Question:

I don’t know if it is because of Advair or not, but my father went into V-Fib 1 month after taking advair. He was very happy with the way he felt being on Advair, but never mentioned anything about the warnings. I just noticed that the warnings say that Advair can change heart rhythm.  That is exactly what happened to my father.  He never had heart problems before, in fact, his Dr has commented before that he has a very strong heart. I’m not sure where to go with this.  I just want to make sure that everyone takes these warnings seriously. Please be careful.  Having this happen to my father has been very difficult. Dave

Response:

It may have been a cumulative effect was he taking something else before Advair. Many asthma sufferers take a form of steroids and albuterol and heart problems are frequent. My best wishes to you and your family and thanks for a difficult reminder. Lane

Response:

Your comments can be true.  However, since being on Advair, he hasn’t used his inhaler, and he hasn’t taken prednisone for quite some time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It may have been a cumulative effect was he taking something else before Advair. Many asthma sufferers take a form of steroids and albuterol and heart problems are frequent. My best wishes to you and your family and thanks for a difficult reminder. Lane

Response:

It is always difficult to know if a drug side effect is responsible or not. The PDR lists the same 101 side effects for every drug. While I was takng "anyoldmycin" my stocks plunged, my car wouldn’t start and I cut myself shaving. Was all this caused by "anyoldmycin"? Unfortunately it takes a very long time to decide which – if any – ofthe 101 side effects are "real" and requires withdrawal of a medication. The ingredients in Advair are quite common ones and seem to help many persons. Murray Grossan, M.D. http://www.ent-consult.com http://www.TinnitusRelief.net http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic516.htm

Response:

Many people find Advair and Flovent disagreeable immedeiately.  So they switch to Pulmicort, which, conversely, is not for everyone.  These two are both powerful and effective steroids. Address:http://www.consumerlawpage.com/article/asthma.shtml Changed:9:56 PM on Friday, November 8, 2002

Response:

Question:

This past week, my doctor changed my Pulmicort and Oxeze to a trial of Symbicort 200 (200/6 ug 2 puffs, 2X daily, no change in previous dosing), a combined turbuhalor.

What country are you in?  As far as I can tell, Symbicort is not available in the US. — (650) 236-2231 [daytime]        http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/ CA voters, send a message: write-in "Richard Riordan" in November 2002.

Response:

I was diagnosed with adult onset asthma a few years ago.  After much trial and error, I seemed to be doing fairly good on Pulmicort 400 mcg (2X daily), Oxeze 12 mcg (2X daily), Singulair, Nasonex (2X daily), Bricanyl as required, and Reactin Extra Strength (1X daily).  The first of the year I started HRT because at just over 40 I’m menopausal having three natural periods in the past two years.  Aside of the asthma and hormone problem, I have developed sinus flare ups and/or infections and am currently on antibiotics once again for a sinus infection.  Along with this problem there has been a definite change in my asthma status.  I am attributing the worsening status to: 1) sinus infection and post nasal drip, 2) horrible ragweed season and 3) extreme external stressors.  Needless to say, I will be seeing a bit more of my doctor the next few weeks  I’ve had little flare ups on and off for the past year but I almost forgot how tired and irritable more severe asthma flare ups can make you!  I am so exhausted! This past week, my doctor changed my Pulmicort and Oxeze to a trial of Symbicort  200 (200/6 ug 2 puffs, 2X daily, no change in previous dosing), a combined turbuhalor.  I must say that the Symbicort turbuhaler is even nicer to use than the Pulmicort and Oxeze turbuhalers.  In terms of inhalations, it hasn’t changed anything for me because I have to take two puffs to get the proper dosing but it still is one less inhaler to cart around.  The mouth piece is more stream lined and there is a numberical counter instead of just a window that eventually shows red when the medication is out.

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I am hoping someone may have some suggestions/advice for me. I have been diagnosed with ADD for which I take Concerta (36 mgs at 6:00 am). This has helped me quite a bit. I however start to feel tense and anxious in the afternoon which will build up until I take 100 mg Seroquel about 1/2 hour before sleeping. I work in the computer field which I enjoy very much. I can’t seem to let my work go and am constantly studying and extremely curious about computers/networks in general. It seems I am always thinking out scenarios in my head about various ways to do things. The problem is that this compulsive thinking is leading to my anxious state. My dr. has tried me on numerous meds such as paxil, zoloft, effexor, luvox, depakote, lithium, remeron, wellebutrin, etc. I am not depressed, I just am (and have always been) somewhat hyper and cannot relax. It seems any med that works with serotonin just gives me bad headaches. I respond easily to Klonipin, not so well with Antivan. I guess I have ADD and am somewhat obsessive/compulsive. Erv

ever try strattera? or good old tca meds like imipramine? LM — The charter is available at:

Question:

Hi Y’all!  Doing better today.  Been hungry!  That’s a good sign.  It means my PMS is stronger than my withdrawal symptoms!  I’m not suprised. Vivid dreams I can’t remember last night. Slept all the way through.  There’s really not much to report.  I was bouncing off the walls yesterday.  Kava helped, as usual.  So did yoga and an after dinner walk in the neighborhood. I have shin-splints.  Interestingly, I wasn’t tired last night until later than usual, (11:00), but when I was it hit all at once.  Nothing gradual or subtle about it. Life without meds may actually be possible for me.  It’s looking good so far.  After 15 years of struggle with anxiety, panic, and an assortment of other secondary disorders there may actually be some hope for a life!  I hope someone out there reads this and catches some hope for themselves. Be Well! PW

Response:

I’ve been following this thread and I’m glad to hear you’re doing well without meds. I orginally didn’t respond since I was never on Zoloft nor do I have PMS I’m curious. Was it easier to wean on or off Zoloft? I had a hell of a time weaning onto Paxil CR and after 3 months of it not working, I decided to forget about it but had no problems stopping it. BTW How’s Kava effectiveness? Do you take it as needed or daily? Oh and don’t be afraid to throw some of that hope my way Kevin… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Y’all!  Doing better today.  Been hungry!  That’s a good sign.  It means my PMS is stronger than my withdrawal symptoms!  I’m not suprised. Vivid dreams I can’t remember last night. Slept all the way through.  There’s really not much to report.  I was bouncing off the walls yesterday.  Kava helped, as usual.  So did yoga and an after dinner walk in the neighborhood. I have shin-splints.  Interestingly, I wasn’t tired last night until later than usual, (11:00), but when I was it hit all at once.  Nothing gradual or subtle about it. Life without meds may actually be possible for me.  It’s looking good so far.  After 15 years of struggle with anxiety, panic, and an assortment of other secondary disorders there may actually be some hope for a life!  I hope someone out there reads this and catches some hope for themselves. Be Well! PW

Response:

It’s definately easier coming on Zoloft than off, for me.  I was lethargic at first, but after getting up to 50mg it only took about a week to get level. The total time was about 3 weeks.  Then I had a LOT of energy.  Bear in mind that I was extremely depressed by the time I started on Zoloft so in contract I felt quite energetic.  The reality was that I was feeling level. Coming off is harder. I feel wired for about 3 days, then I level out for about a week, then I cut the dosage by 50% and start all over again.  Paxil was hell for me.  I was a vegetable on it, crying all the time – very depressed.  Kava works really well for me during those few days when i’m wired, coming off. It takes some of the edge off, though just enough that I don’t feel like being mean to anyone or running over slow people in my car! My anxiety is scary.  I get impatient, critical, irritable, consescending and generally unpleasant to be around at all before I become downright verbally violent.  I called someone a bitch on the phone yesterday.  True, she was being incompetent at her job, but it didn’t help the situation to vent like that.  I take the kava as needed.  I usually need it around lunchtime.  I get edgy when I get hungry.  Then again in the evenings when I want to wind down and relax if I feel too keyed up to sit still.  I haven’t needed it much lately.  I anticipate not needing it all in a month. PW

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been following this thread and I’m glad to hear you’re doing well without meds. I orginally didn’t respond since I was never on Zoloft nor do I have PMS I’m curious. Was it easier to wean on or off Zoloft? I had a hell of a time weaning onto Paxil CR and after 3 months of it not working, I decided to forget about it but had no problems stopping it. BTW How’s Kava effectiveness? Do you take it as needed or daily? Oh and don’t be afraid to throw some of that hope my way Kevin… Hi Y’all!  Doing better today.  Been hungry!  That’s a good sign.  It means my PMS is stronger than my withdrawal symptoms!  I’m not suprised. Vivid dreams I can’t remember last night. Slept all the way through.  There’s really not much to report.  I was bouncing off the walls yesterday. Kava helped, as usual.  So did yoga and an after dinner walk in the neighborhood. I have shin-splints.  Interestingly, I wasn’t tired last night until later than usual, (11:00), but when I was it hit all at once.  Nothing gradual or subtle about it. Life without meds may actually be possible for me.  It’s looking good so far.  After 15 years of struggle with anxiety, panic, and an assortment of other secondary disorders there may actually be some hope for a life!  I hope someone out there reads this and catches some hope for themselves. Be Well! PW

Response:

Thanks for your input. I’ve researched and read about the liver damage.   Where do you recommend buying the best Kava? How much do yo take each day? DiA

Response:

Thanks for your input. I’ve researched and read about the liver damage.   Where do you recommend buying the best Kava? How much do yo take each day? DiA

DiA, I’ve been using several labels of an extract called Kaviar(TM). You can read background info on their product(s) at http://www.cosmopolitantrading.com/ I’ve used their soft gels; they’re quite good, but take a bit longer to get into your system because it’s a thick paste inside of a softgel (available from Source Naturals as Kava Gold softgels – http://www.vitacost.com/Store/products/Products.cfm?SubCategoryID=313… own1=product I have a slight preference for their powdered version because of the bioabsorption issue; I get it from http://www.health-pages.com/kk/index.html PW is using one of the Gaia Herbs products (not sure if it’s the tincture or the phyto-capsules).  I’ve not tried them, but they have an excellent reputation, and the liquid versions do work much faster. My dosage level flucuates because I supplement the capsules with "kava tonics" I make from raw powder; I probably average around 700 mg/day.  The medical impllications of prolonged daily use at that level is very uncertain. Start with one or two capsules and evaluate your response.  Next time increase the dosage by another capsule until you get what feels like a good response. Take kava on an empty stomach, no matter what the label says, and wait awhile (about an hour, but it varies by individual, before you eat) If you get to 300mg without any significant effect, then kava may not work for you, but give it 3-4 days at a consistent dosage level before you drop it; sometimes it takes a while for the full effect to settle in. Hope it works for you, but even if not, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion. Figaro

Response:

Thanks for the info..I do have more anxiety and no depression anymore and thats why I think the Kava may be better.. It’s worth a try, anyway:) DiA

Response:

I coud use some of that hope, too,PW, so send some my way!   Have been taking St, John’s but will try the Kava after reading about it,. DiA

St. John’s Wort is an anti-depressant.  Kava-kava is (primarily) an anti-anxiety drug; it won’t help mood unless you have anxiety-driven depression.  If you take both, the SJW will interfere with the effectiveness of the kava. You *must* research kava extensively before you take it on a regular basis. There are unresolved health issues involving possible liver damage. Make an informed decision. Although I’m a regular kava user I try not to advocate nor discourage its use by anyone else.  That statement notwithstanding, my personal opinion is that kava has the potential to be an outstanding alternative to the benzodiazepenes, but the current kava products on the market varying in effectiveness from useless to excellent, so you may need to try several before finding one that works for you.

Response:

I coud use some of that hope, too,PW, so send some my way!   Have been taking St, John’s but will try the Kava after reading about it,. DiA

Response:

DiA I have read that St. John’s wort is good for depression.  It can be a bit stimulating.  I skirt away from it because by depression is secondary to my anxiety.  I am not really qualified to make any suggestions, though I can offer some of my own prsonal experience.  St. John’s Wort never helped me at all.  It never hurt me either.  Though it can aggravate some ppls’ anxiety – so I’ve read. PW

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I coud use some of that hope, too,PW, so send some my way!   Have been taking St, John’s but will try the Kava after reading about it,. DiA

Response:

It’s definately easier coming on Zoloft than off, for me.  I was lethargic at first, but after getting up to 50mg it only took about a week to get level. The total time was about 3 weeks.  Then I had a LOT of energy. Bear in mind that I was extremely depressed by the time I started on Zoloft so in contract I felt quite energetic.  The reality was that I was feeling

level. I had the same reaction to Paxil but I was taking it for anxiety and was on a mania streak the entire 3 months I was on it. Thanfully I had Xanax to calm me down. Coming off is harder. I feel wired for about 3 days, then I level out for about a week, then I cut the dosage by 50% and start all over again. Paxil was hell for me.  I was a vegetable on it, crying all the time – very depressed.  Kava works really well for me during those few days when i’m wired, coming off. It takes some of the edge off, though just enough that I don’t feel like being mean to anyone or running over slow people in my car! My anxiety is scary.  I get impatient, critical, irritable, consescending and generally unpleasant to be around at all before I become downright verbally violent.

We have something in common but my anger has nothing to do my anxiety. Still trying to figure out what it is. I have these rage relapses once on a while and cannot control it right in the middle of it. But they usually only last one day now. I was in this state of mind for years in the past. Suicidal up the ying yang. I called someone a bitch on the phone yesterday.  True, she was being incompetent at her job, but it didn’t help the situation to vent like that.  I take the kava as needed.  I usually need it around lunchtime.  I get edgy when I get hungry.

Remind me to never get on your bad side : ) Then again in the evenings when I want to wind down and relax if I feel too keyed up to sit still.  I haven’t needed it much lately.  I anticipate not needing it all in a month.

Good, I’m glad you’re succesfully weaning off of it…

Thanks! Have a good one Ms. PW, Kevin…

Response:

Question:

Dear Steve, I’d  like to add something to Mark’s good advice.  You seem to have a case similar to mine in that your panic/terror lasts for days, in my case it can last for weeks.  The only medicine that has ever touched it was xanax. Without xanax I am a candidate for suicide.  I am only on 2mg a day, plus an anti depressant Serzone.  You’ll probably need an anti-depressant, but if your case is severe enough an anti-depressant/anti-anxiety combination drug won’t touch your panic.  It’s like those shampoos with the conditioner all-in-one, the shampoo washes out the conditioner!!!! Please, for your sake, if you have the option, find a doctor who will prescribe an anti-depressant (shampoo) and  xanax (conditioner).  I went the route your doctor wants you to travel and I’ve deteriorated through so much wait and let’s see that I can’t even work right now, I can’t leave the house. DISCLAIMER:  This is my personal experience, but I brought it up since most panic attacks from what I’ve read here last up to 20 minutes, while mine last days and weeks, and yours last days… well, for too long I’ve let doctors put a small round circular band-aid (you know the kind) on a huge gaping wound.  I’ve suffered more than anyone should have to .  Most of us do, most of us are under medicated.  It’s like we pay the doctor to keep us off medicine. Anyway, I am not you, and you are not me, but it never hurts to get a second opinion if you can afford it. If I’ve said anything in ignorance, someone please correct me. You Have My Very Best Wishes, Ashley ~*~*~*~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Steve, It’s common to fear new meds (I do) when you have an anxiety disorder. But Zoloft has a good track record for anxiety/panic.  You may not have any side effects at all or you may have bad enough side effects that you quit the Zoloft, it depends on your personal chemistry. As I see it, you have 2 choices:  1) take the Zoloft and see what happens (it could be very good) or 2) find a new therapist that’s not scared to perscribe Xanax. Calling Xanax "addictive" is not quite accurate.  Users develop a "dependency" on Xanax.  Which means that there’s a period of initial tolerance where you have to increase your dose a few times until you find a good level, it also means that you can’t quit cold turkey without withdraws.  The user of an addictive drug wants to keep increasing the dose of the drug because the tolerance keeps getting stronger.  The user also craves the drug, which usually doesn’t happen with Xanax.  I’ve been on Xanax for more than a year and have never had a craving for it.  I’ve even reduced my dose a bit and had some withdraws, but never a craving. BTW, if you take Zoloft long enough, you won’t be able to quit it cold turkey without risking some kind of withdraws.  You have to wean off both Xanax and Zoloft (or most any drug that crosses the blood brain barrier).  Also, you need to wean onto Zoloft at about half the rate you would if you were taking it for depression, this will reduce any side effects (anxiety sufferers are more sensitive to side effects). God bless,   Mark Before you buy.

Response:

I’ve been a closet panic disorder, OCD vicitim most of my life. But lately it’s gotten much worse I started seeing a therapist last year. Initially, his advice of breathing exercises and such really worked. So much so I stopped seeing him. But 6 weeks ago, I had a horrible reaction after taking my first pill of an antibiotic (Levaquin) and wound up in the ER with just about every panic symtpom you could imagine. They didn’t subside for days. Finally, after the doctors shook their heads, I went to see my therapist and he had me try Xanax, which got me back to 70% of what I used to be. I was able to wean off of it after a week, but a few weeks later I fell right back into the gutter. I went back on the remaining Xanax I had, breaking the pills in half, until I could see my therapist. Now I am on a schedule to see him every week, and he wants me off the Xanax and on Zoloft instead. A day after my last Xanax, I already feel very anxious again. I’m also very concerned about going on Zoloft, as I read all the horror stories about it on the net. Can anyone offer any advice. After my reaction the the single levaquin antibiotic pill, I’m worried about trying anything new. Plus, now I don’t know what to do about my anxious state now that I am in-between meds. My therapists doesn’t want me on Xanax because it’s very addiciting. But I also here the Zoloft has lots of problems, and it takes a while to work. I’ve tried breathing exercises, and they help a bit, but not anywhere near enough. Thanks in advance for your help.

Response:

Question:

Halley DeVestern schreef: Hi, Folks Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.  Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things:

Halley, I’ve been taking xanax as needed for about 4 years and it’s been my life saver.  I’m currently taking prozac with the xanax so I can’t help you with the zoloft.  I do get sleepy when I take it but I go to sleep when I take an aspirin.  : )  Hope this helps. Teri

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Folks Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.  Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things: 1.  Will it make "bad thoughts" go away? 2.  How often is it taken?  As needed or on a daily basis? 3.  Any stories about withdrawal? 4.  Will it make the joy of living return? 5.  Anybody on Xanax and Zoloft concurrently? 6.  Do you feel sleepy on it? Thanks for your help! Halley

It didn’t make the bad thoughts go away, but it dampened the impact that they had upon me. The bad thoughts have become manageable through behavioral therapy and Luvox. I took a maximum of 1 mg a day.  I used to split a 0.5 tablet in half or take the whole pill, depending on the severity of the panic attack. Eventually, I replaced the xanax with an herbal tranquilizer called Calms Forte.  This was pretty powerful too, although it didn’t stay in my system as long, and I had to take it more frequently. Now the luvox and the behavior therapy are working fine, so I’m not taking any tranquilizers maybe just the occasional skullcap or valerian tea. I had withdrawal for one day after taking it for a few weeks.  I had symptoms like rebound anxiety, nervousness, and shakiness. It didn’t make the joy of living return.  That’s something that’s been happening gradually through therapy and Luvox.  It did get me pretty high at times. It tended to make me very sleepy during the day.  That is why I preferred to take it in the evening prior to bedtime. The Panicky Guy  

Response:

Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.

I wouldn’t say I’m pro-Xanax, but I’m not anti-Xanax either. Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things: 1.  Will it make "bad thoughts" go away?

That depends.  I think it does this for a lot of people, but you might want to take into account the content of your "bad thoughts" in choosing a treatment. 2.  How often is it taken?  As needed or on a daily basis?

Either.  Some people, like myself, take it as needed.  Others take it 3 or 4 times a day, every day, at pretty much evenly spaced intervals. 3.  Any stories about withdrawal?

None from me.  However, there are some people who get seizures if they are taking Xanax regularly and then stop suddenly.  You should taper off slowly if you plan to stop.  This will make withdrawal safe, although for some people it is still unpleasant (increased anxiety (i.e., more than you had before you took it), insomnia, etc.). 4.  Will it make the joy of living return?

I don’t think Xanax alone can do this, but if you are optimistic about Xanax it will probably spill over into other areas of your life.  This is a secondary way that psych drugs have helped me, since I have a lot of optimism about them. 5.  Anybody on Xanax and Zoloft concurrently?

I’m sure someone out there is.  It’s a perfectly safe and reasonable combination. 6.  Do you feel sleepy on it?

No, and I never did, but _none_ of the benzos makes me sleepy.  Some people say that Xanax is the least sedating one they’ve tried.  (The most common benzos for anxiety seem to be Xanax, Ativan, and Klonopin; many people have taken Valium as well, and some other ones that I hear about periodically are Tranxene, Librium, and Serax.) -elizabeth

Response:

I have been on the Zoloft/Xanax combo for a couple of years now.  And like Gary, I only rely on the Xanax when certain situations arise.  I don’t take the 3-4 that I am prescribed, but 1-2 daily and sometimes less (.25 mg.) I only have a mild drowsiness when I take the Xanax early in the morning.  For some reason it makes me a little sleepy at work – maybe my job’s not exciting enough. Xanax worked miracles with my panic attacks.  I don’t know where I’d be today if I still had 8-10 attacks a day that I used to. Hope you find the right meds.   Sherry Hogan Love One Another!

Response:

1)not really, it just relaxes you to not care 2)usually 1 at bedtime on a daily basis or if you feel aniety or sleeplessness 3)I had no problem.I am more of a fighter.I changed my life rather than keep on drugs. 4)My joy of living is very low.But I beleive in perserverence and constantly giving myself a challenge.I fight this damn disorder.but my body takes a toll from it : (     5) dont know 6)Xtremly tired, as a matter of fact,I would go to LaLa land shortly after consuming. Halley, make changes in your life, strive to make it what u think it should be.We all have to deal with the world, but I dont have to bring them home with me, I dont let people effect me if they cause me pain or I dont understand their ways. I have learned to take a breath and walk away, or to speak my mind and then walk away.I wish you the best of luck. be strong.

Response:

Hi, Folks Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.  Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things: 1.  Will it make "bad thoughts" go away? 2.  How often is it taken?  As needed or on a daily basis? 3.  Any stories about withdrawal? 4.  Will it make the joy of living return? 5.  Anybody on Xanax and Zoloft concurrently? 6.  Do you feel sleepy on it? Thanks for your help! Halley

Response:

Hi, Folks Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.  Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things:

Ok Halley – I’ll have a go – bearing in mind you remember it’s all YMMV and IMO 1.  Will it make "bad thoughts" go away?

That depends on what sort of "bad thoughts" you mean. If you mean ratty anxiety, gnawing away at you, then it does do that for me, yes. 2.  How often is it taken?  As needed or on a daily basis?

That depends on your doctor and you. I take it as needed, others take it two or three times a day. If your anxiety is situational (as mine is these days) then you could possibly use it as I do, to counter the specific things that cause problems. If your trouble is steady-state anxiety (GAD), then you might be better taking it on a regular basis. Your doctor will advise. 3.  Any stories about withdrawal?

Not personally. 4.  Will it make the joy of living return?

No one on Earth can tell you for sure. In my case (which is all I can speak about) it has completely and utterly changed my entire life. I’ve gone from being an agoraphobic, trapped in a 1/4 mile patch, to someone who now travels freely by private or public transport, handles crowds, elevators and many other former nightmares with ease. Your phrase ‘the joy of living’ however, makes it sound like you are battling depression. To really get to the nub of how much it might help you, some more information about you would be a great help. 5.  Anybody on Xanax and Zoloft concurrently?

Not personally. 6.  Do you feel sleepy on it?

Sometimes, but it’s nothing I can’t fight back against. I gather that people who take it regularly tend to get used this effect and overcome it. Hope that’s some help – as I say, some details about your particular problems would probably help us here answer you more usefully — Gary Cooper

Response:

Halley DeVestern schreef: Hi, Folks Well, a lot of you seem to believe strongly in Xanax.  Before I go seeking out a non-benzophobe doctor, please tell me a few things: 1.  Will it make "bad thoughts" go away? 2.  How often is it taken?  As needed or on a daily basis? 3.  Any stories about withdrawal? 4.  Will it make the joy of living return? 5.  Anybody on Xanax and Zoloft concurrently? 6.  Do you feel sleepy on it? Thanks for your help! Halley

1. Possibly. If it doesn’t CBT (Cognitive behavioural therapy) is the way to go. 2. Both is possible. And therapeutic dosage varies from person to person. (because another *modern* benzo, Klonopin, works longer, this is often taken as maintencance med with Xanax *as needed*. Xanax works for a shorter while (you should therefore take it 4 – 5 times a day if used as maintenance med) but also much faster. With many people it will kill a PA in less than 15 minutes. 3. Contrary to contemporary folklore weaning off Xanax is very well possible if you do it very slowly. If you still experience things feeling like *withdrawal* symptoms you should taper even slower. If you still have *side effects* it may well be the original anxiety rearing it’s ugly head again. In that case it’s advisable to go on taking Xanax. As they say: "Rather addicted to Xanax than to my house or to PA’s." 4. It has for many. It also has an antidepressant effect. 5. The combo of a SSRI and a benzo is common and often works well. 6. In the beginning you can experience some drowsiness (not disagreeable, I may add) but this almost always is of a temporary nature. Best wishes! Philip

Response:

Question:

ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler.   When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes

What a compliment.  Many thanks…. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!

Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler.   When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes Keith — |/| |_  |_) |_) /    /   canoeing instead of climbing when I |  | |__ | | /    __/  realised I could swim but not fly!"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant.  Just look at the Grand Canyon. yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact.

This is true, and I’ve never denied the validity of properly constructed land-use law, but *restricting* a property owner’s use to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public is substantially different from *appropriating* his property for the use of the public. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature.  Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper. hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc.  

Yes, but an unnecessary impact is an unnecessary impact, no matter how small it may be. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area.   It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow.     I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass.   Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned. "can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic)  you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted.

Absolutely correct, but the fact that the government may regulate my activities in the public interest has no nexus to my ability to regulate YOUR activities on my land.  As we have seen, even the government recognizes the impacts of recreationalists on public waters and has chosen to regulate them as well.  I’m not sure what your point is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.  The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison.   In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others.   Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property.

I don’t understand.  You seem to be contradicting yourself. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true.  No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor.   And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public.  Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have.  That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers.  The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc

True, but largely irrelevant.  You do prove my point however that mitigating and preventing impacts is a legitimate method of preserving the resource. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions, wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do.   No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it.

True, and when you succeed in repealing the Fifth Amendment, get back to me. While you are technically correct, you must recognize that private property ownership and the prohibitions against the government exproprating property without compensation are one of the core beliefs of our nation, and it’s simply not credible that the vast majority of the public, *who are property owners*, will tear up the Constitution simply to suit a *small number* of boating recreationists who aren’t satisfied with the public … read more »

Response:

 It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant.  Just look at the Grand Canyon.

yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.

indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature.  Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper.

 hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc.   Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area.   It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow.     I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass.   Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned.

"can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic)  you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.  The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison.   In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others.   Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best.

I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true.  No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor.   And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public.  Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have.  That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers.  The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource.

Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions,

wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do.   No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public.

 yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would.  And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case.

Like I said… if the law in Colorado was rigidly enforced along the lines that you suggest… and paddlers were kicked off of the major streams.. you could expect the law to change – regardless of how the courts feel. When you have a law like they have in Colorado and it’s not enforced.. there is a message in it. Federal Laws can force changes in Colorado law also – and do all the time. In the end… in a democracy… "rights" are decided by the people. You have no "right" to economic activity or even landowner rights if the public that votes disagrees with you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW! People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite –  but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners".   After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry.

This may be true elsewhere, but the fact that others may cause more damage does not reduce the impacts which boaters cause, and since whatever those impacts are are unnecessary, it’s perfectly proper to prevent them. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it.

If economic benefits were the only criteria perhaps this would be valid.   You do make a valid point that public awareness of the particular value of a particular river can be helpful in protecting the resource, but far too often the negative impacts of public access do more harm than good.   It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant.  Just look at the Grand Canyon. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close.

But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature.  Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper.   Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area.   It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow.     I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass.   Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned.  I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.  The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison.   In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others.   Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around.

This is simply not true.  No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor.   And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public.  Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have.  That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers.  The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Those impacts are just as present on Boulder Creek, though to a lesser degree.   The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the  *** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is.

Public officials don’t make the decisions, the Courts do.   No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would.  And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers.

 yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW!  People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite –  but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners".   After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use.

 yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.

I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close.  I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the

  *** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly….

 The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone.

I actually agree with the basic premise that no one is guanranteed access to private land because they are engaging in what they perceive as a ‘noble’ activity. Usually, it’s scumballs who cloak themselves with the ‘noble activity’ and then abuse the landowner. We’ve seen it with hunting and to some extent with boating. I’ve always subscribed to the idea that if someone owns the land that *I* need to *ask permission* and if they refuse – they refuse. It is their right. It burns my butt when 99 paddlers are polite and ask permission and then Mr asshole waltz’s in and screws it up for everybody. Folks from the ‘big’ cities are often the worst offenders. For some odd reason, I’ve never been able to understand they think they are ‘entitled’ to treaspass once in the rural landscape. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client.  The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!".  Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container."  Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument.

ROTFLMAO.   What a hoot….I had not thought to compare kayakers to untrainable dogs.   I sort of thought by presenting the evidence in (hopefully) a manner which the average adult could understand, that people would discover the logic involved themselves and make good decisions based upon that knowledge.   I’ve had quite a bit of evidence that this is indeed the case. While you may tire of repetition (as I do), there is a constant stream of people who *don’t* understand and might like to who deserve to be informed of the controversy and the facts surrounding it so that they, too, can make informed decisions. My suggestion is that those who know the material and have made the decision, one way or the other, simply skip the threads altogether and allow those who *are* interested debate the matter with me in peace and quiet.   Unfortunately, those who have seen the material cannot seem to control themselves and insist on insulting me and interrupting valid and interesting conversations among others.  It’s a lot like a high-school student running into a class full of 8th graders and shouting "Hey, teach, shut the **ck up! I’ve heard all this before and you annoy me!" Why can’t those who don’t like the nature of the discussion simply switch off and go for a paddle and leave those who wish to discuss alone? I suspect it’s because such people are violently opposed to my particular argument and see it as dangerous, and decide to do whatever they can to disrupt the flow of information.  It’s a lame attempt at censorship, nothing more, and I’ll tell you here and now it won’t work. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience.  Make your point and make it clear.  There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate.      If your words truly express your feelings about me…

I think you have made a trenchant statement of fact, and I appreciate your candor.  I hope that my reply is likewise informative.  We agree more  than we disagree, but I have a policy about "Shut the **ck UP!" threads, which is that I reply to them with whatever degree of politeness is called for until those posting to the thread….shut the **ck up. Then I return to the adult debates about access issues and the law with those who wish to discuss the issue.  When nobody cares to discuss it anymore, then the thread dies and I retreat to my place under the bridge for a time, until some event stimulates me to begin again, for a new crop of paddlers who may be in need of enlightenment. (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion.   You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. <CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old.

It’s not for *their* benefit, it’s for the benefit of others, and for my own amusement. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad.  Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup.

Good plan. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for.

No problem, I’m a very forgiving kind of guy. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga?  

Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources.

Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners".   After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship.

It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state.

The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the Attorney General’s opinion of the effects of changing the definition of "premises", including the state Department of Natural Resources, which leads to inconsistent enforcement of the law and a misunderstanding of the law itself.   The issue is still unresolved because no case has been brought to overturn the AG’s opinion and confirm the Emmert Court’s decision.   I hope it won’t come to that, because such a ruling would *shut down* public recreational use of most of the important recreational waters of the state, including the Number section of the Arkansas, which, while most of it is on BLM or Forest Service land, is criss-crossed by private "inholdings", any one of which could choose at any time to prohibit trespass and thereby destroy the ability to complete the float at all, since there’s no way to egress at the closed properties. This is why I propose a system which allows the state to, in this example, *condemn* a recreational easement if necessary to assure continued access to the entire run.  But the essential part is that the state must *pay for* the access.   After all, commercial whitewater recreation on the Arkansas is a multi-million dollar industry, which makes that easement quite valuable. I’ve suggested before the possibility that a landowner who owns a strip of land under the river somewhere in the middle of the popular section could simply take photos of every commercial raft which passes by in a season, identify the outfitter, count the number of heads and send them a bill at, say, $5.00 a head for a "trespass fee."    I imagine this would get the attention of the recreational community rather quickly. Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The thread has been excellent raising awareness  and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Shut Up, Shut up, Shut Up!!! For the love of God people please stop this nonesense. Like everyone else I give a damn but I’m F%#$ing tired of seeing all these lame Wesier posts. Dear lord have mercy on our souls!! T.J.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga? Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness  and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

I will go against the spirit of my original post and add a few more coals to the fire. Larry, you make a good point here.  It is important that people reading this newsgroup realize the opinions of Scott and landowners like him.  I do admit that I skimmed over the legal content of your posting pretty lightly, because I myself (speaking only for myself) do not give much consideration to written law while paddling.  Not to say that I am a scofflaw, I just rely on simple common sense and judgement when leaving the city for a relaxing paddling trip.  In my opinion, many access laws are on the books for liability reasons.  There is a certain river here in the Southeast, that is officially banned from access.  I have been told by local law enforcement officials that they do not particularly mind paddlers on the river, nor do they bother them if the right attitude is excercised by the group.  The law was enacted to protect the state in the event of an unforseen accident.  When I paddle, I paddle until told not to.  If a local landowner expresses their concern in my paddling, I respect their wishes.  If I should get arrested and am legally "in the wrong", I pay my fine and do not visit that particular area again. This approach has not failed me yet. Mutual respect goes quite a long way here in the Southeast.  Maybe things are different in Colorado, I really do not know.  I am not saying we should feel that we have the right to paddle anywhere.  I am simply saying that 9 times out of ten, if you are not making a problem for anyone, people usually do not make problems for you.  If Mr. Weiser’s family property on Boulder Creek contains a fence to control livestock, and by Colorado law they have a right to maintain that fence, then I would say paddling that section does impose a problem on someone, so it shold be avoided.  It is quite possible that if there was no need for the fence, the Weisers may not care if their property is paddled across, who knows, it does not really matter.  If I am paddling down a "legal" creek and a trout fisherman has inadvertantly snagged his line across the river,  I wait, or help, or get out and walk around.  I do not care who is or is not supposed to be there. (enough rambling, I will try to make my point here.) I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client.  The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!".  Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container."  Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience.  Make your point and make it clear.  There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate.  If your words truly express your feelings about me… (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion.   You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you.

<CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad.  Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for. SYOTR (well maybe 99.9% of you) -Craig

Response:

From, Mick "Better to be paddlin’ hard than hardly paddlin’ "

Response:

I think it’s kind of funny. Near the beginning of the great return of Weiser, everyone was more or less agreeing with him. Now he’s isolated himself against the NG again by posting more to this newsgroup on a few days than I have since I’ve started looking at it.

Of course, the slingers of insults who *start* the threads have *nothing* to do with it…..not… If only the "vocal minority" were able to leave well enough alone, then perhaps these pyrotechnic offshoots wouldn’t happen, but of course, unable to audit their conduct, they just *have* to get a dig in there.   Well, poke me and I poke right back.  You want it to stop, you stop it. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga?   Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness  and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.

Response:

I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!

Thank you for that trenchant commentary. I am a kayaker.  I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love.

And access debates have nothing to do with your sport?   Boy, are you deluded. And just what makes you think that anyone else is obliged to give a rodent’s fundamental orifice about why YOU choose to participate here or what YOU like or want? When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here".  When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time."

Well, I do rather enjoy jousting with the fine folks here…and the Netwits too.  It’s my time to waste though, so what’s your beef? Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content.

Clog the group?   Have you ever heard of a concept called the "delete" key?  How about the "down arrow" key?  Both of them will allow you to completely bypass any discussion which might cause consternation and confusion in your tiny mind. There’s and even better one….it’s called the "OFF" switch.  Use it in good health, but USE it. If the posts are the same in content, it’s because others keep asking the same questions, and as long as they do, I’ll keep responding to them because it’s the polite thing to do. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes.  I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience.  Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)!

And so you would impose your will on everyone else, some of whom might be interested, simply because you don’t have the wit to skip a thread. How very altruistic of you.  If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not.  If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP!

Let me see if I can put this delicately……No. If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion.   You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. Grow up and act like an adult. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

I think it’s kind of funny. Near the beginning of the great return of Weiser, everyone was more or less agreeing with him. Now he’s isolated himself against the NG again by posting more to this newsgroup on a few days than I have since I’ve started looking at it. "Regards," Sam Glover

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup.  Just skip over the threads you don’t like.  I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place.  Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges.  And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it.  If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad.  If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile.

Well said. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Scott, you were the first poster on this subject.  So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy.  (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.)  Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread.  Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies.  If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement.

Well, you’ve got me there.  I admit to priming the pan from time to time, but you can hardly blame me when the flash occurs.   It’s possible for everyone to simply ignore my flashy lures, but it’s also highly unlikely, as I have discovered, and so I take advantage of that phenomenon to stimulate debate, and this has been another interesting and lively debate, and, as you so succintly said, some people learned something new.  Whether they like what they learned, or agree with it is unimportant, what’s important is that they have had their horizons expanded, which is *always* a good thing. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address.  You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker.  I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here".  When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes.  I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience.  Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)!  If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not.  If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist

You better watch out buddy … you started a new possible deadly feud here … you better know that Mr. Weiser is a very fast typist, commands the English language like no other, is an expert of all laws of the king’s land, he is a sharp shooter (he is also a gunsmithlike expert) and a land "king size" owner. You are doomed my friend! Scotty will beam your tired sorry paddling ass up! PS: I really felt sorry for the incident and for the two idiots that went after Mr. Weiser’s mother but this is to much! Fred Fred Mechini Visit my homepage  http://pluto.njcc.com/~fmec/Welcome.html A WEB PAGE DEDICATED TO OLYMPIC SPRINT KAYAK

Response:

You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup.  Just skip over the threads you don’t like.  I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place.  Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges.  And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it.  If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad.  If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject.

Scott, you were the first poster on this subject.  So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy.  (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.)  Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread.  Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies.  If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement. -Paul

Response:

I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker.  I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here".  When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes.  I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience.  Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)!  If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not.  If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist

Response:

Question:

Add another one to that number–numbers are my game!  I have a degree in mathematics, and have made a living in the past both teaching math, and working as both a technical typist and an administrative assistant in the research area.  I do all the gathering and tabulating numbers for the taxes, etc. for our repair service business that my husband and I run!  And I have had migraines for about 40 years now! Barbara — Barbara Lemmond – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, maybe that’s something that goes with migraines too!  I enjoy tabulating and typing too. <g Vicky , Must be the "type A" migraine personality in us coming out!  LOL Judy

Response:

Vicky , Must be the "type A" migraine personality in us coming out!  LOL

<Helen A+!!! </Helen butting (went to http://www.peterzale.com and fell in love…)         (oh, that’s a different Helen, btw…) — Bryce Utting                          http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~butting                 the cross before me, the world behind me                              no turning back

Response:

Ingrid… I don’t know if you’re still taking results of the survey, but just in case….I had to add my two cents… Low BP (90/60) Cold Extremities Low Temperature (c. 97.4 degrees) Insomnia Fatigue Sinus problems Acute senses (hearing, smell, touch) Seziures Benign brain cyst Bruxism Mitral Valve Prolapse PTSD Good idea taking this survey! Thanks for taking the time to tabulate eveything…. Raven Cultural Advisor ~ Ceili Convention Committee The Once and Future Con ~ 12-14 June 1998 http://www.mindwell.com/~anubis/oafc "From this life to the next…."

Response:

Hey, maybe that’s something that goes with migraines too!  I enjoy tabulating and typing too. <g

Vicky , Must be the "type A" migraine personality in us coming out!  LOL Judy

Response:

See…..now *there* is a survey that Mario and I could take part in!!!! Bob

Gee, that sounds even more fun!!

Response:

Vicky , Must be the "type A" migraine personality in us coming out!  LOL

<Helen A+!!! </Helen butting (went to http://www.peter-zale.com and fell in love…) — Bryce Utting                          http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~butting                 the cross before me, the world behind me                              no turning back

Response:

PS, I’m glad you thought this was fun…I now know I have a kindred soul here (and one whose hubby has the same sick sense of humor mine does! LOL!)

Hey, maybe that’s something that goes with migraines too!  I enjoy tabulating and typing too. <g — Vicky

Response:

JLR) writes: the same sick sense of humor mine does! LOL!)

See…..now *there* is a survey that Mario and I could take part in!!!! Bob Never Blame the Rainbows for the Rain [J.H.& R.T.]

Response:

PTSD                        1       What is that?          

PTSD=Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Response:

Ingrid, Nice job on this!.  I’m curious about a couple of things… I’m guessing that the female:male ratio on this is pretty high…do you happen to know?  Also, am wondering if you just looked at those with the low BP, are there other prevalant symptoms going along with that… i.e., how many with low BP have cold extremities, low temperature, etc?  Again, thanks for doing this! Judy PS, I’m glad you thought this was fun…I now know I have a kindred soul here (and one whose hubby has the same sick sense of humor mine does! LOL!)

Response:

PTSD                    1       What is that?

I will take a stab at it and say Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Ingrid — — My house is maintained for the comfort of my dogs, if you don’t like it – leave. —

– Charity bot food:  http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi Remove NoJunkMail and replace with slepcevc

Response:

Summary:                50 total responses               Low BP                  36      2 high BP       Gastric Problems        18      Did not separate out for IBS             Cold Extremities        17               Low Temperature 13      2 high   Insomnia                12               Fast Pulse              12               Allergies               10               Fatigue                 10               Depression              9               Raynauds Syndrome       6               Sinus Problems          6               Acute Senses            5       I lumped smell, hearing and sensitive eye               Endometriosis           5               Asthma                  4               Disc Problems           3               Geographic Tongue       3               Anxiety                 2               Fibromyalgia            2               Motion Sickness 2               Osteoarthritis          2               Seizures                2               Vasomotor Rhinitis      2               ARAD/S          1       My almost son-in-law has that!           Benign Essential Tremor 1               Blood Clots             1               Bruxism         1               Gallbladder             1               Low Thyroid             1               Mitral Valve Prolapse   1               PTSD                    1       What is that?           Rheumatic Fever 1               Shingles                1               Urinary Tract problems  1 From reading other threads I was under the impression that more people had seizures. Unfortunately, I could realistically only tabulate those under the "Common" thread. I left out symptoms occurring during migraines, since we were looking for "other" common problems. I still find the incidence of low BP amazing and was especially interested that a German doctor felt it should be treated. When I was home in Germany over Christmas my Mom’s doctor asked me what I was being treated with for the low BP. She was quite shocked that the doctors in the US don’t seem to think it important. This was fun! Ingrid           — — My house is maintained for the comfort of my dogs, if you don’t like it – leave. —

Response:

Question:

I took Betaseron for a year and a half.  The flu-like symptoms went away  (fortunate, since I got chills so bad I had to buy a Polarfleece outfit to  sleep in under 2 blankets and 2 quilts).  But the depression, which began only  on injection days, got worse and  never went away.  Only an MRI would show  whether the Beta was doing its job.  I assume it was, but that wouldn’t do me  any good if I killed myself.  I tried Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor–had a variety  of unpleasant side effects.  I know depression can be an MS symptom, but this  did seem drug related, so I finally decided I’d rather live with the MS, quit  the Beta.  Took a year to pull out of scary depression.  I’m doing pretty well  now.    I gather that Betaseron does work for some (many?) people but I’ve felt that  it’s potential for depression has been understated.

Response:

Hi Sue! I have been on Betaseron for over 2 years now.  I didn’t take any prednisone  when I started it, but I do take it when my symptoms get worse.  Yeah, that  stuff is no fun at all! I have not had the "flu-like" symptoms since the first month I was on  Betaseron. My injection site problems have been minimal.  I rub aloe vera cream with  vitamins A, D, and E on my legs and stomach.  For the past 2 months, I have  convinced my boyfriend to help me inject my "hip" area–some word they came up  with for butt!  I am giving my other spots a rest this way.  The redness is  going away, and I hope my skin will be a little more receptive to the  injections. I have had what I call "mini-attacks" since I have been on the  Betaseron–nothing like the major ones I experienced before.  Is it the drug?  Who knows! It may not be helping me at all, or it could be what is keeping me  walking (not very well, but, hey, I’ll take it!) Best of luck in whatever you decide to do! Sylvia

Response:

I’m seriously considering taking one of the three drugs – betaseron, copaxone or avenox.  I have had the remitting kind of MS for 16 years.  I have had some permanent damage from many of the attacks.  I would like to ask the following questions of people who have been on these drugs. 1.  For those on betaseron or avenox – did you take steroids for the first  3 months?  I’m concerned about getting hyper,  nervous and depressed because that is what has happened in the past when I’ve been on prednisone.     Was there relief from your MS symptoms while on betaseron or avenox?     Was the improvement worth having all the flu-like symptoms, pain of shots,          etc.? 2.  For those on copaxone – was there any relief from  MS symptoms? 3.  Why do you feel that being on any of these three drugs is worth experiencing the side effects? Thanks for your help  Sue

Response:

Sue wrote:

I’m seriously considering taking one of the three drugs – 1.  For those on betaseron or avenox – did you take steroids for the first 3 months?      Was there relief from your MS symptoms while on betaseron or avenox?    Was the improvement worth having all the flu-like symptoms, pain of shots,          etc.?

I was on the study for Avonex for 2 years and on Betaseron for 2+ years and I didn’t have to take steroids for either one of them.  I myself got no relief while on either drug.  From what I understand there is not supposed to be any inprovement while on these drugs, just no worsening.

3.  Why do you feel that being on any of these three drugs is worth experiencing the side effects?

While I did not feel any different being on either dug, a few months after going off each one I had an exacerbation.  So I guess they must have been doing something right. I hope this answers some of your questions, Marcy http://members.aol.com/marcyrw2/MS.html

Response:

Suepinca <suepi…@aol.com

wrote in article

<19970929004601.UAA15…@ladder01.news.aol.com

… I’m seriously considering taking one of the three drugs – betaseron, copaxone or avenox.  

<snip

Sue,  I just started Avonex as I was starting to have symptoms that interfered with me doing my work at the office – To me Avonex was recommended and I also was happier injecting once a week rather than injecting every two days with Beta.  I currently am set to have 1 day of solu-medrol IV drip each month and the avonex injections weekly.  The first time I had horrible after effects from the avonex, second time I increased the tylenol to 4 doses (2 hrs before shot, at time of shot & twice more before retiring to bed) and had no after effects from the shot that time.   I will not know if the Avonex is working for sure, but I am hoping it will slow down the progression.  The solu-medrol is to help with some of my current numbness and I believe it is helping a little.  Good luck in your decision. PS I do not mind self-injecting the Avonex

Response:

Hi! I’ve been on Betaseron just over a year. At first I did quite well with

the

self injections. I take Baclofen, Amitryptiline and Paxil, too. I only

started

taking the Paxil (antidepressent) a few months ago. About 6 months

into the

therapy I began having anxiety attacks when I tried to inject. My

husband still

has to inject me but i don’t get upset anymore. I feel the

medicine has kept me

from having severe symtoms. I’ve had mild ones when

I’ve overdone. On the

subject of side effects; I found that if I take two

ibuprofen tablets when I

get my shot, I suffer no side effects. I have

tested this theory and find that

if I don’t take the ibuprofen, I get the

aches & fever. I’d like to switch to

Avonex for the convenience and fewer

injection sights (getting scar tissue) but

those two free months are a

powerful incentive. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Polly

In article <342fa40e.6874…@news.jersey.net

, re…@usa.net wrote: Sue, I haven’t been on Avonex for long enough to know if it’s helping (5 weeks, after 3 months of Betaseron). I also haven’t had active MS enough to know. I had one attack prior to staring Betaseron, and another three months into the treatment. I think you have to take it longer than that to see results. I received IV prednisone with an oral taper (total time, 2 weeks) for both attacks. The side effects gradually disappeared once I stopped the steroids, and my symptoms completely cleared the first time. I am now waiting for the numbness in my right side to completely clear; it’s gradually improving. My understanding of both Avonex and Betaseron is that they won’t make you feel better, but will decrease the number and severity attacks. Future MRIs should show fewer or no plaques have formed. Both are suppposedly equally effective, but I switched to Avonex because it’s more convenient, once a week rather than every other day, and it doesn’t leave any injection site marks. Beta leaves pinkish marks on some spots that take a long time to disappear. I continued Avonex while on steroids and experienced no adverse effects. I found the side effects about equal with both, and that is, the flu-like symptoms subside after a month or so of injections. Although the Avonex needle is longer and it goes into your muscle, rather than under the skin with Beta, I find no difference in pain sensation between the two. It just feels like a brief pin stick, and I barely notice it now when the needle goes in. I think it’s worth a try, if it will prevent future attacks and nerve damage. Beta and Avonex are both based on interferons that occur naturally in the body. I get blood tests every few months to make sure no damage is being done to my stem. I have also improved my diet, am using some herbal supplements, and am on a "maintenance" program of exercises prescribed by a physical therapist to keep me as mobile as possible. I’m seriously considering taking one of the three drugs – betaseron, copaxone or avenox.  I have had the remitting kind of MS for 16 years.  I have had some permanent damage from many of the attacks.  I would like to ask the following questions of people who have been on these drugs. 1.  For those on betaseron or avenox – did you take steroids for the first 3 months?  I’m concerned about getting hyper,  nervous and depressed because that is what has happened in the past when I’ve been on prednisone.    Was there relief from your MS symptoms while on betaseron or avenox?    Was the improvement worth having all the flu-like symptoms, pain of shots,          etc.? 2.  For those on copaxone – was there any relief from  MS symptoms? 3.  Why do you feel that being on any of these three drugs is worth experiencing the side effects?    ——————————————————    ~ ~      Reesa Marchetti, Editor-Writer-Musician-Web Author     `O O^         re…@usa.net   http://www.jersey.net/~reesa    <                 …COol MOther    ^^

Response:

Sue, I haven’t been on Avonex for long enough to know if it’s helping (5 weeks, after 3 months of Betaseron). I also haven’t had active MS enough to know. I had one attack prior to staring Betaseron, and another three months into the treatment. I think you have to take it longer than that to see results. I received IV prednisone with an oral taper (total time, 2 weeks) for both attacks. The side effects gradually disappeared once I stopped the steroids, and my symptoms completely cleared the first time. I am now waiting for the numbness in my right side to completely clear; it’s gradually improving. My understanding of both Avonex and Betaseron is that they won’t make you feel better, but will decrease the number and severity attacks. Future MRIs should show fewer or no plaques have formed. Both are suppposedly equally effective, but I switched to Avonex because it’s more convenient, once a week rather than every other day, and it doesn’t leave any injection site marks. Beta leaves pinkish marks on some spots that take a long time to disappear. I continued Avonex while on steroids and experienced no adverse effects. I found the side effects about equal with both, and that is, the flu-like symptoms subside after a month or so of injections. Although the Avonex needle is longer and it goes into your muscle, rather than under the skin with Beta, I find no difference in pain sensation between the two. It just feels like a brief pin stick, and I barely notice it now when the needle goes in. I think it’s worth a try, if it will prevent future attacks and nerve damage. Beta and Avonex are both based on interferons that occur naturally in the body. I get blood tests every few months to make sure no damage is being done to my stem. I have also improved my diet, am using some herbal supplements, and am on a "maintenance" program of exercises prescribed by a physical therapist to keep me as mobile as possible.

I’m seriously considering taking one of the three drugs – betaseron, copaxone or avenox.  I have had the remitting kind of MS for 16 years.  I have had some permanent damage from many of the attacks.  I would like to ask the following questions of people who have been on these drugs. 1.  For those on betaseron or avenox – did you take steroids for the first 3 months?  I’m concerned about getting hyper,  nervous and depressed because that is what has happened in the past when I’ve been on prednisone.    Was there relief from your MS symptoms while on betaseron or avenox?    Was the improvement worth having all the flu-like symptoms, pain of shots,          etc.? 2.  For those on copaxone – was there any relief from  MS symptoms? 3.  Why do you feel that being on any of these three drugs is worth experiencing the side effects?

   ——————————————————    ~ ~      Reesa Marchetti, Editor-Writer-Musician-Web Author     `O O^         re…@usa.net   http://www.jersey.net/~reesa    <                      …COol MOther    ^^                    

Response:

Question:

Where do I find veterinarian supply companies?   Maybe I’m being lazy here, but if you know I’d appreciate it. I’ve been to farm supply companies but don’t remember seeing tryptophan.  But then I was there for antibiotics myself. (worked great too!!) Thanks, dn

snipped for brevity – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity and quality control are probably higher than most old OTC products. One caveat: if you are taking a SSRI (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor) antidepressent, concurrent LT use is strongly contradicated, as taking both together can produce the potentially lethal ’serotonin syndrome,’ due to toxic levels of 5-HT in the body. –Will

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where do I find veterinarian supply companies?   Maybe I’m being lazy here, but if you know I’d appreciate it. I’ve been to farm supply companies but don’t remember seeing tryptophan.  But then I was there for antibiotics myself. (worked great too!!) Thanks, dn snipped for brevity LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity

There is a mail-order souce in Tucson, I don’t know their name. Check in alt.support.depression, or sci.med.pharmacy. –Will

Response:

snipped for brevity LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity There is a mail-order souce in Tucson, I don’t know their name. Check in alt.support.depression, or sci.med.pharmacy. –Will

Please also come have a look at our site for this product. Be Well. QHI — Medicines For The Modern Mainstream http://www.qhi.co.uk

Response:

                         The FDA Ban of                     L-Tryptophan:  Politics,                       Profits and Prozac1*                   By Dean Wolfe Manders, Ph.D.                  Copyright, All Rights Reserved      In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled L-Tryptophan, an amino acid nutritional supplement, stating that it caused a rare and deadly flu-like condition (Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome — EMS). On March 22, 1990, the FDA banned the public sale dietary of L- Tryptophan completely. This ban continues today.      On March 26, 1990, Newsweek featured a lead article praising the virtues of the anti-depressant drug Prozac. Its multi-color cover displayed a floating, gigantic green and white capsule of Prozac with the caption: "Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for Depression."      The fact that the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan and the Newsweek Prozac cover story occurred within four days of each other went unnoticed by both the media and the public. Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems "unbelievably coincidental." The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin — a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways.      Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress. Prozac, as well as other new anti- depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). None of these drugs, however, produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own. The most effective way to elevate levels of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer.      The continuing FDA public ban of L-Tryptophan prevents popular access to this most effective serotonin producer. The millions of Americans who for decades safely had relied upon L-Tryptophan to relieve depression, anxiety and PMS, as well as to control pain and induce natural sleep, have been forced elsewhere for solutions. Routinely, such solutions are pharmaceutical in nature: people are forced to use either often highly addictive, expensive, and some- times dangerous drugs like Xanax, Valium, Halcion, Dalmane, Co- deine, Anafranil, Prozac, and others, or, simply suffer.      Present FDA public policy maintains that L-Tryptophan is an untested, unapproved and hazardous drug. The analytical work done a few years ago by the Centers for Disease Control and the Mayo Clinic, research which traced the fall 1989 outbreak of the serious flu-like condition to contaminants found in batches of L-Tryptophan made by the Japanese company Showa Denko, has not convinced the FDA to allow L-Tryptophan back on the market. This decision is based primarily on the research of FDA and NIMH scientists who state that L-Tryptophan itself, irrespective of contaminants, is a dangerous substance. Other university-based research scientists disagree with these findings.      The public availability of L-Tryptophan is too important an issue only to be argued and shrouded within a scientific debate that remains, ultimately, mystifying to the vast majority of Americans. There are many obvious facts worthy of public attention, and public concern. For example, consider the following:      ~ On February 9, 1993, a United States government patent (#5185157) was issued to use L-Tryptophan to treat, and cure EMS, the very same deadly flu-like condition which prompted the FDA to take L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989.      ~ Notwithstanding its public ban and import alert on L- Tryptophan, the FDA today allows Ajinomoto U.S.A. the right to import from Japan human-use L-Tryptophan.  Distributed from the Ajinomoto plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, the L-Tryptophan is then sold to, and through, a network of compounding pharmacies across the United States. Purchased by individuals only under a physician’s order, L-Tryptophan emerges here as a new prescription drug in the serotonin marketplace; one hundred 500 mg capsules cost about $75.00, approximately five times more than if they were sold as a dietary supplement.      Since the FDA holds the political mandate and power of a public regulatory agency established, ostensibly, to protect people from raw corporate interests in drug production and distribution, the actions of the FDA in concert with Ajinomoto U.S.A. are illumi- nating. By publicly banning L-Tryptophan from its dietary supple- ment status and price, while allowing L-Tryptophan to be sold as a high-priced prescription drug, the naked duplicity of FDA L- Tryptophan policy is revealed.      ~ During and after the 1989 EMS outbreak, the FDA did not totally ban the use of L-Tryptophan in humans — then, as today, the FDA has granted the pharmaceutical industry the protected right to use L-Tryptophan in hospital settings.  Manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, the amino acid injectable solutions Aminosyn and Aminosyn II contain as much as 200 mg of L-Tryptophan.  (Moreover, L-Tryptophan has never been removed from baby food produced and sold within the United States.)      ~ While the FDA has banned the public sale and use of safe, non-contaminated, dietary supplement L-Tryptophan for people, the United States Department of Agriculture still sanctions the legal sale and use of non-contaminated L-Tryptophan for animals.  Today, as in the past, feed grade L-Tryptophan continues to be used as a nutritional and bulk feed additive by the commercial hog and chicken farming industry.  Additionally, L-Tryptophan is now available for use by veterinarians in caring for horses and pets.   ~ Outside of the United States, in countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, England, and others, L-Tryptophan is widely used. Nowhere, have any serious or widespread health problems occurred.      At bottom, the FDA public ban of safe, non-contaminated L- Tryptophan is uneven, expensive, and biased in favor of the phar- maceutical industry. The FDA proscription effectively awards billions of dollars in profits to pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers in the same proportion as it adds billions of unnecessary dollars to the nation’s already bloated health care expenditures.      On June 15, 1993, the FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force published a report on the work it had been doing in the area of developing FDA policy around nutritional supplements. On page two, the report admits, "The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including… what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development."      In this case, the FDA has succeeded in carrying out its stated policy goal. With competition from publicly available L-Tryptophan removed, the rapidly expanding market in prescription serotonin drugs — now among them L-Tryptophan itself — contains no major "disincentives" for the massive accumulation of pharmaceutical industry profits.      It is now time for appropriate congressional committees to review openly and aggressively the entire matter of L-Tryptophan. This will provide a needed forum where political, corporate, and scientific issues of FDA L-Tryptophan regulatory policy may be addressed. There exists ample precedent for such hearings: in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, for example, such investigations uncovered FDA favoritism in the approval of generic drugs and the bribery of FDA officials.      The story of L-Tryptophan illustrates a sad and perverse picture of the politics and priorities of public health in America: A safe, dietary-supplement serotonin producer is publicly unavailable to people, while daily fed to animals by corporate agribusiness.  A drug patent is approved to use L-Tryptophan to cure the very condition the FDA claims it caused.  And, while publicly exclaiming that L-Tryptophan is a dangerous and untested drug, the FDA, more quietly, allows human-use L-Tryptophan to be imported, and then marketed and sold by the pharmaceutical industry.       To allow the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan to continue unreviewed and uninvestigated condemns millions of Americans to unnecessary financial expenditures and needless suffering.      1.  This article appeared in Social Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, Winter 1995.  Dean Wolfe Manders is a senior lecturer in humanities and sciences at the California College of Arts and Crafts, Oakland/San Francisco.  He has lectured and done extensive research on the medical politics of L-Tryptophan.      *Blazing Tattles, June 96.  Responses to the above article may be quoted in future issues unless writer explicitly requests otherwise.  For information about Blazing Tattles send inquiry to: Tattles at P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems "unbelievably coincidental." The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin — a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways.      Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress. Prozac, as well as other new anti- depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). None of these drugs, however, produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own. The most effective way to elevate levels of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer.

Agreed that SSRIs and LTryptophan both work on serotonin. I have used both with good results. The distinction needs to be made that some depressions are more neurologic, others more hormonal or enzymatic. In cases of the former, SSRIs generally work much better, and in the latter, LT works better. I also agree that the continuing FDA ban looks suspicious, and it ought to be lifted immediately. LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity and quality control are probably higher than most old OTC products. One caveat: if you are taking a SSRI (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor) antidepressent, concurrent LT use is strongly contradicated, as taking both together can produce the potentially lethal ’serotonin syndrome,’ due to toxic levels of 5-HT in the body. –Will

Response: