-
MDMA &
Empathogenic
Drugs
Welcome Guest! -
Anyone got information about MDMA & viagra?
- Thread starter Cash
- Start date
Le Junk
Bluelighter
O.K. You want a "real life" story? Here goes. I'm 39 years old and have been doing E since before it was illegal. By the way, much, much better also when it was legal! Anyway, yes during the MDMA high, even in my 20's, it was difficult almost all of the time to get wood. Since Viagra came along, it changed everything! A couple of years ago a buddy of mine and I were doin' these three and sometimes four chicks at a hot tub suite at the Omni Hotel here in Indy, about every weekend. Dude, that mix is off the hook! With the combined effects of the extra sensation while having sex, you could call up on wood at anytime you were asked! And with the inability to be able to cum easily or sometimes not at all, they thought we were the best fucks in the universe! This would go on till daybreak! Hell, what are ya' worried about? If your doing drugs in the first place, you know the risks, why not cocktail?.......................
dr. greenthumb
Bluelighter
i once heard a story from my brother who is works in theatre(hospital) that this guy took e+viagra and had a hard on for ages and ages (cause he didnt need it) and had to go to hospital to get it down.
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
http://www.viagra.com/consumer/pi/pi_1.gif
If the above link doesn't work try the following and click on "Important Product Information", "Patient Product Information", and then "Possible side affects."
www.viagra.com
Doing E is a risk in the first place and adding viagra increases it exponentially. There's an inherent reason why nature makes it difficult for you to get an erection while on E in the first place and I would never advocate the mixture of these two particular drugs.
And that's just those two drugs alone, assuming the rarity that the E is pure. Most of the time, people will be adding another drug when they want to come down faster.
If the above link doesn't work try the following and click on "Important Product Information", "Patient Product Information", and then "Possible side affects."
www.viagra.com
Doing E is a risk in the first place and adding viagra increases it exponentially. There's an inherent reason why nature makes it difficult for you to get an erection while on E in the first place and I would never advocate the mixture of these two particular drugs.
And that's just those two drugs alone, assuming the rarity that the E is pure. Most of the time, people will be adding another drug when they want to come down faster.
Last edited:
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
This is an asumption on your part. I have taken E & viagra together maybe 25 times and I have not found there to be any extra health related stress result from it. I am also 50 years old, which makes me more sensitive to vascular disruptions than someone in their 20s.DJDannyUhOh said:
Doing E may or may not be a risk, but it hasn't demonstrated itself to be a great vascular hazard regardless of the mild increase in blood pressure that it produces. If it were, we would be seeing a high rate of heart related problems from people taking it. But this is not one of the statistical issues which are showing up in the MDMA taking population.
You said:
That's not true, and it is not substantiated in the medical literature.DJDannyUhOh said:
http://www.viagra.com/consumer/pi/prodInfo.html#11
Possible Side Effects
Like all medicines, VIAGRA can cause some side effects. These effects are usually mild to moderate and usually don’t last longer than a few hours. Some of these side effects are more likely to occur with higher doses. The most common side effects of VIAGRA are headache, flushing of the face, and upset stomach. Less common side effects that may occur are temporary changes in color vision (such as trouble telling the difference between blue and green objects or having a blue color tinge to them), eyes being more sensitive to light, or blurred vision.
In rare instances, men have reported an erection that lasts many hours. You should call a doctor immediately if you ever have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours. If not treated right away, permanent damage to your penis could occur (see How Sex Affects the Body).
Heart attack, stroke, irregular heart beats, and death have been reported rarely in men taking VIAGRA. Most, but not all, of these men had heart problems before taking this medicine. It is not possible to determine whether these events were directly related to VIAGRA.
VIAGRA may cause other side effects besides those listed on this sheet. If you want more information or develop any side effects or symptoms you are concerned about, call your doctor.
Possible Side Effects
Like all medicines, VIAGRA can cause some side effects. These effects are usually mild to moderate and usually don’t last longer than a few hours. Some of these side effects are more likely to occur with higher doses. The most common side effects of VIAGRA are headache, flushing of the face, and upset stomach. Less common side effects that may occur are temporary changes in color vision (such as trouble telling the difference between blue and green objects or having a blue color tinge to them), eyes being more sensitive to light, or blurred vision.
