![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 37. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by poser938 on January 5, 2013, at 22:13:38
There is much denial by the drug industry. And it is expected.
But, after picking up one of his books at the book store, it seemed like the story of my life. Or at least th past 8 years. Stepping into that psychiatrists office for the 1st time was the biggest mistake of my life. Back then I had never even heard the word 'anhedonia'. Back then when talking to the therapist about how my depression affected me, I couldn't undetstand how bad some people could get.
Back then I thought the Cymbalta commercials looked so neat. Now I know, thanks in part to Cymbalta, along with other meds, that depression does hurt, but Cymbalta can help you off a cliff.
That's the spin I put on their advertisement.
Posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2013, at 22:47:51
In reply to Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 5, 2013, at 22:13:38
Wasn't so much a pdocs but the internet that skewed my looks. As took cymbalta innocent as felt it would work and it did had no back pain no other pains when on it then discovered the internet and the troubles began. Cymbalta really does work for pain. Phillipa
Posted by poser938 on January 5, 2013, at 23:07:06
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » poser938, posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2013, at 22:47:51
> Wasn't so much a pdocs but the internet that skewed my looks. As took cymbalta innocent as felt it would work and it did had no back pain no other pains when on it then discovered the internet and the troubles began. Cymbalta really does work for pain. Phillipa
I actually agree with that. With me, it took away much of my ability to feel pain. But it took much more than that away. It took too much away.
Posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 2:51:37
In reply to Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 5, 2013, at 22:13:38
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html
Breggins wife was a Scientologist and he was too from '72-'74. Took him 2 years to figure out the scam. Must have liked their style though.
He's a professional paid witnes and a lot of judges really don't care for him.
Other than that my problem with anyone of his ilk is, "it's all bad."
Psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics. What's next?
I might listen to him but I already know what he'll say. I don't have to read Lou's post's because I know what he'll say.
I'm having my issues with meds but they aren't all bad. ECT saved my mothers life. Wasn't pleasant but it did work.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is all just my opinion.
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 3:08:38
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » poser938, posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 2:51:37
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html
>
> Breggins wife was a Scientologist and he was too from '72-'74. Took him 2 years to figure out the scam. Must have liked their style though.
> He's a professional paid witnes and a lot of judges really don't care for him.
> Other than that my problem with anyone of his ilk is, "it's all bad."
> Psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics. What's next?
> I might listen to him but I already know what he'll say. I don't have to read Lou's post's because I know what he'll say.
> I'm having my issues with meds but they aren't all bad. ECT saved my mothers life. Wasn't pleasant but it did work.
> The truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is all just my opinion.I'm just giving my experience. I know some people are helped by medications, but some people are hurt very badly by them. And I'm not the only one.
My biggest problem is how people like me are ignored. They are told they are making it up by the very people that may be able to help them. The doctors. It took me 7 years to find a doctor that didn't tell me I wad delusional when I told howe the. Meds affected me.
I want to see a warning put on antidepressants for Tardive Dysphoria. It is criminal that they are getting by with this.
Posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 3:18:52
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » poser938, posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 2:51:37
Another patient discussion of the type that you don't hear much about these days. The negatives of anti psychiatry.
http://www.crazymeds.us/CrazyTalk/index.php?/topic/7835-anti-psychiatry-people-ruined-my-life/
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 3:28:22
In reply to 'Anti psychiatry ruined my life', posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 3:18:52
> Another patient discussion of the type that you don't hear much about these days. The negatives of anti psychiatry.
>
> http://www.crazymeds.us/CrazyTalk/index.php?/topic/7835-anti-psychiatry-people-ruined-my-life/
>
>
I think this would call for drug companies to inform the public about the benefits as well as the risks in full then. This way there is no confusion.
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 3:34:04
In reply to 'Anti psychiatry ruined my life', posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 3:18:52
It has been shown in many studies how these meds cause problems in the brain. Studies on how they effect neurochemistry. Studies thare on pubmed, that we on this site talk about everyday.
The general public needs to be thoroughly informed by the supposively trustful drug companies. That's who the public trusts most.
Posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 6, 2013, at 4:46:42
In reply to Re: 'Anti psychiatry ruined my life', posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 3:34:04
The FDA in America and equivelent agencies in other countries mandate what infomation the drug companies give out in their data sheets and product monographs
if you focused only on side effects your never take any drug at all, you'd reject penicillin even if you had pneumonie if you focused too much on the side effects
Posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 6, 2013, at 4:48:33
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 3:08:38
Automobiles do a lot of hard as well - are you suggesting everybody give up their cars becase a minute number of car trips end up in accidents?
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 5:11:09
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 6, 2013, at 4:48:33
I'm just calling on people to be informed. We know all about the benefits. Why not tell people about all risks. Why be against letting people be informed. An informed decision is thebest decision. Why hide it from people?
Why take hide information from people, hindering their ability to make an informed decision? The benefits far outweigh any problems.
Posted by SLS on January 6, 2013, at 5:55:38
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 5:11:09
As long as the facts (as best as we know them) are portrayed accurately and understandably, I think many members of the lay public would benefit from this information. However, this information must necessarily include the frequency with which treatment-emergent adverse events appear. A treatment-emergent event is not necessarily an effect of a drug, though. During clinical trials, an adverse event must be recorded and reported, regardless of whether the drug caused it or not. It will thus appear on the manufacturer's label if the verbiage is approved by the FDA. It is not so easy to interpret the statistics as they are written in context, though. Treatment-emergent adverse events appear with placebo, too. A good doctor will factor in his knowledge of the epidemiology of other conditions that produce the same events (symptoms) in his evaluation of the risk-versus-benefit of using a particular drug. For some people, it is better for them to ask the doctor about side effects than to evaluate the labeling for themselves.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 9:23:58
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » poser938, posted by Phil on January 6, 2013, at 2:51:37
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html
>
> Breggins wife was a Scientologist and he was too from '72-'74. Took him 2 years to figure out the scam. Must have liked their style though.
> He's a professional paid witnes and a lot of judges really don't care for him.
> Other than that my problem with anyone of his ilk is, "it's all bad."
> Psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics. What's next?
> I might listen to him but I already know what he'll say. I don't have to read Lou's post's because I know what he'll say.
> I'm having my issues with meds but they aren't all bad. ECT saved my mothers life. Wasn't pleasant but it did work.
> The truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is all just my opinion.Friends,
Be advised that an unsound mental-health practice is being allowed to flourish here by the nature that Mr Hsiung and his deputy are allowing it. This is in direct contradiction to his stated thinking that support takes precedence. There are many tactics that could lead you to your death here by allowing defamation and false statements about drugs that you could take to stand as being supportive. And all the while, defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew here is not only allowed, Mr Hsiung joins in the defamation by being in concert with some members to allow the epithet,{Prince of Death}, which is a name for Satan, whom I am not, to be used as an epithet to lable (falsely) me here.
But now there is even more hate allowed to be posted here. This is in the form of the fallacy of {ad-hominem}. This allowing of a fallacy of this magnatude on a mental-health forum could induce hatred in people that could be acted out in suicide or murder of innocent children, even commit mass murder. You see, I know how the drugs promoted here and hate go together to induce the mind-altered state caused by the drugs to compel one to kill themselves and/or others. There is a great amount of study done by psychologists/psychiatrists that goes back decades in the sudy of how hate induces one to kill. When one is allowed to have hate heaped on another here, then just the hate itself is relevant here regardless who the hate is directed to. It could be me, Dr Peter Breggin, Jews or Islamic people in general, or those that believe that people that embrace psychiatry could lead to their death and/or the death of innocent people (anti-psychiatry). I am not anti-psychiatry, I am anti-death, for it has been revealed to me that death is an enemy.
Last year alone, 42,000 people died from psychotropic drugs by one means or another. And if the statistics hold true, going forward for the years to come, millions more people could die from these drugs as the increase of mass-media advertising for the drugs could cause more people to take them.
Here is a link that explains the fallacy of ad-hominem attack against a person. After you read it,don't forget whose life could be taken by the hate toward he, so members, save the last post for me.
Lou
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 11:03:18
In reply to Lou's response-heybrehy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 9:23:58
> > http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html
> >
> > Breggins wife was a Scientologist and he was too from '72-'74. Took him 2 years to figure out the scam. Must have liked their style though.
> > He's a professional paid witnes and a lot of judges really don't care for him.
> > Other than that my problem with anyone of his ilk is, "it's all bad."
> > Psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics. What's next?
> > I might listen to him but I already know what he'll say. I don't have to read Lou's post's because I know what he'll say.
> > I'm having my issues with meds but they aren't all bad. ECT saved my mothers life. Wasn't pleasant but it did work.
> > The truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is all just my opinion.
>
> Friends,
> Be advised that an unsound mental-health practice is being allowed to flourish here by the nature that Mr Hsiung and his deputy are allowing it. This is in direct contradiction to his stated thinking that support takes precedence. There are many tactics that could lead you to your death here by allowing defamation and false statements about drugs that you could take to stand as being supportive. And all the while, defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew here is not only allowed, Mr Hsiung joins in the defamation by being in concert with some members to allow the epithet,{Prince of Death}, which is a name for Satan, whom I am not, to be used as an epithet to lable (falsely) me here.
> But now there is even more hate allowed to be posted here. This is in the form of the fallacy of {ad-hominem}. This allowing of a fallacy of this magnatude on a mental-health forum could induce hatred in people that could be acted out in suicide or murder of innocent children, even commit mass murder. You see, I know how the drugs promoted here and hate go together to induce the mind-altered state caused by the drugs to compel one to kill themselves and/or others. There is a great amount of study done by psychologists/psychiatrists that goes back decades in the sudy of how hate induces one to kill. When one is allowed to have hate heaped on another here, then just the hate itself is relevant here regardless who the hate is directed to. It could be me, Dr Peter Breggin, Jews or Islamic people in general, or those that believe that people that embrace psychiatry could lead to their death and/or the death of innocent people (anti-psychiatry). I am not anti-psychiatry, I am anti-death, for it has been revealed to me that death is an enemy.
> Last year alone, 42,000 people died from psychotropic drugs by one means or another. And if the statistics hold true, going forward for the years to come, millions more people could die from these drugs as the increase of mass-media advertising for the drugs could cause more people to take them.
> Here is a link that explains the fallacy of ad-hominem attack against a person. After you read it,don't forget whose life could be taken by the hate toward he, so members, save the last post for me.
> Lou
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlFriends,
The psychology of hate could induce suicide and murder. You see, hate causes torment and people that have hate induced into them can be driven to murder/suicide to stop their torment.
Before I go on, be advised that a lot of what I intend to post here comes from Yale University and other universities from Canada and Europe and other countries. With this knowledge, I am able to see right through what is being promoted here that could lead to your death, a life-ruining condition/addiction, and the deaths of innocent people being murdered by those taking the drugs promoted here.
One aspect of the psychology of hate involves blaming others, and when the person has that instilled in them, the blame can go outward and the person believes that they are doing what will be good for the community as a whole. In fact, in my study of cults, this has been carried out in mass-suicide and murder.
The componants of how hate is instilled in a group have been identified by psychologists as a partial list here:
discrimination, prejudice,intergroup aggression, sterotyping.
How this is promoted in a group has been well-known for thousands of years. It is promoted by the following as a partil list:
The authority figure endorses the hate
the authority figure justifies the hate
the authority figure controls the content of what members are allowed to know or not by repression or restriction of outside information and outward pressure to the group members of threats to expel from the group or other punishments if they bring in outside information. This causes pressure and leads to an indoctrination of the members. Then the remaining members show a level of devotion to the leader and are led to believe that they are doing a collective good of the group. This has been played over and over not by masterminds, but by people that can control others because of {bystander apathy}, which has been said that all that is needed for hate to stand is for good members to do nothing.
I intend to further write here what I think could save your life, lead you to understnd the psychology o hate, providing that the rule of three does not apply.
Lou
Posted by larryhoover on January 6, 2013, at 20:56:42
In reply to Lou's response-heybrehy, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 9:23:58
> Last year alone, 42,000 people died from psychotropic drugs by one means or another.
No, Lou, they did not. And I put you at strict proof of that. If you cannot verify this assertion, supported by an internationally accepted source (e.g. WHO, FDA), then you must immediately cease and desist from posting these absurd factoids. And it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. It is solely about your lack of verification.
Lar
(professional scientist, specializing in environmental toxicology)
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 21:32:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response-heybrehy » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on January 6, 2013, at 20:56:42
> > Last year alone, 42,000 people died from psychotropic drugs by one means or another.
>
> No, Lou, they did not. And I put you at strict proof of that. If you cannot verify this assertion, supported by an internationally accepted source (e.g. WHO, FDA), then you must immediately cease and desist from posting these absurd factoids. And it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. It is solely about your lack of verification.
>
> Lar
> (professional scientist, specializing in environmental toxicology)Larry,
Here is an article that cites the 42000 that died last year as a result of psychiaric drugs.
If you want verification of that number, you could write the cdc or fda and there are other cites that have this same undisputed number. And btw, I consider the number to be an understatement and that 100 times that many died, because the 42000 is representing those deaths {reported} and there could be 100 times that unreported.
Lou
To see this article:
A. Go to Google
B. Type in:
[Dr. Mercola, psychiatric drugs,42000 died]
there is a pic of him...posted on March 7 2011
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 21:35:42
In reply to Lou's reply-dhawehyjizofpsyn » larryhoover, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 21:32:14
If the meds I took hadn't affected me the way they did, I would have thought 42,000 would be an insanely high number. But it may be 42,000 globally.
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 21:45:46
In reply to Re: 'Anti psychiatry ruined my life', posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 6, 2013, at 4:46:42
> The FDA in America and equivelent agencies in other countries mandate what infomation the drug companies give out in their data sheets and product monographs
>
> if you focused only on side effects your never take any drug at all, you'd reject penicillin even if you had pneumonie if you focused too much on the side effectsJono' something you said a month or 2 ago concrned me. Now, I know I don't know all about your condition, so I may be far off.
But I believe you said you have been on an SSRI. I think you said Zoloft, right? Then after having already been on it for a while and benefitting from it you developed anxiety out of nowhere an you were having it for no reason. I don't remember your words exactly, so don't think I'm quoting you.But what if zoloft or another med is causing the problem?
I have experienced something a few times where a certain med will be helping me with something and then after a period of time its effects reverse and it starts making my condition worse.
Posted by SLS on January 6, 2013, at 21:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-dhawehyjizofpsyn, posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 21:35:42
> If the meds I took hadn't affected me the way they did, I would have thought 42,000 would be an insanely high number. But it may be 42,000 globally.
42,000 people may have died while taking antidepressants, but what did they die of?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 6, 2013, at 22:08:26
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by SLS on January 6, 2013, at 21:52:40
> > If the meds I took hadn't affected me the way they did, I would have thought 42,000 would be an insanely high number. But it may be 42,000 globally.
> 42,000 people may have died while taking antidepressants, but what did they die of?Actually, I shouldn't even entertain this question without having more information.
I would like to see the source of this 42,000 number and not depend on the hearsay produced by Mercola or anyone else so that it can be verified and interpreted.
- Scott
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 22:12:09
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by SLS on January 6, 2013, at 21:52:40
> > If the meds I took hadn't affected me the way they did, I would have thought 42,000 would be an insanely high number. But it may be 42,000 globally.
>
> 42,000 people may have died while taking antidepressants, but what did they die of?
>
>
> - ScottHa! That's a much more comlicated question.
If I had not had a family to fall back on. If I had already been moved out of my parents, or if I were older and my parents hadalready passed away, the antidepressants would have been a direct cause of my death.But, lou isbprobably talking about suicides while taking antidepressants. Or violence while on antidepressants. I don't know all about the Connecticut school shooters health, but I can easily see mental health medications being a direct cause of something like that.
What adam lanza did was just unnatural. No one in their right mind could do something like that. I could be very wrong in this case, but I can say without a doubt that there were other shootings where the medicine was the direct cause.
Posted by larryhoover on January 6, 2013, at 22:24:10
In reply to Lou's reply-dhawehyjizofpsyn » larryhoover, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2013, at 21:32:14
> > > Last year alone, 42,000 people died from psychotropic drugs by one means or another.
> >
> > No, Lou, they did not. And I put you at strict proof of that. If you cannot verify this assertion, supported by an internationally accepted source (e.g. WHO, FDA), then you must immediately cease and desist from posting these absurd factoids. And it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. It is solely about your lack of verification.
> >
> > Lar
> > (professional scientist, specializing in environmental toxicology)
>
> Larry,
> Here is an article that cites the 42000 that died last year as a result of psychiaric drugs.
> If you want verification of that number, you could write the cdc or fda and there are other cites that have this same undisputed number. And btw, I consider the number to be an understatement and that 100 times that many died, because the 42000 is representing those deaths {reported} and there could be 100 times that unreported.
> Lou
> To see this article:
> A. Go to Google
> B. Type in:
> [Dr. Mercola, psychiatric drugs,42000 died]
> there is a pic of him...posted on March 7 2011Lou, this is an unreferenced internet article, not a reference of the quality I sought from you. Mercola is a quack, and he proves it by hopelessly confounding his own definitions. He talks about the number of antidepressant prescriptions, and then goes on to assert that a certain number of deaths were attributable to psych drugs. Clearly, those are not the same thing. But, even if all of the deaths were attributable to obtaining an antidepressant prescription, the death rate amounts to 18.26 per 100,000. As the death rate in the U.S. was most recently set at 794/100,000, your statistics would clearly indicate that antidepressants were protective against mortality.
Another set of statistics suggested that 27,000,000 Americans were exposed to antidepressants. Again, applying the purported psych drug mortality entirely to this class of meds, that gives a mortality rate of 643/100,000, once again substantially below the all-cause mortality rate.
Surely, you know that depression is itself a fatal disease, so this is an inherent confound. But, the evidence you have provided demonstrates a protective effect based on antidepressant exposure. And exposure is not synonymous with causality, as Scott has pointed out. In any case, you are obviously full of {redacted, but a slang term for cattle diarrhea}.
Please provide proper evidence of your assertions, or STFU.
Lar
Posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 22:25:21
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 22:12:09
I have been through so much because of these medications. I' not looking for sympathy but I just want it known what they can do to a man, a woman and a child. They can change you into someone that you yourself can't recognize. Give you downright evil thoughts. Make you think the world is against you. Make you even think God is against you.
This is why I can see someone doing something like what Adam Lanza did. And the direct cause being the medicine.
Yes, he needed mental health care, but the medicine just isn't good enough yet. I don't know what should be done with people like him. It is a horrible thought for me to say we should start taking someones rights away because they are severely mentally I'll. I just don't know what should be done.
Posted by SLS on January 7, 2013, at 7:32:45
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin, posted by poser938 on January 6, 2013, at 22:12:09
> What adam lanza did was just unnatural. No one in their right mind could do something like that. I could be very wrong in this case, but I can say without a doubt that there were other shootings where the medicine was the direct cause.
Or, certainly a contributing factor. I have no problem with the idea that there are people who react badly to one antidepressant or another. Depending on the pre-existing psychobiological substrate of an individual, this can be violent, either against others or against oneself. I see more people have a depressive reaction than a hostile one. Statistics are important, and have not been adequately synthesized to be able to tell just how often such a reaction occurs, and what percentage of those are suicidal or homicidal. People without problems don't report their experiences. People with problems do. For this reason alone, one must be careful when evaluating the numbers presented by websites like eHealthMe.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on January 7, 2013, at 18:40:19
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » poser938, posted by SLS on January 7, 2013, at 7:32:45
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/21/sandy-hook-shooting-the-speculation-must-sto
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.