Jump to content
The Corroboree

chilli

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,919

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by chilli

  2. Posted · Edited by chilli

    Gem, I am sorry you have had such a bad experience with doctors and your medication.

    For what it's worth, I strongly oppose the advice of those suggesting you suddenly stop such a high dose of benzos, this is not a good idea and can be very dangerous. *Please do not go 'cold turkey' from such a high dose of Xanax, it could be life threatening!* I am disappointed and surprised you were given this advice and would have thought some of those suggesting it would know better. :scratchhead:

    The best approach is to taper your dose very gradually, which I know is what you want to do. You can use other things to smooth the process if you feel you need to, but if you make the reduction gradual enough you shouldn't have many side effects, although the symptoms you were using the Xanax to treat may begin to reappear when you get to a low enough dose.

    Good luck, I hope you are able to find a compassionate and wise doctor and support to help you through this. :wub: Please do keep us informed of your progress, and feel free to get on here to debrief whenever you need to. Although there is some bad advice on this thread, I know everyone means well and wants to do their best to support you.

    *edit* If you haven't already, get in touch with your local community mental health team:

    Gold Coast Mental Health & ATODS

    www.health.qld.gov.au/goldcoasthealth/html/services/mhealth.asp

    (07) 5519 7871

    They should be able to help! Good luck, let us know how you go.

    • Like 4

  4. Posted

    The use of Transcendent Compounds is an ancient and valid form of religious and spiritual practice. As Transcendent Compounds are non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting, there can be no legitimate reason for prohibiting their use within religious and spiritual frameworks.

     

    LSD has no ancient history of such use.

    As for 'psychologically safe' if many sensible people here who are pro-psychedelics would eschew such a strong claim, how do you expect to be taken seriously by the government? They only need to check wikipedia to find:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin

    Reactions characterized by violence, aggression, homicidal and suicidal attempts,[121] prolonged schizophrenia-like psychosis,[82][122] and convulsions[123] have been reported in the literature. A 2005 survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that almost a quarter of those who had used psilocybin mushrooms in the past year had experienced a panic attack.[45] Other adverse effects less frequently reported include paranoia, confusion, derealization, disconnection from reality, and mania.[124] Psilocybin usage can temporarily induce a state of depersonalization disorder.[125] Usage by those with schizophrenia can induce acute psychotic states requiring hospitalization.[45]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd

    people with such conditions as schizophrenia and depression can worsen with LSD.[52] There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy before taking LSD.[56] In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic.

    I think you are extremely arrogant and foolhardy, but sometimes that is exactly what certain situations require. So I wish you good luck, but I do wish you would be a little more careful and responsible with the way you present your claims, and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions.

  6. Posted · Edited by chilli

    Fuck. I wandered around for a bit, got there around 3.. didn't help I realized I had no ones numbers who was going

    oh well, chilled out with the dog and my partner under a tree for a bit anyway. nice day for it

    I like Therefore's suggestions!

  9. Posted · Edited by chilli

    Where is the meet today??? I have my daughter today but I'll bring her along. I will need street names to find the place lol :lol:

     

    Park in this carpark and wander around the spot marked with B, look for a big green alien frog on a flag (if FC is there) if not just look for a bunch of weirdos.

    post-1250-0-94888100-1347763314_thumb.jp

    post-1250-0-94888100-1347763314_thumb.jpg

    post-1250-0-94888100-1347763314_thumb.jpg

    • Like 2

  14. Posted · Edited by chilli

    Just so you know Breadfilter and anyone else, when you delete something here it is still on Google's cache, where I just read the original post.

    Something to think about before posting stuff you might regret later.

    Oh, and for my contribution to this thread:

    24508157.jpg

    • Like 3

  15. Posted · Edited by chilli

    I've had similar symptoms since my late teens/early twenties. I know what it is like to feel immobilized by nausea every day for weeks or even months. For me, it seems to be anxiety-related, although I believe there is a physical predisposition (and anyway, anxiety is as much physical as mental).

    One of my biggest triggers is life stresses and rapidly cutting down Cannabis use. One feeds into the other, and can become a waking nightmare. If I am really stressed, the nausea can last all day, mild stress it will just be a few hours.

    Ginger tablets worked ok for a bit, but seemed to create a lot of bloating which eventually made things worse.. give it a shot though, it is an anti-emetic. Peppermint oil was not quite as good as the ginger, but it took the edge off but created horrible peppermint burps (sounds nice but it's not)

    For me, all I have tried that works reliably chemically to stop the nausea is Cannabis, lorazepam, olanzapine and doxylamine, but none are really good long term solutions.

