't talked about. and i like it that way. I'm 49. had i been raised later, when it was out in the open, i might think differently. i may sound like an idiot here, but i wish people only had sex within marriage (that would eliminate a lot of societal ills). guess i just want to live in some kind of la la paradise fantasy land. well, i guess that's what heaven is for! p.s. i guess i don't get what you say about pre-m. sex always having been the norm. how can we know that? -------------- Hi, , I'm just jumping in here ... It is known that in medieval times, which means also during early American settlements in the 16th and 17th centuries, most marriages took place when the woman was already pregnant. It was important that it be seen that she could have children, for the sake of the survival of the family and the village. This has been true in other cultures in the past as well. I think it's wonderful that you have such a wonderful marriage, but not everyone is so fortunate. Simply restricting sex to marriage will not solve society's problems. Many people, myself included, end up in abusive marriages. A marriage license does not guarantee love or in fact, anything at all. Also, as far as the so-called " women's libbers " , my understanding has never been that feminists are opposed to a woman lovingly taking care of home and family. It is about choice. A man has the love of his wife and children (hopefully), and works at a job, why can't a woman? What about women without children? Also, things beyond our control happen. My aunt loved her husband and sons dearly, and was widowed at 30 when my uncle died of leukemia. Because women do not have equal pay or oppotunities (and this was in 1963), it was very hard for her to work and earn enough money to raise her sons. That kind of inequity is what I think equal rights for women is about. Personally, I would adore to stay home and take care of home and garden and maybe a cow or goat! But I have no choice -- work or starve. My opinion is that sex is not dirty, but beautiful and natural. By the way, I am older than you, 51, and I don't recall that sex was never talked about! Anyway, just my 2 cents. Ann __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 --- In , Ann Bekins <annbekins@y...> wrote: > Also, as far as the so-called " women's libbers " , my understanding has never been that feminists are opposed to a woman lovingly taking care of home and family. Yes, some certainly have been. ...But feminism is a very broad umbrella and no monolith. Chris 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.