Posted by Solstice on February 24, 2012, at 9:56:30
In reply to Lou's reply-nervgaz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2012, at 22:45:29
Sorry... When I originally posted this, I thought it was going to Lou's Little Shoppe thread, and didn't realize it was in the wrong place until after it was sent. So.. I'm re-posting it here, where it belongs:
Posted by Solstice on February 24, 2012, at 9:17:39In reply to Lou's reply-nervgaz » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2012, at 22:45:29
> Scott,
> You wrote that you think that I failed to give information concerning Saphris. The information that I gave was that Saphris has a constituant in it that was used as a gas in riot control in the 50's. You have asked me for more information concerning the words seen in that post in another thread.
> In order to have more information concerning the gas used in riot control in the 50's, I would like to start with Benzene.
> Benzene usually comes from coal tar or petroleum. You can hydroxylate benzene and get {phenol}. From phenol you can get {phenyl}.
> Now benzene can cause leukemia and other cancers and break chromosomes. Benzene is used in a lot of manufacturing of products including rubber, pesticides, drugs and explosives.
> Benzene is cancerous when breathed in the air. Benzene can also be injested and cause cancer and death. Benzene rings can be chemically coupled.
> Benzene was discoverd hundreds of years ago. The toxic properties and the carcinogenic properties of benzene were not proven until the early 1900's
Lou.. Your logic seems to be that if a substance, or any substances that can be derived from it, can, under any circumstance (no matter how improbable), be misused or combined with other substances unrelated to the drug in question to cause ill effect on a human, then that original substance in all its forms and under all circumstances must be avoided. Otherwise, you seem to believe that continuing to use a medication that has a 'constituent' that could be misused is the equivalent of the administrator of that substance causing the death and/or life-ruination of another human being, which of course is particularly heinous if it's a parent administering the medication with the offending 'constituent' to a child.That seems to be your thought process, in a nutshell, based on the link you created above between the anti-psychotic Saphris and riot nerve gas used in the 1950's.
Using your logical process, check this out: For the past 20 years, all the rage has been that we all need to drink a whole lot more water. It's healthy. The benefits can help us moderate our weight, rid of of toxins, it's a heck of a lot better than soft drinks, etc., just all kinds of great things about drinking water - especially More water. However, did you know that drinking water also puts you at risk for death or a life-ruining condition. It could even be used for genocide.
If you drink too much water, called water-intoxication, it overwhelms the delicate balance of solutes and electrolytes. The first signs of water-intoxication usually show up in the brain. The cells become swollen with water due to the imbalance of electrolytes, causing intracranial pressure. After negatively impacting personality and behavior, it can escalate into bradycardia and widened pulse pressure. Left to follow its course, brain cells swell to the point that it interrupts blood flow... creating cerebral edema... which causes pressure to the brain stem... which causes central nervous system dysfunction... which can result in seizures, brain damage, coma or death.
When I was a young mother, an acquaintance had newborn twins and two older children - all born within four years. She was overwhelmed... but very health-conscious. Had her babies (even the twins!) at home.. a real 'flower girl' type. Anyway, this is when "Drink More Water" was the mantra. She took it to heart, it made perfect sense to her. Plus, she saw a way that she could not only ensure her babies were healthy - but she could lighten the financial stress she was under. She started cutting her babies' formula in half. Half formula, half water. The babies were under a year old. Of course, their body screamed for nutrients, so they sucked those bottles dry and cried for more. My friend commented that they are now drinking twice the number of bottles, but she felt good about them getting so much water. She was very proud of what seemed like such an ingenious way to increase the health of her babies. Eventually her pediatrician found out and hospitalized the babies because they were approaching water poisoning. Whod'a thunk??
Yeah.. although H2O is regarded as the least toxic chemical compound, and although life cannot exist without it, if you drink too much, or if you fill your lung volume with it, you are likely to cause death or a life-ruining condition.
Water could conceivably be used by a mother to accidentally cause the death of her children, like my acquaintance from long ago. If the Nazi's had used "water chambers" rather than gas chambers to kill millions of innocent lives, would you take a stand against water? So.. should I eliminate Saphris AND water from my daughter's diet? That way I could save her from a 'constituent' in Saphris that has a disjointed link to nerve gas, and save her from the possibility of water poisoning as well.
Now Lou.. I would really like to see you go on a campaign with the same conviction you use for other chemical compounds that can (if misused) cause death or a life-ruining condition, and make that same argument that we should abandon water drinking, and especially should not make water available to our children. And actually, due to their body mass, under the age of 1 they are particularly vulnerable to water poisoning (which is why my friend's twins were hospitalized).
What you do here with medications (or a 'constituent' of a medication) makes just as much sense.
> I intend to finish this unless the rule of 3 applies.
? You sure didn't worry about the rule of 3 when you disruptively posted on my thread.. I can't imagine why you would suddenly worry about it on your own thread.
And let me say this very clearly: You are welcome on threads I start if you are contributing supportive or constructive information that is relevant to the purpose of my thread. I can accept one post on my thread where you express your concern about medications.. but not more than one. It's a problem when you respond to every single person's post with the same goal of communicating your intense feelings about the dangers of medications. One per thread is sufficient. I may very well post questions asking about a medication's side effects, but please don't interpret that to mean that I am soliciting information about the dangers involved in a a particular component of a chemical compound that can also be found in coal which was used to cause fires that burned down a town. I think you're a lot more savvy than you might appear, and I have no doubt that you really do understand what I'm soliciting in my posts, and your primary purpose is to defeat the thread by drowning it in nonsense and irrelevant data that supports the primary agenda you carry around in your heart. Create your own threads to deal with that, and please avoid involving yourself in mine, unless you have input that is useful, experiential, constructive and supportive.
Thanks
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:1011122
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120221/msgs/1011357.html