![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 752 to 776 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:24:01
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-accphey, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2015, at 14:50:10
> > > > > It's my understanding that nothing on this site is "endorsed" by Dr. Bob, and that he takes responsibility only for his own words. If he finds something doesn't comply with site guidelines he takes admin action. But not taking admin action doesn't imply endorsement or approval. Admin action only says that something is in noncompliance. Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken.
> > > >
> > > > Friends,
> > > > The poster wrote,[...Leaving it up only means that no rules have been broken...].
> > > > Now that perception indicated as being what it is by Dinah here, could be the perception of other readers also.
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Now Mr. Hsiung writes here that he should revise that he agrees with Dinah that statements left to stand are not against his rules. What his statement could lead readers to think is:
> > > A. After a revision, readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
> > > B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are concerned here, I am requesting that you read trough the following posts and see how anti-Semitic hatred could be developed here by Mr. Hsiung by him not enforcing his own rules. He could change his rules, he could revise his rules, which could feed the ideology behind what is posted about the Jews here as being supportive and will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking.
> > Here is one such post in a series of posts where the poster is coached by Mr. Hsiung to follow a script that would allow hatred toward the Jews to be posted here with impunity.
> > Lou
> > [ admin, 428781 ]
>
> Friends,
> Mr. Hsuing says that he should revise his statement that he agrees that leaving a post up sows that no rule of is has been broken. Tis , unless clarified by Mr. Hsiung, IMHO could cause irreparable harm to a subset of people. Tis is because of the different ways readers could understand what he is intending to mean by that he should revise his policy that readers could be led to believe as by taking Mr. Hsiung at his word. But it is much more than that. For anti-Semitic propaganda is {left up} as Dinah uses which could mean un repudiated by Mr. Hsuing, without his tagline to please be civil where the anti-Semitic propaganda can be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be good for this community as a whole sometime in the future. This could IMHHO create a community of acceptance for hatred toward the Jews, socially acceptable, creating a foundation for real-world hate and violence toward Jews. Let me show you how this is done.
> LouFriends,
The tactics used to arouse hatred toward the Jews is not new. It is an old script, followed today to create a climate of hatred , suspicion and indifference by boycotting that can recruit young people using the power of propaganda to spread lies about the Jews and making Jews to be thought as outcasts to be shunned.
Let us look at this video of this old tactic.
Lou
[ youtube, kCTk2N_iUF0 ] the last character is a zero, not te letter "O"
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
In reply to Lou's response to Mr. Hsiung-heytspeech, posted by Lou Pilder on February 15, 2015, at 22:23:58
> A. readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
True.
> B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
It could, but I consider those outcomes to be unlikely.
--
> Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
>
> Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.htmlWe discussed this before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 8:36:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
> > A. readers could not know if a statement is or is not against his rules because he states that he could leave uncivil and unsupportive statements un intervened because it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to do so.
>
> True.
>
> > B. With that type of revision, hate speech could flourish here, antisemitism could flourish here, racism could flourish here and a subset of readers could act out what they could think a psychiatrist is saying will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking by leaving anti-Semitic statements un intervened and think that it could be good for their community also. This could IMO result in violence and murder of Jews where hate groups that use Jews as scapegoats for their real or imagined ills exist.
>
> It could, but I consider those outcomes to be unlikely.
>
> --
>
> > Hate speech attacks a person or an identifiable group of people, such as Jews that insults them or their religion either by them being a member or by not being a member.
> >
> > Here is one such statement by a poster here that you say is supportive on the basis that you say the statement is not against your rules. But your rule is to not post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055904.html
>
> We discussed this before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20131217/msgs/1060220.html
>
> I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
>
> Bob
>
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...But I don't consider it supportive...].
But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire. And if those readers also saw that you posted that you should revise what you said, there is no change in your TOS/FAQ for readers to know what the revision is. And anyway, the post could have been posted before you posted that you should revise what you have posted here about how you enforce your rules.
I am asking for you to open that post and type right down in the post something like:
Owner's note:
Be advised that I do not consider the statement about Jews that readers could think that Jews need to convert to Christianity to be saved to be supportive here. And my remark that Christians convert to Judaism a lot as much as Jews converting to Christianity is not factual and not relevant as to if the statement in question is supportive or not, which you may consider to be that I have used the tactic of evasion here. I am sorry if you could feel misled here and think that I am not neutral in respect to allowing statements that are unsupportive concerning Judaism to be seen as supportive here or that I am denying Lou, the Jewish member here, equal protection of my rules..
If you think that I am doing this to create and develop anti-Semitic hate here, or to inflict emotional distress upon Jews, you could write to The American Psychiatric Association at {give contact information here}.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 0:55:41
In reply to Re: doesn't even mean it's not against the rules, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2014, at 10:05:18
> > > I would assume that if something is brought to Dr. Bob's attention and he does nothing that he thought it was not against the rules. But that doesn't mean he agrees with what was said.
> >
> > Right:
> >
> > > The only messages I take responsibility for are my own.
>
> I should revise that. I might consider something against the rules, yet decide not to intervene. I want to be free to use my judgment. If you would try to accept what I decide and to trust that I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
Was there not a series of posts here in discussion? If so, where have all the posts of such gone?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-cre/dev » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 8:36:46
> > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
>
> But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.True, they could.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 18:39:34
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
> > > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
> >
> > But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.
>
> True, they could.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You now write that you agree that the statement in question, [...convert to be saved...], is not supportive and you are allowing it anyway. You also wrote,[...I don't consider it hate-speech..].
I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence or , let's say, A Jewish reader in depression feels put down that you allow a statement that could be seen as saying that Jews are inferior human beings without salvation and need to convert to be saved. This could trigger a Jewish person in depression that came here for support to feel stigmatized and unworthy of being a member here as being seen as unequal and have feelings of unworthiness and hopelessness that could lead them to kill themselves.
Another aspect of this is that those readers that already have feelings of superiority over Jews, which could mean that they consider Jews to be inferior, could feel that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport and be easily recruited by terrorists bent on killing Jews.
I am asking that you open the post in question where the statement appears initially and type right down in the post something like:
Owners' note:
Be advised that I do not consider the statement to be support but I am going to let it stand anyway because in my thinking it will be goof this community as a whole to do so. You may think otherwise based on world events being shown on television now, and you may know the history of European fascism, and you may think that the statement is against the Jews here, which is what anti-Semitism entails. If you don't like it, you can contact that ADL or some other Jewish advocacy group and I could tell them that it's my forum and I'll do what I want to, do what I want to, and I am going to continue to allow the statement to be seen as supportive here because I think it will be good for this community as a whole, good for this community as a whole, to do so.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 11:21:59
Mr. Hsiung,
In order for our differences to be settled here, I am offering that in order to do so that the archives here be limited to one year. What this would entail is that:
A. When a post is one year old, it falls off the forum so that it can not be actuated again.
B. The 3 consecutive post rule be abolished
C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in toto
D. Parents seeking information concerning drugging their child be told the following:
We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
E. The TOS/FAQ be modified to reflect whatever you want changed and the changes will be made known to the readers by having an opening page with the changes and then a button to press to go to the forum saying that, "I have read the changes... proceed to the main page"
F. A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
G. other good and just additions/deletions
Lou Pilder
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 23, 2015, at 16:49:06
In reply to Lou's first worst offer to Mr.. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 11:21:59
>C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in total
People sometimes add to old threads.
>We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
This forum doesn't exist to promote one side of the discussion only. So long as they are civil, posters can write things which do not agree with your point of view.
>A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
We'd also need one atheist, one agnostic, one Humanist, one Christian, one muslim, one Sikh, one Hindu, one Buddist..... :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 22:45:58
Mr. Hsiung,
You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to. It also depends on what jurists consider to be in the definition of the terms used to decide if the speech is hate speech or not. In the U.S., the terms used are {disparaging} and {intimidating}. This means that if the speech intimidates or disparages the target person or group on , as here, religion. The speech could also apply to other entities such as ethnic origin, race, sexual orientation and such. But here in our discussion, the emphasis is on if the speech is disparaging and/or intimidation of Jews as the test if it is hate speech or not. Other countries have different tests to determine hate speech.
In France, the test is if the speech insults or defames, as in the case here, Jews. Or if the speech {incites discrimination against} or incites hatred or harm or provokes ethnic hatred..
You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
I do because I understand the meaning of {insult} and {defame} and {hatred} and what it means to {provoke} hatred. And I understand that your rules say that if you do nothing to the statement, that it is not against your rules, and until you post in your TOS/FAQ differently, I think that statement by you still means what it means and says what it says and is what it is as it can be seen. But more than that, you say that even if a statement is against your rules, you could allow it to be seen as supportive because {by allowing it to be seen as supportive, it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking}. I understand what you mean by that, and I say that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive, will in no wise in my thinking be good for this community as a whole. I am prohibited by you to post here what could inform readers about those that said the same thing that you have here in the annuals of European fascism. I base this in the fact that the statement has been used for the justification for slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination and genocide, and as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them. For people to trust one that allows anti-Semitic hate propaganda to be seen as supportive, could be un informed and prohibited to know, and it's so easy to persuade the un informed. It's so easy.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:24:58
In reply to Re: Lou's first worst offer to Mr.. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 23, 2015, at 16:49:06
> >C. Threads here that involve a post that is more than one year old be deleted in total
>
> People sometimes add to old threads.
>
> >We do not endorse drugging children so only posts that are against drugging children are allowed here.
>
> This forum doesn't exist to promote one side of the discussion only. So long as they are civil, posters can write things which do not agree with your point of view.
>
> >A deputy system with at least 3 deputies and one Jewish deputy be established
>
> We'd also need one atheist, one agnostic, one Humanist, one Christian, one muslim, one Sikh, one Hindu, one Buddist..... :)ed,
The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2015, at 12:04:46
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pil discussion-hate speech » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to. It also depends on what jurists consider to be in the definition of the terms used to decide if the speech is hate speech or not. In the U.S., the terms used are {disparaging} and {intimidating}. This means that if the speech intimidates or disparages the target person or group on , as here, religion. The speech could also apply to other entities such as ethnic origin, race, sexual orientation and such. But here in our discussion, the emphasis is on if the speech is disparaging and/or intimidation of Jews as the test if it is hate speech or not. Other countries have different tests to determine hate speech.
> In France, the test is if the speech insults or defames, as in the case here, Jews. Or if the speech {incites discrimination against} or incites hatred or harm or provokes ethnic hatred..
> You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
> I do because I understand the meaning of {insult} and {defame} and {hatred} and what it means to {provoke} hatred. And I understand that your rules say that if you do nothing to the statement, that it is not against your rules, and until you post in your TOS/FAQ differently, I think that statement by you still means what it means and says what it says and is what it is as it can be seen. But more than that, you say that even if a statement is against your rules, you could allow it to be seen as supportive because {by allowing it to be seen as supportive, it will be good for this community as a whole in your thinking}. I understand what you mean by that, and I say that leaving anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen here as supportive, will in no wise in my thinking be good for this community as a whole. I am prohibited by you to post here what could inform readers about those that said the same thing that you have here in the annuals of European fascism. I base this in the fact that the statement has been used for the justification for slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination and genocide, and as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them. For people to trust one that allows anti-Semitic hate propaganda to be seen as supportive, could be un informed and prohibited to know, and it's so easy to persuade the un informed. It's so easy.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
I now would like to include the following post in our discussion. I think that it is relevant here.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1075146.html
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 13:18:58
In reply to Lou's reply-izitsuportv » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:24:58
>The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
Support involves discussion. If a drug is beneficial to a child, then yes.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 14:59:37
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-izitsuportv » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 13:18:58
> >The forum is for support. In your thinking, is advocating the drugging of children supportive?
>
> Support involves discussion. If a drug is beneficial to a child, then yes.> ed,
What constitutes being beneficial?
Lou
>
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 17:02:21
In reply to Lou's reply-iyph » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 14:59:37
>What constitutes being beneficial?
That the child's mental health is improved in some way.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 19:52:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-iyph » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 26, 2015, at 17:02:21
> >What constitutes being beneficial?
>
> That the child's mental health is improved in some way.
>
> ed,
Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
Lou
>
>
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 27, 2015, at 3:52:30
In reply to Lou's reply-wuduadvo » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2015, at 19:52:03
Lou,
First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
>Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
How do you define addicting in this case?
Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
......................
In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
-How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
-Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
-What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
In terms of risks:
-What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
-How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
-How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
-How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
-What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
-What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
I hope this answers your question.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:34:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wuduadvo » Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 27, 2015, at 3:52:30
> Lou,
>
> First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
>
> When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
>
> >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
>
> How do you define addicting in this case?
>
> Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
>
> ......................
>
> In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
>
> -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
>
> -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
>
> -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
>
> In terms of risks:
>
> -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
>
> -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
>
> -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
>
> -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
>
> -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
>
> -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
>
> In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
>
> The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
>
> I hope this answers your question.ed,
Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
Lou
[ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:41:45
In reply to Lou's reply--a perspective » ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:34:26
> > Lou,
> >
> > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> >
> > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> >
> > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> >
> > How do you define addicting in this case?
> >
> > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> >
> > ......................
> >
> > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> >
> > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> >
> > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> >
> > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> >
> > In terms of risks:
> >
> > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> >
> > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> >
> > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> >
> > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> >
> > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> >
> > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> >
> > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> >
> > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> >
> > I hope this answers your question.
>
> ed,
> Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> Lou
> [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]correction,
[ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:47:04
In reply to correction-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:41:45
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> > >
> > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> > >
> > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> > >
> > > How do you define addicting in this case?
> > >
> > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> > >
> > > ......................
> > >
> > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> > >
> > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> > >
> > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> > >
> > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> > >
> > > In terms of risks:
> > >
> > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> > >
> > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> > >
> > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> > >
> > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> > >
> > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> > >
> > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> > >
> > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> > >
> > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> > >
> > > I hope this answers your question.
> >
> > ed,
> > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> > Lou
> > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
>
> correction,
> [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
> Lou
correction
[youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2015, at 10:02:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 0:58:40
> > > I don't consider that hate speech. But I don't consider it supportive, either.
> >
> > But readers could think that you consider it supportive on the basis that they could have read that you posted here that support takes precedence and members are to be civil at all times and that you do not wait to sanction since one match could start a forest fire.
>
> True, they could.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You say that you can leave statements that are not supportive here, including but not limited to defamation toward me and antisemitic propaganda that could stigmatize Jews and create a hostile environment here against Jews and spread to terrorists networks that could give them the thinking that a psychiatrist is ratifying the hate as I see what you are doing here.
What I am asking now is that you post here your thinking as why it will be good for this community as a whole to allow anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation toward me to be seen here as supportive. In this posting that I am asking from you could include any struggle that you could be harboring in your mind to go against your own rules to allow the anti-Semitic hate to be seen as civil by you here without you posting your tag line to sanction the statements in question. If readers knew of your vision, if any, that you see happenijg in the future as allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive here, that could go a long way for Jews and others to know what your thinking entails and they could respond accordingly. As of now, I do not know what this "good" is that will happen to your community by you allowing the anti-Semitic propaganda and defamation to be seen as supportive. Who does it support and why?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2015, at 10:25:27
In reply to correction 2-Lou's reply--a perspective, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2015, at 20:47:04
> > > > Lou,
> > > >
> > > > First of all, my impression is that psychiatric medication is possibly overprescribed to children in some areas of the the US, mainly for ADHD symptoms. Such prescribing occurs to a much lesser extent elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > When prescribing to children, the potential for long-term changes to neurological function needs to be given special consideration; the brain is still developing. I do not believe that this issue has received adequate study, particularly considering how frequently stimulants are used. If stimulants were risk-free, I would not consider the high prescribing rates to represent possible overprescribing, but since they are not risk-free, I do.
> > > >
> > > > >Even if there was such an improvement, would you advocate that the child be drugged with that drug if was addicting?
> > > >
> > > > How do you define addicting in this case?
> > > >
> > > > Every decision to prescribe medication should occur on an individual basis. The risks vs benefits need to be weighed up.
> > > >
> > > > ......................
> > > >
> > > > In terms of the benefits, it would be necessary to consider:
> > > >
> > > > -How severe (or chronic) is the patient's (child's) illness/disorder?
> > > >
> > > > -Apart from medication, have other treatment options been explored?
> > > >
> > > > -What level of improvement is the medication likely to produce? And is this improvement likely to persist?
> > > >
> > > > In terms of risks:
> > > >
> > > > -What side effects have occurred, or are occurring?
> > > >
> > > > -How will side effects be monitored and dealt with?
> > > >
> > > > -How will the prescriber monitor the effectiveness of treatment, to ensure that ineffective medication is not continued?
> > > >
> > > > -How will the prescriber ensure that prescribed stimulants are not diverted?
> > > >
> > > > -What is the potential for physical and psychological dependence?
> > > >
> > > > -What is the risk of long-term neurological changes when amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs are taken during brain development?
> > > >
> > > > In terms of your question about addiction, I think that it's important to consider early on during treatment how helpful (or unhelpful) the drug has been. If a stimulant proves unhelpful or harmful, it should be discontinued within the first few weeks. The will minimise the risk of withdrawal symptoms. In some cases it will be necessary to reduce the dose gradually.
> > > >
> > > > The usefulness of the drug needs to be reassessed at intervals and discontinued where appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this answers your question.
> > >
> > > ed,
> > > Let us loom at this video. In it, a psychologist gives a view of psychiatry. Look to see if you can see parallels.
> > > Lou
> > > [ youtube, OGALRm1Wn ]
> >
> > correction,
> > [ youtube, OGALRmlWrr ]
> > Lou
> correction
> [youtube, OGALRm1W4 ]
>
ed,
To see the video,
bring up Google and type in:
[ youtube, ADHD Drugs: Medication or ? ]
you will see a pic...posted on Feb 11, 2013 and the time is 16:22
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2015, at 11:12:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsi-Pil discussion-hate speech » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2015, at 17:02:59
> I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence
I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. Or, if I'm leaving it to be seen as supportive, I'm also leaving your statements to be seen as supportive.
And, I'm less worried than you about those statements leading to violence.
--
> You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to.
True. I consider this my jurisdiction.
> You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
OK, reasonable people can disagree.
> as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them.
True, the historical record is rife with injustice, and unjust leaders. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In a way, I see you as the voice of eternal vigilance.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 15, 2015, at 19:55:00
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2015, at 11:12:42
> > I now think that there is a real and present danger here by you leaving the statement to be seen as supportive as that a subset of readers could think that you and any deputy of record are validating what the statement could purport, which could lead to the deaths of Jews as either being victims of antisemitic violence
>
> I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there. Or, if I'm leaving it to be seen as supportive, I'm also leaving your statements to be seen as supportive.
>
> And, I'm less worried than you about those statements leading to violence.
>
> --
>
> > You claim here that the statement in question does not constitute hate speech in your thinking. I say to you that it depends on the jurisdiction that one is in when they post the statements in question that I am attempting to have you purge here or post a repudiation to.
>
> True. I consider this my jurisdiction.
>
> > You may not think the statements in question constitute hate-speech. But I do.
>
> OK, reasonable people can disagree.
>
> > as I see the historical record, those that tried to persuade the members of their community that they were doing good for the community as a whole by making genocide and the others state-sponsored, got away with slavery and genocide until the people could not wait any longer to see this "good" that was promised by the leaders saying to trust them.
>
> True, the historical record is rife with injustice, and unjust leaders. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In a way, I see you as the voice of eternal vigilance.
>
> BobMr. Hsung,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. You wrote;
[...I would not say that I am leaving it {the collection of statements that defame Jews and others that I am objecting to here as being allowed to be seen as supportive by you}there to be seen as supportive...].
Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2015, at 9:51:56
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-ultearmo » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 15, 2015, at 19:55:00
> > I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there.
> Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?
I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2015, at 16:41:24
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 17, 2015, at 9:51:56
> > > I wouldn't say I'm leaving it there to be seen as supportive; I'd just say I'm leaving it there.
>
> > Well, if you are not leaving them to be seen as supportive, why are you leaving them since they can be seen as supportive by you?
>
> I'm leaving them because they're contributions to the discussion here. Like I leave your posts because they're contributions to the discussion here.
>
> Bob
Mr.Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'm leaving them (the anti-Semitic statements and others in our discussion here that can be seen as supportive and will in my thinking, Lou, be good for the community as a whole for them to be seen that way)because they are contributions to the discussion here...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. I will open each of the posts with the unsanctioned anti-Semitism and type right down in the post something like:
Owner's note:
Be advised that the anti-Semitic statement(s) in this post are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and not supportive and could lead a Jew and others to feel that their faith is being put down. If you want to discuss this, use the following link to the administrative board. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/....
B. I will do no such thing, Lou. If I was to do that, I would have to admit that a subset of readers could make the conclusion that myself and my deputies of record collaborated to defame Judaism and inflict emotional distress upon you by leaving those statements to be seen as civil by us.
C. I am going to accept your first worst offer, Lou, and delete all the archives past one year old.
D. I will send an email to all members, past and present, that explains that the anti-Semitic statements allowed by me and my deputies of record to be seen as supportive here, were allowed by us to be seen that way originally so that Jews could be the target of hate and that could be discussed here, and now I am going to stop that by telling you that I have changed my mind and the reason is so that the anti-Semitism being allowed by us to be seen as civil and not against the rules here, can be discussed here on the admin board because they are contributions to a discussion here. If you do not accept that reasoning, you can contact the American Psychiatric Association.
"Dr. Bob"
Lou PIlder
C.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.