![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 58 to 82 of 148. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on July 2, 2005, at 0:55:33
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by Nezirov on July 1, 2005, at 23:12:43
Got here late driving all day to Charlotte. But it seems like N is getting by, by the skin of his teeth. flmm there was one post where he was uncivil in my opinion only to you but you took it in stride. We seem to be able to stand up for what we believe is right or wrong without complaining to Dr. Bob. At the end of the discussion a lot of good points were expressed. It's as if this is a "should be continued"......Fondly, Phllippa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2005, at 2:17:58
In reply to perhaps it's your combativeness? (nm), posted by sleepygirl on July 1, 2005, at 21:47:21
> Psychiatry ... is an absolute disgrace. It is morally bankrupt, and all about power, control, and money.
>
> Nezirov> Dream on Dr. Nezerov, you need medication too!
>
> flmm> perhaps it's your combativeness?
>
> sleepygirlPlease don't exaggerate or overgeneralize or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by linkadge on July 2, 2005, at 3:09:25
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by Phillipa on July 1, 2005, at 23:38:02
I agree with most of what you say. There is a limit, IMO, as to where to draw the line.
Certain persons are severely depressed. To me, it seems extrordinarly juvinile, for Tom Cruse to approach the topic in such a way. He is a whistle blower. Do you know how extrordinarily easy it is to be a whistle blower? Depression invloves a lot of guilt, do these patients really need more guilt? Bottom line, people need tangable solns.
I would agree that many people take these drugs without knowing what they can fully do, they are certainly not risk free. There are others, who fully know what they can and cannot do, and yet still choose to take them.You may have mentally lumped me in with a whole bunch of naive drug users but I pose a challenge for you.
Tell me one alternative, non drug approach to treating depression that I have not yet tried.
I dare you !!Linkadge
Posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 5:21:55
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society-Nevrov, posted by linkadge on July 2, 2005, at 3:09:25
Yes Linkadge!...I like your question!
>Tell me one alternative, non drug approach to treating depression that I have not yet tried.
I dare you !!I asked Nezirov this same thing in a similar way..
Like I said before, you can quite easily, Nezirov, say that all these medications are a disgrace and psychiatry is terrible etc etc Bear in mind though that as much as your intentions maybe good for informaing people of this....they may also be offending people in way because other people on here reply on such medications..
I personally think you most probably didn't really need to even be prescribed an anti-depressant in the first place, would you agree?...In a nutshell your views are based on people who have very mild symtoms then and could be helped by talk therapy perhaps ~ you speak for these people with mild symtoms, who go to a doctor presenting these mild symtoms but get medication when it is not needed.
In the mean time understand that most people on this board, I believe do not have mild symtoms like yourself.
Many of these people cannot simply say "oh I'm not going to take my meds because I get sexual side effects" because if they don't take their meds they get sucide thoughts and extream side effects from there illness which far out-weigh the side effects from the medications.
You answered this question eariler with a very bold statement indeed.
---------------------
> Invent a better drug youself, in your basement.
Huh? Actually I have the scientific exertise to do that
--------------------
What is your scientific background?
Like I said before "anti psychiatry" people think they have all the ansers becasue they can say how bad medications are and so on.
Now you have expressed many many times your view on this.
Lets you if you can now do the same with so many writings on how you personally think you can treat:
Schizophrenia - Paranoid, delusional, etc.
Bipolar disorder - Mania Symtoms, Mixed states & Bipolar depression.
Severe depression
Severe depression with anxiety
Servere anxiety
ADHD
I look forward to the many positive repsonses which could possibly equal the many negative ones you have to say about psychiatry...possibly without a politicians answer - by which I mean direct sloutions to the illness presented before us today.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 7:41:08
In reply to Re: personally i hope people listen to him..., posted by Nezirov on July 1, 2005, at 19:03:12
> As I've said before, some people do require these medications.
Under what circumstances would these people require medications?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 7:55:31
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by willyee on July 1, 2005, at 23:35:03
Amidst his making movies, I wonder how Tom Cruise managed to afford and devote the time and energy necessary to "know the whole history of psychiatry" as he so confidently states. I'm sure he has thoroughly evaluated the PET scans and MRIs used by H. Manji to determine that the structual anomolies found in the brains of bipolar and schizophrenic patients are a hoax, and has prepared himself for the technical expertise to evaluate both the images and the methods used to produce them.
lol
That is only ONE study. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Tom Cruise knows the whole history of psychiatry.
