Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
Just slip some Lorazepam into her soup. Look, I don't give a damn about you, I just want my grandma to get some relief.
Home ›
William Reed3 › Posts
Posts by William Reed3
16 posts shown.
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
My bad if I sounded a bit harsh there. My mistake. 😢 Honestly, I’m just on edge today.
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
So you were "smart" enough to "know" they were unnatural, and now somehow it's my fault because I called you an idiot regarding benzodiazepines? Sure, okay. Fine.
Keep acting like you're the smartest person in the room. Whatever. See ya.
That's your response to me.
________________________
________________________
A few fun facts for you:
Benzodiazepines started being used long before anyone realized they could basically be grown in a potato patch—as if the potatoes were just manufacturing them on their own. Honestly, most doctors around here wouldn't know what to make of that if it hit them in the face.
So, here's the deal with morphine: it was originally pulled from poppies—which is why they called it morphine, basically naming it after the Greek god of dreams. But turns out, our brains actually produce its own version of the stuff naturally, just slightly tweaked with some peptide chains. Eventually, scientists realized there’s a pure, straight-up morphine produced internally by the brain itself. That's where we get the term "endorphins"—it's just shorthand for "endogenous morphines."
Paradise has serotonin baked right into its DNA, and since serotonin lives in your brain, I guess you could say the whole thing is a chemical loop.
DMT—which, let’s be real, is basically just what happens when you're tripping on LSD—is actually produced naturally within the human body. Of course, we only figured that out after stumbling upon it in plants first.
There’s also some talk—which I haven't really looked into myself—about these things called endocannabinoids. Apparently, they're like the body's own version of marijuana that the brain produces naturally. It's funny how we only even realized they existed after scientists started studying the cannabinoids found in cannabis.
There are plenty of plants out there that pack up to four different human neurotransmitters inside them, basically doing our job for us. Does that actually say something about the nature of plants?
Science still hasn't even figured out basic stuff—like, for instance, what cocaine actually does for the coca plant. We still don't truly understand its specific role in their biology.
It’s pretty wild when you think about it—modern anesthesiology still relies so heavily on opium poppy derivatives. It really is the cornerstone of almost every general anesthesia setup we use today.
Cough syrups—the kind kids sometimes chug like they’re at an open bar—contain codeine, which comes from poppies. It’s honestly hard to believe that a kid wouldn't actually *want* to get high off a syrup containing codeine. There has to be a motive there. Just like sexual or social drives, I'm convinced that the urge to get high will eventually be added to the list of basic human instincts.
Endorphins (again): Sigmund Freud is pretty much the only person in history who managed to battle a brutal, twenty-year struggle with jaw and palate cancer—undergoing countless surgeries along the way—without ever touching morphine or anything else like it. He could even keep working, writing, and running sessions. His doctor was reportedly so stunned by his ability to endure such agonizing pain without medication that he dedicated years of his career to studying Freud’s case. It turns out Freud was somehow ahead of official medical consensus; he baffled the experts so much that people have actually written books trying to figure out how he avoided morphine while dealing with one of the most painful cancers imaginable.
I bet there are countless other examples of science lagging behind like this that I haven't even stumbled upon yet.
The point is: Look, if you want to take pills or experiment with substances, just do it. Deep down, that’s what you actually want. There are plenty of legal ways to get high, anyway. Humans have been using drugs since the beginning of time—it's a primal instinct. If you try to suppress that urge, you run into the same issues as suppressing any other natural drive: neuroses, decreased productivity, and all that good stuff.
Look, theoretically, someone could hit the heroin once a week and stay functional for years without becoming a total wreck. But that’s just theory. In reality, once you start chasing that high day after day, you're done. Everyone knows how this goes, but nobody has the willpower to actually wait until next weekend, so don't be stupid. Honestly, a little bit of Benadryl on a needle hits harder than cocaine when you're snorting it. Don't be an idiot.
Sigmund Freud (again): He’s basically the only guy in history who could dose himself with cocaine day after day—likely switching over to crack later on—without actually getting hooked. There are entire books written about this, and honestly, he kind of caught mainstream medicine off guard. So, what does that mean? Does it mean he just had more endorphins running through him than your average person?
It’s the same old Eastern clichés about endorphins on loop. They claim meditation or acupuncture can hit you just as hard as morphine. Honestly, you see plenty of MDs in mainstream medicine leaning into acupuncture for purely recreational, quasi-addictive purposes—even if they play it off differently when they aren't around friends. But once they realize you've caught onto what they're actually doing, they give you that little knowing wink, especially if they're trying to keep up appearances in a group.
Keep acting like you're the smartest person in the room. Whatever. See ya.
That's your response to me.
________________________
________________________
A few fun facts for you:
Benzodiazepines started being used long before anyone realized they could basically be grown in a potato patch—as if the potatoes were just manufacturing them on their own. Honestly, most doctors around here wouldn't know what to make of that if it hit them in the face.
So, here's the deal with morphine: it was originally pulled from poppies—which is why they called it morphine, basically naming it after the Greek god of dreams. But turns out, our brains actually produce its own version of the stuff naturally, just slightly tweaked with some peptide chains. Eventually, scientists realized there’s a pure, straight-up morphine produced internally by the brain itself. That's where we get the term "endorphins"—it's just shorthand for "endogenous morphines."
Paradise has serotonin baked right into its DNA, and since serotonin lives in your brain, I guess you could say the whole thing is a chemical loop.
DMT—which, let’s be real, is basically just what happens when you're tripping on LSD—is actually produced naturally within the human body. Of course, we only figured that out after stumbling upon it in plants first.
There’s also some talk—which I haven't really looked into myself—about these things called endocannabinoids. Apparently, they're like the body's own version of marijuana that the brain produces naturally. It's funny how we only even realized they existed after scientists started studying the cannabinoids found in cannabis.
There are plenty of plants out there that pack up to four different human neurotransmitters inside them, basically doing our job for us. Does that actually say something about the nature of plants?
Science still hasn't even figured out basic stuff—like, for instance, what cocaine actually does for the coca plant. We still don't truly understand its specific role in their biology.
It’s pretty wild when you think about it—modern anesthesiology still relies so heavily on opium poppy derivatives. It really is the cornerstone of almost every general anesthesia setup we use today.
Cough syrups—the kind kids sometimes chug like they’re at an open bar—contain codeine, which comes from poppies. It’s honestly hard to believe that a kid wouldn't actually *want* to get high off a syrup containing codeine. There has to be a motive there. Just like sexual or social drives, I'm convinced that the urge to get high will eventually be added to the list of basic human instincts.
Endorphins (again): Sigmund Freud is pretty much the only person in history who managed to battle a brutal, twenty-year struggle with jaw and palate cancer—undergoing countless surgeries along the way—without ever touching morphine or anything else like it. He could even keep working, writing, and running sessions. His doctor was reportedly so stunned by his ability to endure such agonizing pain without medication that he dedicated years of his career to studying Freud’s case. It turns out Freud was somehow ahead of official medical consensus; he baffled the experts so much that people have actually written books trying to figure out how he avoided morphine while dealing with one of the most painful cancers imaginable.
I bet there are countless other examples of science lagging behind like this that I haven't even stumbled upon yet.
The point is: Look, if you want to take pills or experiment with substances, just do it. Deep down, that’s what you actually want. There are plenty of legal ways to get high, anyway. Humans have been using drugs since the beginning of time—it's a primal instinct. If you try to suppress that urge, you run into the same issues as suppressing any other natural drive: neuroses, decreased productivity, and all that good stuff.
Look, theoretically, someone could hit the heroin once a week and stay functional for years without becoming a total wreck. But that’s just theory. In reality, once you start chasing that high day after day, you're done. Everyone knows how this goes, but nobody has the willpower to actually wait until next weekend, so don't be stupid. Honestly, a little bit of Benadryl on a needle hits harder than cocaine when you're snorting it. Don't be an idiot.
Sigmund Freud (again): He’s basically the only guy in history who could dose himself with cocaine day after day—likely switching over to crack later on—without actually getting hooked. There are entire books written about this, and honestly, he kind of caught mainstream medicine off guard. So, what does that mean? Does it mean he just had more endorphins running through him than your average person?
It’s the same old Eastern clichés about endorphins on loop. They claim meditation or acupuncture can hit you just as hard as morphine. Honestly, you see plenty of MDs in mainstream medicine leaning into acupuncture for purely recreational, quasi-addictive purposes—even if they play it off differently when they aren't around friends. But once they realize you've caught onto what they're actually doing, they give you that little knowing wink, especially if they're trying to keep up appearances in a group.
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
Nicole Barrett76 said:The system simply discards those who lack financial means and those who aren't aggressive enough—those who refuse to fight tooth and nail for every single thing until their dying breath. For instance, both a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist I encountered refused to provide even a modicum of adequate psychological support.
One female psychiatrist actually dismissed me entirely after I shared that, following a prolonged period on benzodiazepines and hypnotics, I had successfully tapered myself off and was now using natural supplements to aid my sleep. (In truth, I haven't even used those for quite some time now.) Rather than feeling any sense of pride or relief at my success, she coldly informed me that since I had chosen self-treatment, I should stop coming to her altogether.
Admittedly, the focus here shouldn't be on myself, but rather on my grandmother, yet the situation remains just as dire...
Benzodiazepines can actually be found in everyday foods like potatoes—naturally, of course. Every single potato contains a certain amount of benzodiazepines.
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
I just got hit with a red card for saying:
"Keith Jones76 is acting erratic and mentally unstable. That's my take."
Meanwhile, the depressives over there didn't get flagged for saying:
"I think psych meds are secondary here, and it's more about the fact that you definitely have a mental health issue or some pathological personality traits."
Can someone please strip this moderator of her privileges? She’s clearly lost her grip on reality!
"Keith Jones76 is acting erratic and mentally unstable. That's my take."
Meanwhile, the depressives over there didn't get flagged for saying:
"I think psych meds are secondary here, and it's more about the fact that you definitely have a mental health issue or some pathological personality traits."
Can someone please strip this moderator of her privileges? She’s clearly lost her grip on reality!
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
Keith Jones76 is clearly acting out of pure neurosis. That’s my take.
I mentioned I take Lorazepam for two specific reasons: my skin and my patience.
Now, I didn't just stumble upon the fact that Lorazepam helps my skin by sheer accident. Honestly, realizing it works better for my dermatological issues than the actual meds prescribed to me would require an IQ higher than average. I simply noticed my skin clearing up while on it—does that make me a genius? Besides, I wasn't a fan of non-psychoactive treatments because my skin issues are psychological in nature. I didn't explicitly say that's where my dislike came from, but even my doctor admitted there were psychological roots involved, yet he still prescribed non-psychoactive therapy. (Mind you, the one involving benzodiazepines actually has interactions!)
I started taking Lorazepam to help with my patience, then noticed the skin benefits, and realized I haven't even begun to build a tolerance after seven weeks.
I never claimed other people would get hooked on it before I do. In fact, I think the same rules apply to everyone else regarding addiction and tolerance when it comes to Lorazepam. (That was one of the main points of my post, anyway).
Playing the "victim" isn't an option here. If I let envy take over, I might end up spiraling, and the path to recovery from addiction is the same for everyone: tapering off slowly. My only real concern is knowing *when* I might hit that wall of dependency. There are suggestions that some people develop a lifelong addiction, and I’d really like to avoid being one of them. So, I'm not looking for sympathy!
Given all this, I'll just say this: I suggest Keith Jones76 (who seems pretty depressed) go see a few different psychiatrists.
I mentioned I take Lorazepam for two specific reasons: my skin and my patience.
Now, I didn't just stumble upon the fact that Lorazepam helps my skin by sheer accident. Honestly, realizing it works better for my dermatological issues than the actual meds prescribed to me would require an IQ higher than average. I simply noticed my skin clearing up while on it—does that make me a genius? Besides, I wasn't a fan of non-psychoactive treatments because my skin issues are psychological in nature. I didn't explicitly say that's where my dislike came from, but even my doctor admitted there were psychological roots involved, yet he still prescribed non-psychoactive therapy. (Mind you, the one involving benzodiazepines actually has interactions!)
I started taking Lorazepam to help with my patience, then noticed the skin benefits, and realized I haven't even begun to build a tolerance after seven weeks.
I never claimed other people would get hooked on it before I do. In fact, I think the same rules apply to everyone else regarding addiction and tolerance when it comes to Lorazepam. (That was one of the main points of my post, anyway).
Playing the "victim" isn't an option here. If I let envy take over, I might end up spiraling, and the path to recovery from addiction is the same for everyone: tapering off slowly. My only real concern is knowing *when* I might hit that wall of dependency. There are suggestions that some people develop a lifelong addiction, and I’d really like to avoid being one of them. So, I'm not looking for sympathy!
Given all this, I'll just say this: I suggest Keith Jones76 (who seems pretty depressed) go see a few different psychiatrists.
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
Maybe instead of adding Xanax to the mix, you should just tell them that the second one isn't working for you?
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
Too many doctors prescribe medication with such reckless experience that kids end up dead—sometimes two at a time, or one jumps off a building while another wanders around looking like... a zombie. These same doctors eventually become department heads and administrators. You can spot them easily: they’ve got that caffeine-fueled look in their eyes and those permanent dark lines running from the corners of their eyes down their faces from staring at tablets all day.
Maybe she lives in an area where this is common, so she might be better off listening to me. Benzodiazepines aren't actually that dangerous, and they can be quite effective when used right.
Now wipe the drool off your chin and stop fantasizing that life is just pure mechanics and causality. Thinking that statistics and shouting at public institutions is all you need to navigate existence isn't helping anyone. When you actually have proof for your theory, bring it to the table, but right now, you just look ridiculous.
The kid can ask her doctor if I actually suggested doing something that would make Grandma sick, or if I was just being altruistic and trying to help. A doctor might give her something she won't even follow, or something she shouldn't be taking in the first place. For instance, my mother was totally screwed over by painkillers; now she can only take Tylenol and maybe a little something else. They also once gave her Xanax three times a day for a month, even though she had every reason *not* to be on it. She didn't even know what was happening...
So what, we're just supposed to hand everything over to doctors? No way. You actually have to learn things for yourself.
There's about 10% codeine in some of those cough syrups for kids—codeine makes up a certain percentage (usually around 10%, right?)—and once it enters the system, it converts into morphine, which is about half as potent as heroin. Yet, we still give that stuff to children. Is my approach really any more harmful than a kid taking that syrup for too long? Of course, the syrup helps. And honestly, kids sometimes just overdose on it themselves. Is there anything different about that?
Listen, and seriously, wipe the drool away since you love playing with statistics and probability so much: Statistically speaking, it's more likely that humans are "hardwired" to use drugs—at least occasionally, whether as an impulse or a motivation—than it is for it to be a disease. If that were true, then suppressing those impulses (along with others) could actually be harmful... even dangerous. You have to find ways to channel them.
That’s what the statistics show. According to the data it's most probable (if you aggregate everything psychology has ever known, clinical observations, and every possible documented experiment) that it is actually more harmful *not* to occasionally take a drug or medication on your own terms for recreational purposes (say, once every two weeks) than it is to actually take it.
The law says otherwise, the doctors say otherwise, and the psychologists say otherwise, but the statistics don't lie.
Maybe she lives in an area where this is common, so she might be better off listening to me. Benzodiazepines aren't actually that dangerous, and they can be quite effective when used right.
Now wipe the drool off your chin and stop fantasizing that life is just pure mechanics and causality. Thinking that statistics and shouting at public institutions is all you need to navigate existence isn't helping anyone. When you actually have proof for your theory, bring it to the table, but right now, you just look ridiculous.
The kid can ask her doctor if I actually suggested doing something that would make Grandma sick, or if I was just being altruistic and trying to help. A doctor might give her something she won't even follow, or something she shouldn't be taking in the first place. For instance, my mother was totally screwed over by painkillers; now she can only take Tylenol and maybe a little something else. They also once gave her Xanax three times a day for a month, even though she had every reason *not* to be on it. She didn't even know what was happening...
So what, we're just supposed to hand everything over to doctors? No way. You actually have to learn things for yourself.
There's about 10% codeine in some of those cough syrups for kids—codeine makes up a certain percentage (usually around 10%, right?)—and once it enters the system, it converts into morphine, which is about half as potent as heroin. Yet, we still give that stuff to children. Is my approach really any more harmful than a kid taking that syrup for too long? Of course, the syrup helps. And honestly, kids sometimes just overdose on it themselves. Is there anything different about that?
Listen, and seriously, wipe the drool away since you love playing with statistics and probability so much: Statistically speaking, it's more likely that humans are "hardwired" to use drugs—at least occasionally, whether as an impulse or a motivation—than it is for it to be a disease. If that were true, then suppressing those impulses (along with others) could actually be harmful... even dangerous. You have to find ways to channel them.
That’s what the statistics show. According to the data it's most probable (if you aggregate everything psychology has ever known, clinical observations, and every possible documented experiment) that it is actually more harmful *not* to occasionally take a drug or medication on your own terms for recreational purposes (say, once every two weeks) than it is to actually take it.
The law says otherwise, the doctors say otherwise, and the psychologists say otherwise, but the statistics don't lie.
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
Look, honey, when it comes to medication, you’re stuck in a bit of a catch-22: sometimes taking pills on your own whim is dangerous, and other times, *not* taking them is just as risky.
Sometimes visiting certain doctors is a gamble too—usually it's fine, but occasionally it's a disaster. Or maybe it's always a risk? (Honestly, maybe someone who’s never touched a single prescription would be healthier than all of us right now?)
When you weigh it all up, you're essentially always making the call yourself. Even if you're just following orders from some guy with a degree or an elder and saying, "I took it because my doctor told me to"—that's still a choice you made. And there are times when waiting for a doctor's green light is actually dangerous, because by then it might be too late, or they might have gotten it wrong anyway.
If you slip a pill into someone's soup, it becomes "medicine." Or it becomes poison. You can never really know without an electron microscope, but usually... well, let's just leave it at that.
Don't go trying everything I just mentioned all at once. Try half a dose of Triazolam first—if that's even something that can be tested safely. For specific dosage questions, just ask the pharmacist. Just be extra careful with the Triazolam; don't hide it in soup, maybe try mixing it into milk instead. Maybe Grandma will just... lose her appetite for those pills altogether.
Sometimes visiting certain doctors is a gamble too—usually it's fine, but occasionally it's a disaster. Or maybe it's always a risk? (Honestly, maybe someone who’s never touched a single prescription would be healthier than all of us right now?)
When you weigh it all up, you're essentially always making the call yourself. Even if you're just following orders from some guy with a degree or an elder and saying, "I took it because my doctor told me to"—that's still a choice you made. And there are times when waiting for a doctor's green light is actually dangerous, because by then it might be too late, or they might have gotten it wrong anyway.
If you slip a pill into someone's soup, it becomes "medicine." Or it becomes poison. You can never really know without an electron microscope, but usually... well, let's just leave it at that.
Don't go trying everything I just mentioned all at once. Try half a dose of Triazolam first—if that's even something that can be tested safely. For specific dosage questions, just ask the pharmacist. Just be extra careful with the Triazolam; don't hide it in soup, maybe try mixing it into milk instead. Maybe Grandma will just... lose her appetite for those pills altogether.
Help! Does anyone know why they're acting like this?
in Psychology ·
Just slip some Lorazepam into her soup. If she starts acting more chill (give it at least 2 to 2.5 hours)... you'll see it work.
If that doesn't do the trick... try Xanax, maybe Bromazepam, or Diazepam.
And if all else fails... find a decent barbiturate.
Honestly, your little circle is going to calm her down much faster than any doctor will ever convince her that this "third person" isn't actually there. (And that goes for before, too).
It’s probably best if you witness firsthand how much she needs the meds, then use that to talk her into seeing a specialist who actually knows their way around a prescription pad.
Personally, I just prescribe Lorazepam for everything. I even pour a bit of Diazepam into the cat's milk when he starts meowing too much.
If that doesn't do the trick... try Xanax, maybe Bromazepam, or Diazepam.
And if all else fails... find a decent barbiturate.
Honestly, your little circle is going to calm her down much faster than any doctor will ever convince her that this "third person" isn't actually there. (And that goes for before, too).
It’s probably best if you witness firsthand how much she needs the meds, then use that to talk her into seeing a specialist who actually knows their way around a prescription pad.
Personally, I just prescribe Lorazepam for everything. I even pour a bit of Diazepam into the cat's milk when he starts meowing too much.
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
So, I’ve been on this routine for seven weeks now. It involves some light stuff—cannabis, coffee, cigarettes, and sometimes linden tea, though occasionally I skip the tea and just stick to the rest. Along with that, I’ve been taking Lorazepam, though not every single day.
For these past seven weeks, my daily oral intake has been at least 2 mg of Lorazepam, peaking at maybe 10 mg on certain days.
Work life? Great.
Side effects? Well,
I deal with some bladder issues occasionally. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I guess it depends on the timing, whether I take it before or during the act, and if I used cannabis that day.
Fatigue? Not really.
I can fall asleep on it, wake up, go hiking, meet new people, study, follow conversations or TV shows... everything feels normal, just significantly more patient.
I bolded that because that’s exactly why I’m taking it.
But here’s what I’m actually wondering: when am I going to hit addiction?
(I’m actually trying to induce it.)
Right now, I don't even have a tolerance.
The reason I'm using it is that I wasn't a fan of the psychoactive treatment my dermatologist prescribed for a few things, and Lorazepam helps tremendously with that. Plus, my skin issues—which haven't been great so far—are actually clearing up. I’ll practically be done with this skin condition (and maybe there's a psychological component here too) by the day after tomorrow at the latest.
My plan is to keep going until I'm hooked, just to see what else it's good for. Once I start feeling the withdrawals, then I'll quit; it won't be useful anymore. (Meaning, I'll taper off eventually, even though I don't have a set dosing schedule right now. I'll establish one, obviously—how else am I supposed to taper?) But honestly, I'm not planning much, because I've heard rumors about this "incurable lifelong benzodiazepine crisis." I want to know if that's a real thing and what it actually entails.
For these past seven weeks, my daily oral intake has been at least 2 mg of Lorazepam, peaking at maybe 10 mg on certain days.
Work life? Great.
Side effects? Well,
I deal with some bladder issues occasionally. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I guess it depends on the timing, whether I take it before or during the act, and if I used cannabis that day.
Fatigue? Not really.
I can fall asleep on it, wake up, go hiking, meet new people, study, follow conversations or TV shows... everything feels normal, just significantly more patient.
I bolded that because that’s exactly why I’m taking it.
But here’s what I’m actually wondering: when am I going to hit addiction?
(I’m actually trying to induce it.)
Right now, I don't even have a tolerance.
The reason I'm using it is that I wasn't a fan of the psychoactive treatment my dermatologist prescribed for a few things, and Lorazepam helps tremendously with that. Plus, my skin issues—which haven't been great so far—are actually clearing up. I’ll practically be done with this skin condition (and maybe there's a psychological component here too) by the day after tomorrow at the latest.
My plan is to keep going until I'm hooked, just to see what else it's good for. Once I start feeling the withdrawals, then I'll quit; it won't be useful anymore. (Meaning, I'll taper off eventually, even though I don't have a set dosing schedule right now. I'll establish one, obviously—how else am I supposed to taper?) But honestly, I'm not planning much, because I've heard rumors about this "incurable lifelong benzodiazepine crisis." I want to know if that's a real thing and what it actually entails.
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
I'm curious if—and maybe this isn't even a legitimate medical question—certain benzodiazepines (though I know some don't work this way) can actually take effect if you just pop a pill under your tongue and wait for sublingual absorption. Which ones do, and which ones don't?
My super helpful, on-topic post just got deleted.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
The moderator over on this thread just nuked another one of my posts—this time it was my reply to her claim that I’ve been banned three times and that I probably can’t even land a date (classic off-topic nonsense). Now that I look closer, she actually deleted her own post where she said all that, too.
Honestly, she’s clearly out of her depth... let's just say she has no clue what she's doing. She writes things and then immediately deletes them; she wipes out stuff that should stay, while leaving up garbage. For instance, there’s a post right above my deleted one about Tramadol where some user was insulting me. It offers zero information and is completely inaccurate—her suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding Tramadol is just plain wrong; the facts I provided were spot on.
She's totally lost and clearly incapable of actually moderating!
Honestly, she’s clearly out of her depth... let's just say she has no clue what she's doing. She writes things and then immediately deletes them; she wipes out stuff that should stay, while leaving up garbage. For instance, there’s a post right above my deleted one about Tramadol where some user was insulting me. It offers zero information and is completely inaccurate—her suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding Tramadol is just plain wrong; the facts I provided were spot on.
She's totally lost and clearly incapable of actually moderating!
My super helpful, on-topic post just got deleted.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I didn't even get an explanation for why my post was deleted.
My super helpful, on-topic post just got deleted.
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Psychology.
I put together a post about Tramadol (specifically Tramal and Trodon).
In it, I pointed out a specific fact: when this stuff was first developed, the researchers intended to create a standard opioid. However, they were caught off guard when Naloxone—which is supposed to completely neutralize opioid effects—failed to fully reverse what Tramadol does to the body. This proved that Tramadol isn't just acting as an opioid; it’s doing something else entirely. To this day, science hasn't fully pinned down its exact mechanism of action or why it doesn't behave like a pure opioid. There are still plenty of studies trying to figure it out. Basically, even modern science doesn't have all the answers regarding how Tramadol works.
It's all easily verifiable on Wikipedia if you bother to look.
And yet, my entire post was deleted.
_____________
I also used that post to ask that someone punish the person who condescendingly told me I was just an amateur who didn't know anything, using maybe two or three words.
____________
So, why was my post scrubbed, while the one where this person calls me an "amateur who knows nothing" (or whatever) stays up?
How do you moderators actually operate here? Is it like kids playing a game, just deleting posts from anyone you don't personally like unless they commit some massive violation, or are you supposed to be serious, mature adults?
I put together a post about Tramadol (specifically Tramal and Trodon).
In it, I pointed out a specific fact: when this stuff was first developed, the researchers intended to create a standard opioid. However, they were caught off guard when Naloxone—which is supposed to completely neutralize opioid effects—failed to fully reverse what Tramadol does to the body. This proved that Tramadol isn't just acting as an opioid; it’s doing something else entirely. To this day, science hasn't fully pinned down its exact mechanism of action or why it doesn't behave like a pure opioid. There are still plenty of studies trying to figure it out. Basically, even modern science doesn't have all the answers regarding how Tramadol works.
It's all easily verifiable on Wikipedia if you bother to look.
And yet, my entire post was deleted.
_____________
I also used that post to ask that someone punish the person who condescendingly told me I was just an amateur who didn't know anything, using maybe two or three words.
____________
So, why was my post scrubbed, while the one where this person calls me an "amateur who knows nothing" (or whatever) stays up?
How do you moderators actually operate here? Is it like kids playing a game, just deleting posts from anyone you don't personally like unless they commit some massive violation, or are you supposed to be serious, mature adults?
Psychotropic medication discussion thread
in Psychology & Therapy ·
Between Tramadol and anything derived from cannabis, it’s way too easy to get hooked...
Scientists still haven't even fully pinned down how Tramadol actually works—like, where it specifically hits in the brain.
But hey, doctors seem perfectly fine prescribing it. They're the real pros, right?
If someone's looking to taper off, they could try taking half their usual dose alongside some marijuana extract. Mixing the two tends to boost the effects of the medication, and since you can't really get "addicted" to weed in that same way, it might just help them ease off the Tramadol. It should theoretically make weaning off easier.
Scientists still haven't even fully pinned down how Tramadol actually works—like, where it specifically hits in the brain.
But hey, doctors seem perfectly fine prescribing it. They're the real pros, right?
If someone's looking to taper off, they could try taking half their usual dose alongside some marijuana extract. Mixing the two tends to boost the effects of the medication, and since you can't really get "addicted" to weed in that same way, it might just help them ease off the Tramadol. It should theoretically make weaning off easier.