In rare instances, men have reported an erection that lasts many hours. You should call a doctor immediately if you ever have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours. If not treated right away, permanent damage to your penis could occur (see How Sex Affects the Body).
Heart attack, stroke, irregular heart beats, and death have been reported rarely in men taking VIAGRA. Most, but not all, of these men had heart problems before taking this medicine. It is not possible to determine whether these events were directly related to VIAGRA.
VIAGRA may cause other side effects besides those listed on this sheet. If you want more information or develop any side effects or symptoms you are concerned about, call your doctor.
The problems which have been encountered are not common, and in most cases were due to an existing heart ailment.
The reason that it is difficult to obtain an erection is because the 5HT receptors (5HT1a being among them) become engaged and are not available to carry the stimulation signal to produce the cascade effect which results in the erectile tissue become engorged. This is exactly the same mechanics that occurs with SSRIs (which also inhibits erections in a percentage of the population). It has nothing to do with some "mysterious nature" thing. It has to do with the way that MDMA interacts with sections of the brain that control the erection reflex.DJDannyUhOh said:
Look, I'm not trying to flame you, so please don't take what I am saying that way. A lot of what you are saying is purely your opinion, but you are speaking as though it is factual information. There is a wide gap between educated "factual" information, and drawing conclusions simply because they "seem right" to you. Too much of the "common knowledge" in the drug community is based on somebody else's "seem right" logic that has no basis in real fact. Drawing your own conclusions and treating them as scientific fact does a disservice to everyone in this community.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Last edited:
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
Brian Oblivion said:This is an asumption on your part. I have taken E & viagra together maybe 25 times and I have not found there to be any extra health related stress result from it. I am also 50 years old, which makes me more sensitive to vascular disruptions than someone in their 20s.
Isn't that just another personal assumption - on your part this time?
The reason that it's difficult to get an erection on E is simple. MDMA depletes the Mg in the smooth muscle of the penis making it difficult for it to relax.
A normal erection results from vasodilatation in the penis. The main and most influential mechanism involves the release of nitric oxide in the corpus cavernosum - the paired dorsolateral masses along the penis. This activates the enzyme (can't think of it offhand) which produces cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). By inhibiting the degradation of cGMP, viagra maintains the relaxation of smooth muscle in the corpus cavernosum. The drug has no direct action, it only enhances the effect of nitric oxide.
I was just through med school 3 years ago and I'm pretty sure this is the correct pathway. You have two drugs pulling two biochemical mechanisms in two opposite directions and that in itself should be cause for careful consideration of mixing the two.
I'm just giving valid harm reduction advice and can't help but feel I'm unnecessarily under the microscope by having my post dissected line by line.
Last edited:
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
All of your references site the fact that those who have had problems with viagra also have a pre-existing heart condition. Except for this reference, http://www.worldwidehealthcenter.net/articles-307.html . And I am suspect of that one because it comes from the quasi-meta medical community, and they are selling "natural alternatives" to viagra on the same page.
I'm sorry if you feel that I am placing you under a microscope, but I disagree with your assertion and have studied the sexual effect aspect of MDMA for some time. I am not an arm chair theorist, I have worked in anti-depressant research. MDMA effects the same set of 5HT receptors as many SSRIs. The effects that MDMA has on sexual function is exactly parallel to the side-effects produced by SSRIs (right down to the inability to achieve orgasm).
Assuming for a moment that the biochemistry you are suggesting is true, your model still doesn't explain the reason that the ability to achieve orgasm (which is a separate function from penile erection) is also inhibited. The neurological model addresses all of the issues, and is parallel to the effects that anti-depressants produce.
Do you have authoritative evidence for this?
I'm sorry if you feel that I am placing you under a microscope, but I disagree with your assertion and have studied the sexual effect aspect of MDMA for some time. I am not an arm chair theorist, I have worked in anti-depressant research. MDMA effects the same set of 5HT receptors as many SSRIs. The effects that MDMA has on sexual function is exactly parallel to the side-effects produced by SSRIs (right down to the inability to achieve orgasm).
Assuming for a moment that the biochemistry you are suggesting is true, your model still doesn't explain the reason that the ability to achieve orgasm (which is a separate function from penile erection) is also inhibited. The neurological model addresses all of the issues, and is parallel to the effects that anti-depressants produce.