LOL
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 8:00:05
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society-Nevrov, posted by linkadge on July 2, 2005, at 3:09:25
> Tell me one alternative, non drug approach to treating depression that I have not yet tried.
> I dare you !!
Scientological detoxification.Well, you asked.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 8:03:38
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 7:55:31
Let us not lose sight of the true focus here: the health of the individual.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 8:13:45
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by Phillipa on July 1, 2005, at 23:38:02
> At the end of the discussion a lot of good points were expressed. It's as if this is a "should be continued"
As long as there are people in the world who would get in the way of the individual seeking his health using the tools that are available to mankind, it is the discussion of the denial of these tools that should always be continued.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 8:32:46
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by willyee on July 1, 2005, at 23:35:03
Hi.
> I actualy agreed with some of toms comments.
I'm curious as to which ones you agree with.
> I agree with tom as to the fact chemical imbalance as a term is thrown around too easly.
But still believed too seldom.
> Anyone should be able to see we need more scieance behind the prescribing of these medications.
Everyone does, especially the neuroscientists who have devoted their entire careers to answering the questions as to how these medications work. However, it makes sense to use these drugs prior to their being completely understood. Homo Erectus used fire without having a clue as to how it worked (and continues to work). Actually, this has been true of the entirety of human history. There are still things about the physics of the universe that we cannot account for, including the subatomic forces involved in the production of fire. Perhaps we should stop using it.
- Scott
Posted by sleepygirl on July 2, 2005, at 12:35:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » Nezirov » flmm » sleepygirl, posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2005, at 2:17:58
Posted by 10derHeart on July 2, 2005, at 12:42:14
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society » willyee, posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 8:32:46
Posted by sleepygirl on July 2, 2005, at 12:48:35
In reply to Point well taken, Scott :-) (nm) » SLS, posted by 10derHeart on July 2, 2005, at 12:42:14
OK-I think that was a nice redirection toward why we would deny any tools to combat mental illness. Why wouldn't we use whatever we can? I'm keeping this in mind.
Posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 13:34:08
In reply to discussion of denial of tools, posted by sleepygirl on July 2, 2005, at 12:48:35
Hi Guys,
I could reply to all of these individual posts, but I'm not going to. It's obvious you've already firmly made up your minds about this and will not be dissuaded otherwise.
Good luck to you all.
Nezirov
Posted by willyee on July 2, 2005, at 13:48:55
In reply to Re: discussion of denial of tools, posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 13:34:08
> Hi Guys,
>
> I could reply to all of these individual posts, but I'm not going to. It's obvious you've already firmly made up your minds about this and will not be dissuaded otherwise.
>
> Good luck to you all.
>
> NezirovA lot of the posts agreed with some of your views,as for changing anyones mind,just the same i doubt anyone here is going to change yours as well.
I simply think tom cruis attempted to dominate the conversation,in doing so PERSONALY i believe he lost credit to some of the things he was saying.He was not on political hardball being slaughtered by chris mattewhs,he came loose for no reason.I dident mind your post here at all.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 2, 2005, at 14:02:48
In reply to Re: please be civil-sorry Dr. Bob-I got snotty (nm), posted by sleepygirl on July 2, 2005, at 12:35:35
Posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 14:35:15
In reply to Re: discussion of denial of tools, posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 13:34:08
> Hi Guys,
>
> I could reply to all of these individual posts, but I'm not going to. It's obvious you've already firmly made up your minds about this and will not be dissuaded otherwise.Dissuaded from what?
As adults, we are quite capable of making our own decisions regarding treatment. How dare anyone presume that we are not.
I think it is important that the patient be made aware by their doctor the pros and cons and risk versus benefit of any treatment being considered. What you have brought us here is nothing new. As a group, we are fortunate enough to have the tools to educate ourselves. Unfortunately, this is not globally true.
It is also unfortunate that people with so little knowledge about psychiatry should so globally condemn it and the treatments it affords. This may or may not be applicable to you, but it sure seems to be true of Tom Cruise.
If you want to make a difference here, it is more productive to bring to discussion less global statements and those that are more specific to one detail at a time.
For instance, can an SSRI produce negative effects upon one's sexual function that last long after its discontinuation?
Psychiatry works as best it can, and, without the knowledge of some, acts as its own watchdog. Psychiatry is definitely one of the "softer" fields of medicine. This is entirely the fault of the complexity of the human brain. That the brain will one day be understood well enough to develop better treatments for illness is entirely the gift of this same organ.
- Scott
Posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 14:58:36
In reply to Re: discussion of denial of tools, posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 13:34:08
I knew you wouldn't be able to comment on alternatives as there are none. The anti psychiatry foundations set up around the world offer no alternatives either.
Thanks for replying though and good luck to you too.
Posted by gabbii on July 2, 2005, at 15:00:04
In reply to Re: medicating a sick society, posted by Nezirov on July 1, 2005, at 23:12:43
> Destructive power is growing exponentially, but altruism appears to be decreasing. Not good trends.
That seems to be a popular statement, I'm not sure what the basis for comparison is though.
Personally, I consider it to be a drastic improvement that I can't have a neighbour burned at the stake on a whim, legally own a black person as a slave, hobble a child in order that they cannot run away from their labors or bring a lunch to watch the Christians be fed to the lions. I don't have to worry about being forced to wear a chastity belt, my friend was not abused at a residential school like her mother was, (a punishment for being First Nations) and it really wouldn't go over well with the neighbors if I surrounded my house with people impaled on stakes so I could watch their suffering for entertainment. I don't fear the "mouth pear" or an "iron mask" or worse, for not being Christian, and though I suffer from depression and do not always agree with psychiatric treatments, I'm quite thankful I have not had to suffer having the "evil spirits" tortured out of me.
Anything else?
Posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 16:31:48
In reply to No Comment Nezirov on Expertise Alternatives, posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 14:58:36
Of course I can think of alterantives, it's just that I've realized that this is the wrong forum for such discussions.
Good luck.
Nezirov
> I knew you wouldn't be able to comment on alternatives as there are none. The anti psychiatry foundations set up around the world offer no alternatives either.
>
> Thanks for replying though and good luck to you too.
Posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 16:33:25
In reply to Re: discussion of denial of tools » Nezirov, posted by SLS on July 2, 2005, at 14:35:15
I'm itching to respond, but as I said in my previous message, I have realized that this is not the right forum for these kinds of dicussions. Good luck to you.
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > I could reply to all of these individual posts, but I'm not going to. It's obvious you've already firmly made up your minds about this and will not be dissuaded otherwise.
>
> Dissuaded from what?
>
> As adults, we are quite capable of making our own decisions regarding treatment. How dare anyone presume that we are not.
>
> I think it is important that the patient be made aware by their doctor the pros and cons and risk versus benefit of any treatment being considered. What you have brought us here is nothing new. As a group, we are fortunate enough to have the tools to educate ourselves. Unfortunately, this is not globally true.
>
> It is also unfortunate that people with so little knowledge about psychiatry should so globally condemn it and the treatments it affords. This may or may not be applicable to you, but it sure seems to be true of Tom Cruise.
>
> If you want to make a difference here, it is more productive to bring to discussion less global statements and those that are more specific to one detail at a time.
>
> For instance, can an SSRI produce negative effects upon one's sexual function that last long after its discontinuation?
>
> Psychiatry works as best it can, and, without the knowledge of some, acts as its own watchdog. Psychiatry is definitely one of the "softer" fields of medicine. This is entirely the fault of the complexity of the human brain. That the brain will one day be understood well enough to develop better treatments for illness is entirely the gift of this same organ.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 16:40:13
In reply to Re: No Comment Nezirov on Expertise Alternatives, posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 16:31:48
Support and Education forum...even an Alternative Forum for you to post..what more could you ask for... :-)
Take care lol
Posted by flmm on July 2, 2005, at 17:50:20
In reply to Re: No Comment Nezirov on Expertise Alternatives, posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 16:40:13
By the way, I just got back from seeing "War of the worlds". This is the worst Spielberg movie ever! I am not kidding, it is awful. Cruise etc. should be ashamed of the money they are stealing. This one is bad folks! Ireally wanted to like it. Not possible! Sorry Nez your boy stinx.
Posted by TomG on July 2, 2005, at 18:30:00
In reply to Re: Comment War of the worlds Sucks, posted by flmm on July 2, 2005, at 17:50:20
I've been doing some research on Scientology and found a reason why Tom might be so opposed to psychiatry in general.
"The story of Xenu is covered in OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to advanced members. It is described in more detail in the accompanying confidential "Assists" lecture of 3 October 1968. Direct quotes in this section are from these sources. (See also Scientology beliefs and practices)
75 million years ago, Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as Teegeeack. The planets were overpopulated, each having on average 178 billion people. The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with people "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth.
Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions of people to paralyse them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections." The kidnapped populace was loaded into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The space planes were exact copies of Douglas DC-8s, "except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't." DC-8s have jet engines, not propellers, although Hubbard may have meant the turbine fans.When the space planes had reached Teegeeack, the paralysed people were unloaded and stacked around the bases of volcanoes across the planet. Hydrogen bombs were lowered into the volcanoes, and all were detonated simultaneously. Only a few people's physical bodies survived."
I also thought that this was 'interesting' about L. Ron Hubbard as he wrote 'OT 111'.
"In a letter of the time to his wife Mary Sue[11], Hubbard said that, in order to assist his research, he was drinking a great deal of rum and taking stimulants and depressants ("I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys"). His assistant at the time, Virginia Downsborough, said that he "was existing almost totally on a diet of drugs."[12] Miller (p290) hypothesises that it was important for Hubbard to be found in a debilitated condition, so as to present OT III as "a research accomplishment of immense magnitude"."
Tom
Posted by Nezirov on July 2, 2005, at 18:48:04
In reply to Re: No Comment Nezirov on Expertise Alternatives, posted by Nickengland on July 2, 2005, at 16:40:13
That's not what I mean. It is obvious that most (all?) of you have embraced the pharmacological solution and that if I suggest alternatives, you will try to shoot them down. Besides, I'm not against the short-term use of certain drugs to get people "over the hump", but I am strongly opposed to the chronic use of these newer drugs that alter major neurotramsnitters for years at a time. If so many people had "chemical imbalances" as the drug companies would have us believe, the human species would have died out long ago.
You need to take a more holistic approach and treat the individual - look at their personal history and lifestyle and try to understand how that got to this point in their life. Not just say "you have a chemical imbalance, and should take this pill for the rest of your life".
Because I have been persoanlly effected by the inappropriate pushing of thsee drugs, I have submitted a scientific paper with case reports on the persistence of sexual side effects after using SSRIs to a medical journal. I believe I have an ethical obligation to do that, even though it could hurt my career. It amazes me that you can find internet postings about persistent secual side effects of SSRIs since way back ten years ago, when people first started using the internet. Yet, you will not find *one* case report in the medical literature. If there had been one, I would never have taken an SSRI in the first place. This to me speaks volumes about the moral integrity of psychiatrists and shows how little they listen to their patients. I've had people with persistent side effects of this nature tell me that they *begged* their shrinks to write up a case reprt or notify the FDA about this, but were flatly denied. There is not accountability and responsibilty. If and when my paper gets published (it may be blocked because of politics), I hope it prods the media to look at this issue in much more detail, and not just the sexual side effects.
I believe that there are other peristent effects of these drugs that last long after discontinuance, such as apathy and some cognitive deficits. I haven't experienced those myself, but I have heard from many people who have.
As I said previously, I am not opposed to the use of these medications for people who truly need them (and maybe I really needed a course of valium back in 2001), but the reuptake inhibitor drugs have been grossly over-marketed and pushed as a cure-all for everything from PMS to chronic pain. It's just wrong because people don't realize the heavy price they may pay in the long term for using these drugs. They effect too many systemes in the body and that's why there are so many side effects. By contrast, benzodiazepines work primarily on GABA metabolism in the amygdala - they are much more precise, but the drug companies have been pushing the SSRIs because they have patents on those, but not the benzos.
I can suse my own case as an example: When I initially got anxiety in 2001 (while working as a postdoc at a major medical university) the team of psychiatrists I saw (I agreed to be a subject in a training program for young shrinks) tried to push neurontin and paxil on me. I asked the psychiatrists why they thought these drugs were right for me, especially neurontin, which I'd never heard of and appeared to be an anti-epilepsy drug or something. Nobody could give me a proper answer. I asked again why I should try these newer drugs when something like a short course of valium would probably work just fine, but *not one* of then could give me an answer. None of them. So I took valium , and started to improve. But they kept hounding me about getting on an SSRI, even though I was improving. Wouldn't give up about it, and put so much pressure on me that I finally gave in and took the stuff. It was the wrost decision I've ever made in my life. In the future I will always trust my gut instincts and never go against them.
This is definitely my last post on this subject. Good luck to all.
Nezirov
Support and Education forum...even an Alternative Forum for you to post..what more could you ask for... :-)
>
> Take care lol
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.