    Lately, I have come off olanzapine and the nausea came back. I experiemnetd with low dose (5-10mg) of promethazine, which worked very well. I took 5-10mg 2-3 time a day at first, but lately I have been taking it prn, and I have only needed about 10mg every 2-3 days on average.

    I know others have used metoclopramide and ondansetron to good effect during pregnancy.

    Here's a handy list of antiemetics:

    http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Antiemetic

    Good luck man, let us know how you go with it and if you ever want to chat, you know where I am.

    *edit I am only suggesting antiemetics for after you have ruled out possible non-anxiety related causes with your doctor!

  18. Posted

    I am obviously against bullying, but to be fair, a public person should be aware that speaking out on an issue makes her a target and she should have been ready for that. seriously,

     

    You are against bullying, and yet you blame the victim.

    why would any adult commit suicide over verbal abuse from strangers?

     

    Can you really not see how a stream of hateful verbal abuse from strangers could be harmful to one's psychological well-being?

    That's what ignore and delete buttons are for.

     

    They are only relevant after abuse has started, and are no obstacle to a coordinated hate campaign by a bunch of trolls. What's she going to do, premptively block everyone on the internet in case they send her abusive messages?

    If you're that pathetic that stranger's opinions matter to you then you should not be on TV.

     

    Opinions are quite separate from vicious verbal abuse and wishing death on someone. Maybe she was already on the edge, and this just pushed her over. Besides, I don't see a connection between not caring what other people say about you and being on TV? Lots of famous people are troubled by people's opinions of them, it's natural human behavior.

    I understand that kids [or even adults] who are bullied by their peers can suffer greatly, but a mature adult in a public position that willingly put herself up as a target and then can't handle it? Were her ratings flagging? Good on her though if this is just an elaborate ploy to get more attention to the problem, but I doubt she has the depth for that.

    And I do hope they throw the book at the trolls.

     

    More victim blaming. Words can trigger things in people. Maybe she was doing fine and then the dam broke. I'm not sure who I find more worrying: the small, grubby segment of humanity who do stuff like that, or the wide swathes who enable them by blitheley perpetuating such twisted memes.

    Imagine someone being open about their sexuality on TV and then getting abused as a result and becoming sucidal. Should they have just stayed quiet seeing as they are so pathetic that they feel affected by something like that?

    • Like 3

  21. Posted · Edited by chilli

    Ahh chilli where would we be without ur scientific rhetoric...

    FYI u were the one that 1st referenced biology, not me.

    FYI the term zealot was originally a religious group active at the time of jesus, but I was using it in the sense of an extremist.

    FYI notice the term "blind religious ignorance" & not "blind religious faith"

    Did u even watch the 1st video & listen to what the narrator was talking about..?

    Did u even notice that when I referenced jesus I did not write his name starting with a capitol...I thought this might be a giveaway towards my possible religious convictions...which by the way I have none.

    Why is it that one brief couple of interactions with CBL & we can acknowledge & grasp each others discourse, but after multiples with you, ur still no closer to understanding that I'm not even talking bout religion or science & the comparative between the 2.

    Ur like an ex smoker mate, get off ur high horse...oh mightier then...

    Oh and do us a favour, buy a fuckin' dictionary will you.

    I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, so if it tickles ur fancy, then continue to try an ellevate ur status by belittling me...

    You are the supreme... :worship: all hail chilli the reformed religious fanatic.

    Grow up, arguing for the sake of an argument accomplishes nothing.

     

    I'm not sure why you are so offended, but it's sad you choose to resort to insults instead of interacting with ideas. Look at my second response to you in this thread.. see how I conceded your point and admitted to my ignorance? I was wrong, and I learned something. That is the healthy response when something you said is shown to be wrong, not a torrent of fallacies and childish retorts.

    To quote Jesus, I think it would be casting my pearls before swine to attempt tp carry this disucssion any further. Still, I am soooo curious why you think I need a dictionary! What words do you think I don't understand the meaning of? :scratchhead:

  23. Posted

    Well articulated chilli, except for your assumptions as to what I do or don't know, or do or don't believe in. My reference to the word faith is in the sense of truth & as I stated earlier "truth is relative". See you assume that I use the word faith as in a religious sense & as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all fuck ups"...

    You can continue on with this discourse if you wish, but I don't see the sense myself. You've totally misconstrued what it was that I was trying to convey, as cbl has also. This dialogue was never meant to be about science or religion, but more about truths & belief systems, as this was what the narrator of the 1st video was trying to impart.

     

    It wasn't an assumption, it was an inference based on what you have said so far. I also don't assume you use the word faith in a religious sense. You said people have blind faith in science and compared my explanation of the scientific method to zealotry and blind religious ignoranc, so it seems like this was precisely the sense in which you were using it.

    Now you seem to be equating faith with truth? This seems like an exercise in bizarre equivocation.

    I'm fairly certain I understood your points adequately, it is just that it is not a very good argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    I think it's silly when people try to dictate what a discussion is 'meant' to be about... you are the one who first mentioned science and compared it to religion! Anyway, Aren't science and religion exactly the kind of topics one would expect in a discussion about truth and belief systems? :scratchhead:

  24. Posted · Edited by chilli

    http://www.ideacente...ails.php/id/858

    http://en.wikipedia...._From_Darwinism

    chilli don't forget it was Albert who said, "I refuse to believe that god plays dice with the Universe"

    This coming from a man who helped formulate quantum theory. Who himself formulated both the special & general theories of relativity....a religious fanatic..?

    I don't care what you believe at the end of the day, it has no affect on my life in anyway whatsoever. Your zealot type of belief in science, is in reality no different to the blind ignorance portrayed by orthodox religious fanatics. The point that I am trying to convey to you, is that belief in something because somebody says so, no matter how qualified they may be, is "blind", regardless of how much proof they say they may have. The only reality an individual knows for certain is their own perception & this in itself can be bought to question in itself. What is reality..? Maybe one of your psych professors has the answer, or maybe it's in Jung's collective consciousness, or the repressed sexual mind of Freud..?

    You are right, Hitler was not a good example, Buddha is a way better choice.

     

    I used to be a religious fanatic who had blind faith in my beliefs. When I began to look for evidence to support my beliefs, such as young earth creationism, or the resurrection of Jesus I found that there was none, so you using 'Intelligent Design' to dispute evolution just seems laughable to me, and makes me suspect your attempts to relativize all knowledge and compare science to religion are religiously motivated.

    It seems the problem here is that you do not understand the scientific method, because you keep claiming that people have 'blind faith' in science. As I have explained to you before, if you understood what science was you would not say this. Faith is required for things that are not proven, science only speaks about things that can be proven. Faith is believing in something without evidence, blind faith means believing in spite of evidence, whereas science relies entirely on evidence! Science assumes certain things: that things obey rules, and that we can observe these rules and make predictions based on them that actually work.

    Trust is different from blind faith. I trust my wife because I have gotten to know her and to the best of my knowledge she has always been faithful. I trust this chair because whenever I sat on it before it always held me up. I trust science because it results in things that work, in technology we all rely on every day, in predictions that are shown to be accurate over and over again or are discarded or altered when they fail. I trust the scientific method because it has integrity and has been shown to be reliable and I can investigate the evidence for myself to see that it is true. Can I trust someone without any evidence? Sure, but I would be foolish to do so.

    It is in no way blind faith to trust in science, because the scientific method has proven itself to all of us on so many ways we just take it for granted now. The success of the scientific method surrounds you and intimately informs your life in so many ways. You trust it to design a computer chip and a car, to cook your food and keep it fresh, to predict the weather, to take away a headache, to fix your heart and help you live longer. We trust it in all these ways and many more so it is in no way 'blind faith' for even a common person completely ignorant of the scientific method to trust the expertise of scientists when they have no relevant knowledge or qualifications.

    But for those who do care to investigate for themselves, science is completely open to changing but only on the basis of reason and solid evidence. People can believe whatever crackpot theories they like but if they have no evidence they should not expect to be taken seriously by anyone with even a shred of rationality.

    I trust science because I know if I care enough to look into it myself, I can check out the evidence and propose my own theories. I trust it because I know millions of people have already done these investiagtions many times before, and have come to the same conclusions. If they do not then the theories change and new investigations are carried out, and this process goes on and on until a more and more accurate understanding of reality emerges. We know it is accurate because it has the best and most parsimonious explanatory power and, cucially, because it works. Exactly how is any of this blind faith or zealotry?

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    Let's take Adolf Hitler. What sort of proof do we have of his existence? Lot's of stories, and a few grainy films and pictures. Most of those pictures and films have been copied on to other media so they can be shown more easily, and so the originals (where they exist) can be stored. In a couple of hundred years time, if that media has survived a couple of revolutions, massive floods and a solar storm, there won't be much left to show anyone, I guarantee, of the original media, even with the clever storage techniques of today. The history of Adolf Hitler is already strongly disputed with people who question The Holocaust, and their version of events differs very strongly to the mainstream, thus providing contention within a century of the events taking place.

    Can you imagine how these world-shaking historical events would look in 2,000 years time?

     

    qualia's suggestion of Buddha seems a much better historical analogy to Jesus than Hitler.

    • Like 1
×