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
Unless E is scheduled down and studied more in humans, the complex interaction between orgasm and MDMA (especially with psychological aspects factored in) will remain mostly a mystery. I think the reason that the mechanics (erection) are easier to undersand is because an orgasm requires a more emotional response that involves more complex interactions between a wider array of neurotransmitters.
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
I'd even be happy if even primatologists were granted the research rights. *sigh*
There is a good deal of work which has been done to determine the inhibitory factors involved with other compounds that have a high affinity for serotonin receptors. It's already been determined that inhibiting 5HT1a, 5-HT1b, 5-HT1c and 5-HT2 will produce the identical effects seen with MDMA. But due to SSRIs non-aggressive chemical interactions have with these sites, it takes several days to several weeks for the erectile inhibition to take hold.
This even helps to provide a condition where further evidence demonstrating that MDMA's sexual effect is mediated neurologically. A patient who is taking a high affinity SSRI (such as Prozac), and is in the first stages of SERT down regulation, does not experience the erectile inhibiting effect of the MDMA. If this were due to MDMA effecting the biochemical stasis of the smooth muscle of the penis, it wouldn't matter if someone was taking Prozac or not. But the MDMA inhibiting effect that SSRIs have also nullify MDMA's sexual side effects.
Try it. Take 20 mgs. of Prozac per day for 3 to 4 days, and then take a normal dosage of MDMA. The Prozac prevents the MDMA from interfering with these mechanisms and thus averts the sexual side effects.
There is a good deal of work which has been done to determine the inhibitory factors involved with other compounds that have a high affinity for serotonin receptors. It's already been determined that inhibiting 5HT1a, 5-HT1b, 5-HT1c and 5-HT2 will produce the identical effects seen with MDMA. But due to SSRIs non-aggressive chemical interactions have with these sites, it takes several days to several weeks for the erectile inhibition to take hold.
This even helps to provide a condition where further evidence demonstrating that MDMA's sexual effect is mediated neurologically. A patient who is taking a high affinity SSRI (such as Prozac), and is in the first stages of SERT down regulation, does not experience the erectile inhibiting effect of the MDMA. If this were due to MDMA effecting the biochemical stasis of the smooth muscle of the penis, it wouldn't matter if someone was taking Prozac or not. But the MDMA inhibiting effect that SSRIs have also nullify MDMA's sexual side effects.
Try it. Take 20 mgs. of Prozac per day for 3 to 4 days, and then take a normal dosage of MDMA. The Prozac prevents the MDMA from interfering with these mechanisms and thus averts the sexual side effects.
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
I've never been too familiar with the interactions between prozac and MDMA so I can't comment, however, MDMA does actively inhibit the Mg that allows smooth muscle to relax. Whether or not the fact that prozac and the conjugates of 5-HT work together to negate this is someting I'm not familiar with.
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
There is a great deal of information available regarding SSRIs and how and why they effectively inhibit MDMA's effect.DJDannyUhOh said:
It has nothing to do with conjugates of 5-HT, and everything to do with having a high affinity for the same receptors (resulting in MDMA molecules being blocking from binding to the SERTs).
Could you please point me to a medically authoritative reference demonstrating that MDMA effects the smooth muscles of the penis? Today, I went through PubMed, and a few other medical research databases, and I haven't found one reference supporting this. Certainly, if these had been established there must be an authoritative scientific reference somewhere.
Prozac has no effect on smooth muscles, if it did it would be documented in the medical literature. And again, when taking Prozac (even for a limited period of time) the sexual side effects of MDMA are completely negated. If this inhibition were vascular it would sill occur if someone was taking and SSRI. Because of this, I am having a hard time believing your assertion.
Last edited:
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine significantly inhibits the magnesium channels that are required to relax smooth muscle. Here's the link.
http://303.ubik.to/e4xapp.htm
Each study gives references.
Why do you think it's difficult to urinate? Why do you think our jaws clench? Why do you think our muscles are sore afterwards?
I could tell you that the sky is blue, but for some reason you would probably disagree with that also. . . and I never said I knew what effect prozac has on smooth muscle.
Truthfully, is there any credible reseach that can make a definitive assumption on humans? All we have are rats and rats by far do not have the complex nervous system we have. If you have the info, post the links.
http://303.ubik.to/e4xapp.htm
Each study gives references.
Why do you think it's difficult to urinate? Why do you think our jaws clench? Why do you think our muscles are sore afterwards?
I could tell you that the sky is blue, but for some reason you would probably disagree with that also. . . and I never said I knew what effect prozac has on smooth muscle.
Truthfully, is there any credible reseach that can make a definitive assumption on humans? All we have are rats and rats by far do not have the complex nervous system we have. If you have the info, post the links.
DJDannyUhOh
Bluelighter
Let me put it this way. I've exhausted my interest on this post. My main objective was to give a little thought into mixing E with viagra. I'll be the first to admit that my references or any others that anyone else might give will not be 100% proven on this issue, but they damn sure make a case for putting at least some consideration into mixing such drugs together. Until a study is sanctioned by the AMA or WHO, we cannot assume an E and viagra cocktail is safe in one aspect or another. If you want to defend the "Yeah, E and viagra are OK for me and they make me fuck like a bunny" point of view, by all means go ahead. Just realize this is not the most healthy point of view and it should be analyzed as closely as any other point of view. I'd rather error on the side of caution, especially if I were up in age. Just remember that there is a point where everything will catch up with us and that there is no way to tell how any drug will react with any of us, and ultimately the decision comes down to the individual.
We all know that the internet is sketchy with details at best. If you really want the "nitty gritty" of cutting edge medical research, go to your local university that has a pre-med curriculum. Usually, colleges of this type have a library of health sciences, i.e. University of Illinois at Chicago. (where I went) Here you will find the most recent studies that haven't made their way to the internet yet. Most of it will be found in issues of JAMA. (Journal Of The American Medical Association)
Many people on this site have a "soap box" stance on certain issues and it becomes no more conclusive that debating religious issues. Quote this post to your heart's content. I am no more opinionated than anyone else on this subject and I know no matter what, your opinions will seem to supersede mine, so for the sake of a long and drawn out thread, I graciously concede the final word to you.
We all know that the internet is sketchy with details at best. If you really want the "nitty gritty" of cutting edge medical research, go to your local university that has a pre-med curriculum. Usually, colleges of this type have a library of health sciences, i.e. University of Illinois at Chicago. (where I went) Here you will find the most recent studies that haven't made their way to the internet yet. Most of it will be found in issues of JAMA. (Journal Of The American Medical Association)
Many people on this site have a "soap box" stance on certain issues and it becomes no more conclusive that debating religious issues. Quote this post to your heart's content. I am no more opinionated than anyone else on this subject and I know no matter what, your opinions will seem to supersede mine, so for the sake of a long and drawn out thread, I graciously concede the final word to you.
Last edited:
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
DJDannyUhOh,
Absolutely nothing (none of the musculature references) on that page relates to our discussion.
Bad harm reduction information is as bad as no harm reduction information. It lowers the standards of truth, and ends up creating a population of people who are skeptical and who may not follow the legitimate harm reduction information due to the "signal to noise" ratio. Case in point, if the NIDA issued an adverisy which was truthful and accurate no one would follow it because the NIDA has published (goal oriented) misinformation in the past.
You "feel" convinced that there is "something wrong" with the MDMA + Viagra mix. That is your right. It is your right to avoid mixing the two drugs. You even have the right to recommend that people stay away from the drug mix because you feel in your opinion that it may be harmful. But it is not your right to knowingly inject that opinion masquerading as a knowledgable resource simply because you "think" everyone should stay away from it because you "feel" that you are right. At best, it is misguided (opinions are like assholes...). At worst, it is manipulation (which is what people like Recardi and the NIDA has been doing all along for their own goal oriented purposes).
We try our very best to provide the most scientifically accurate information which is available. Thus far, there is no compelling reliable scientific evidence available indicating that taking MDMA with Viagra is harmful EXCEPT where someone has a pre-existing heart condition.
I would like to point out something else, and this is purely my opinion based on observation. There are many drugs which someone could mix with MDMA which are over the counter. We never hear of anyone speculating that Advil may be a harmful mix, nor asprin, nor anti-histamines (people do ask questions, but the answers are not "pounced on"). Yet, when the subject ventures into the realm of sexuality, all of a sudden there are a plethora of nay sayers, all holding a "gut level" opinion, but baring no reliable scientific facts to support their assertions. As soon as you incorporate sexuality with drugs, there appears to be far more "advised caution" than with pretty much any other activity or or drug mixture (remember, I am talking about "peanut gallery" opinions, not those dealing with sound scientific information). Rather than revealing my theory as to why exactly this is, I leave it up to everyone else to draw their own conclusions...
The internet is sketchy ONLY if you rely on the fringe publishing. There are many medical and scientific databases which are anything but "sketchy." Making an assertion without a shread of supporting evidence, and then suggesting to "go fish" for the evidence is more an attempt at "winning" an argument, than establishing a scientific truth (whether it is an "absolute" scientific truth, or one which is based on "current" knowledge and is subject to change).
You initially proposed a detailed biochemical process which occurs. But when asked for details you respond with "the answer is out there" (excerpt from: The X-Files ). I've worked with physicians and biomedical researchers for most of my professional life. And, quite frankly, your approach to this whole issue has made me question your having ever attended medical school. You don't seem to know where to look (the internet is a marvelous scientific and medical research tool - something that is NOT lost on a third year medical student), and your argument breaks down (and you become angry) when asked for simple references to validate your assertions. I'm sorry, but this this is simply NOT how information is disseminated in the medical community.
Here is what I said in the beginning of this discussion. It appears to have come full circle:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1776185#post1776185
Brian
Originally posted by DJDannyUhOh
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine significantly inhibits the magnesium channels that are required to relax smooth muscle. Here's the link.
http://303.ubik.to/e4xapp.htm
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine significantly inhibits the magnesium channels that are required to relax smooth muscle. Here's the link.
http://303.ubik.to/e4xapp.htm
Absolutely nothing (none of the musculature references) on that page relates to our discussion.
Bad harm reduction information is as bad as no harm reduction information. It lowers the standards of truth, and ends up creating a population of people who are skeptical and who may not follow the legitimate harm reduction information due to the "signal to noise" ratio. Case in point, if the NIDA issued an adverisy which was truthful and accurate no one would follow it because the NIDA has published (goal oriented) misinformation in the past.
You "feel" convinced that there is "something wrong" with the MDMA + Viagra mix. That is your right. It is your right to avoid mixing the two drugs. You even have the right to recommend that people stay away from the drug mix because you feel in your opinion that it may be harmful. But it is not your right to knowingly inject that opinion masquerading as a knowledgable resource simply because you "think" everyone should stay away from it because you "feel" that you are right. At best, it is misguided (opinions are like assholes...). At worst, it is manipulation (which is what people like Recardi and the NIDA has been doing all along for their own goal oriented purposes).
We try our very best to provide the most scientifically accurate information which is available. Thus far, there is no compelling reliable scientific evidence available indicating that taking MDMA with Viagra is harmful EXCEPT where someone has a pre-existing heart condition.
I would like to point out something else, and this is purely my opinion based on observation. There are many drugs which someone could mix with MDMA which are over the counter. We never hear of anyone speculating that Advil may be a harmful mix, nor asprin, nor anti-histamines (people do ask questions, but the answers are not "pounced on"). Yet, when the subject ventures into the realm of sexuality, all of a sudden there are a plethora of nay sayers, all holding a "gut level" opinion, but baring no reliable scientific facts to support their assertions. As soon as you incorporate sexuality with drugs, there appears to be far more "advised caution" than with pretty much any other activity or or drug mixture (remember, I am talking about "peanut gallery" opinions, not those dealing with sound scientific information). Rather than revealing my theory as to why exactly this is, I leave it up to everyone else to draw their own conclusions...
Originally posted by DJDannyUhOh
Let me put it this way. I've exhausted my interest on this post. My main objective was to give a little thought into mixing E with viagra. I'll be the first to admit that my references or any others that anyone else might give will not be 100% proven on this issue, but they damn sure make a case for putting at least some consideration into mixing such drugs together. Until a study is sanctioned by the AMA or WHO, we cannot assume an E and viagra cocktail is safe in one aspect or another. If you want to defend the "Yeah, E and viagra are OK for me and they make me fuck like a bunny" point of view, by all means go ahead. Just realize this is not the most healthy point of view and it should be analyzed as closely as any other point of view. I'd rather error on the side of caution, especially if I were up in age. Just remember that there is a point where everything will catch up with us and that there is no way to tell how any drug will react with any of us, and ultimately the decision comes down to the individual.
We all know that the internet is sketchy with details at best. If you really want the "nitty gritty" of cutting edge medical research, go to your local university that has a pre-med curriculum. Usually, colleges of this type have a library of health sciences, i.e. University of Illinois at Chicago. (where I went) Here you will find the most recent studies that haven't made their way to the internet yet. Most of it will be found in issues of JAMA. (Journal Of The American Medical Association)
Many people on this site have a "soap box" stance on certain issues and it becomes no more conclusive that debating religious issues. Quote this post to your heart's content. I am no more opinionated than anyone else on this subject and I know no matter what, your opinions will seem to supersede mine, so for the sake of a long and drawn out thread, I graciously concede the final word to you.
Let me put it this way. I've exhausted my interest on this post. My main objective was to give a little thought into mixing E with viagra. I'll be the first to admit that my references or any others that anyone else might give will not be 100% proven on this issue, but they damn sure make a case for putting at least some consideration into mixing such drugs together. Until a study is sanctioned by the AMA or WHO, we cannot assume an E and viagra cocktail is safe in one aspect or another. If you want to defend the "Yeah, E and viagra are OK for me and they make me fuck like a bunny" point of view, by all means go ahead. Just realize this is not the most healthy point of view and it should be analyzed as closely as any other point of view. I'd rather error on the side of caution, especially if I were up in age. Just remember that there is a point where everything will catch up with us and that there is no way to tell how any drug will react with any of us, and ultimately the decision comes down to the individual.
We all know that the internet is sketchy with details at best. If you really want the "nitty gritty" of cutting edge medical research, go to your local university that has a pre-med curriculum. Usually, colleges of this type have a library of health sciences, i.e. University of Illinois at Chicago. (where I went) Here you will find the most recent studies that haven't made their way to the internet yet. Most of it will be found in issues of JAMA. (Journal Of The American Medical Association)
Many people on this site have a "soap box" stance on certain issues and it becomes no more conclusive that debating religious issues. Quote this post to your heart's content. I am no more opinionated than anyone else on this subject and I know no matter what, your opinions will seem to supersede mine, so for the sake of a long and drawn out thread, I graciously concede the final word to you.
The internet is sketchy ONLY if you rely on the fringe publishing. There are many medical and scientific databases which are anything but "sketchy." Making an assertion without a shread of supporting evidence, and then suggesting to "go fish" for the evidence is more an attempt at "winning" an argument, than establishing a scientific truth (whether it is an "absolute" scientific truth, or one which is based on "current" knowledge and is subject to change).
You initially proposed a detailed biochemical process which occurs. But when asked for details you respond with "the answer is out there" (excerpt from: The X-Files
). I've worked with physicians and biomedical researchers for most of my professional life. And, quite frankly, your approach to this whole issue has made me question your having ever attended medical school. You don't seem to know where to look (the internet is a marvelous scientific and medical research tool - something that is NOT lost on a third year medical student), and your argument breaks down (and you become angry) when asked for simple references to validate your assertions. I'm sorry, but this this is simply NOT how information is disseminated in the medical community.Here is what I said in the beginning of this discussion. It appears to have come full circle:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1776185#post1776185
Originally posted by Brian Oblivion
Look, I'm not trying to flame you, so please don't take what I am saying that way. A lot of what you are saying is purely your opinion, but you are speaking as though it is factual information. There is a wide gap between educated "factual" information, and drawing conclusions simply because they "seem right" to you. Too much of the "common knowledge" in the drug community is based on somebody else's "seem right" logic that has no basis in real fact. Drawing your own conclusions and treating them as scientific fact does a disservice to everyone in this community.
Look, I'm not trying to flame you, so please don't take what I am saying that way. A lot of what you are saying is purely your opinion, but you are speaking as though it is factual information. There is a wide gap between educated "factual" information, and drawing conclusions simply because they "seem right" to you. Too much of the "common knowledge" in the drug community is based on somebody else's "seem right" logic that has no basis in real fact. Drawing your own conclusions and treating them as scientific fact does a disservice to everyone in this community.
Brian
Last edited: