Posted by JohnL on October 28, 2000, at 6:10:25
In reply to Re: SLS...self medicating » JohnL, posted by SLS on October 27, 2000, at 22:48:31
READERS PLEASE NOTE. CAPITAL LETTERS ARE NOT SCREAMING. THEY ARE MEANT MERELY FOR EASIER READING IN A TWO-WAY CONVERSATION. THE TONE IS QUIET AND CALM. IT'S JUST EASIER READING.
> Please don't take my unwillingness to continue to discuss things with you as capitulation.
> Consider it an attempt at self-restraint.
> ....HUH? FROM WHAT?
> (Advisement: The following 5 sentences are inappropriate, provocative, and a display of my tendency to take the coward's way out by making things personal. But I figured "what the hell." The hell with accountability. For those motivated to defend, please show me some mercy.)
> ....ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL.
> I really don't want to embarrass you any more than you have already embarrassed yourself in my eyes. You have given me plenty of material to work with. I would only suggest that you consider toning-down your, what I consider to be, tendency to prescribe treatments without a license. After all, an M.D. pays good money for malpractice insurance. It doesn't seem fair that you shouldn't.
> ....I'M NOT EMBARRASSED. I DO NOT AND CANNOT PRESCRIBE, ONLY SUGGEST FOR CONSIDERATION. AMMUNITION TO WORK WITH? WHAT, ARE YOU OUT TO AMBUSH? I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DRUGS.
> You stated that you had a "purpose". I can't imagine what this purpose might be.
> ....TO HELP PEOPLE SEE THEIR OPTIONS. PEOPLE HELPED ME THE SAME, AND I LIKED IT. ANOTHER PURPOSE IS TO GET HELP AND IDEAS WHEN I NEED THEM. I WOULDN'T BE AS WELL AS I AM WITHOUT THE THOUGHTFUL DIRECTION OF OTHERS HERE.
> I understand that it is currently your privilege to tell people whatever you want to. Your privilege is not unique.
> ....I'M NO MORE AND NO LESS UNIQUE THAN ANYONE ELSE HERE.
> If you are so inclined to continue to tell people that it is senseless to continue an antidepressant beyond two weeks if they have felt nothing, I will be inclined to disagree with you. That will probably entail more than just my saying "I disagree".
> ....FINE WITH ME. PEOPLE CAN DECIDE ALONG WITH THEIR DOCTOR WHAT'S BEST.
> John, do I have to ask *you* a million times? Or did you understand my question the first time.
> ....ALRIGHT, A MILLION AND ONE TIMES. SORRY.
> In your attempt to sell Dr. Jensen, you have cited for these last six months the existence of three medical schools that include Jensen in their curriculum.
> ....JENSEN DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP SELLING. I DON'T MAKE COMMISSION. HE'S A DOCTOR WITH HIS OWN OFFICE AND MORE PATIENTS THAN CAN GET IN, NOT A VENDOR. I DON'T TRY TO SELL. SOME PEOPLE TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY. I OFFER A DIFFERENT APPROACH IN CASES WHERE STANDARD ONES ARE FAILING.
> Q: What are the names of these three medical schools?
> ....DON'T REMEMBER. IT'S NOT RELEVENT TO MY TREATMENT. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND OUT.
> I doubt you have anything to fear. I'm sure your claims are legitimate. Actually, you shouldn't have anything to fear to begin with. Your reputation isn't being called into question, is it? Let's just work on Dr. Martin Jensen.
> ....OK. WHATEVER. IF YOU SAY SO.
> If your friend doesn't get his website back on line soon, I may have to take a trip to the library. Help save me some gasoline and just name these three schools - at least the one that I vaguely recall you specifying in a previous post.
> ....MY 'FRIEND'? I DON'T EVEN HARDLY KNOW THW GUY. I KNOW HOW HE PRACTICES MEDICINE, I KNOW HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS, I KNOW HE WAS REAL HUMBLE AND PRO WHEN I TALKED WITH HIM, BUT 'FRIEND' HE'S NOT. I DID HAVE THE NAMES OF SCHOOLS AT ONE TIME WRITTEN DOWN. APOLOGIZE FOR LOSING THEM AND FORGETTING. IT JUST WASN'T RELEVENT TO ME AND I LOST THE STUFF.
> Thank you. I appreciate your attention in this matter, as it will help educate Psycho-Babble as to the respect that the medical community affords Dr. Jensen.
> ....I THINK YOUR 'RESEARCH' WOULD BE BETTER SPENT TRACKING DOWN EX-PATIENTS OF HIS. THAT WILL PROVIDE A TRUE MEANINGFULL SENSE OF CREDIBILITY OR LACK OF.
> Regarding c-FOS. I did not indicate that I felt it necessary for Dr. Jensen to discuss it in his book written primarily for the layman. However, it will be necessary for you to discuss it if you want to defend Jensen's assertions on how the human brain works, how drugs work, and the pathophysiology of affective disorders. Otherwise, I'm not sure it is indicated that you should try. You've had enough time to look up c-FOS, so I guess you are off to a good start.
> ....HALF THE BOOK IS FOR THE LAYMAN. HALF IS FOR THE PHYSICIAN. IT'S PROBABLY OVER THE HEADS OF MOST LAYMEN. IT'S A TWO PART BOOK DESIGNED TO HELP BOTH PATIENT AND DOCTOR DECIDE ON THEIR ROADMAPS IN TREATMENT. I DON'T CARE HOW THE BRAIN WORKS. ALL I CARE IS THAT WE HAVE A LOGICAL ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF GETTING SUFFERING PEOPLE WELL. SCIENCE DOESN'T DO THAT. THE BRIGHTEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS IN THE NEOROLOGICAL WORLD HAVE NO MORE ABILITY TO HEAL A PATIENT QUICKLY THAN DOES JENSEN. IF ANYTHING, PROBABLY LESS.
> * For those following this thread, I would like to offer an opinion:
> If I were you, I would not listen to either JohnL or SLS (me) if you want consistently accurate facts and well-tempered judgment. There are quite a few intelligent (and brilliant), educated, informed, and caring people on this board without some sort of agenda of "purpose". I know I'm putting some people on the spot, and I will be forgetting so many, but... If I were me, I would pay particular attention to folks like Cam W., Sunnely, Danf, Noa, Medlib, AndrewB, Adam, stJames, Elizabeth (Shapere), PeterJ, and anyone who is kind enough to share their personal experiences with specific drugs and other treatment modalities.
> ....SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY. EVERYONE KNOWS HOW INACCURATE, UNINFORMED, UNEDUCATED, UNINTELLIGENT, AND UNCARING I AM. I DON'T KNOW A DARN THING AND COULD CARE LESS ABOUT ANYONE. YEAH RIGHT. BOY DID YOU HIT A FOUL BALL ON THIS ONE.
> "Your reputation isn't being called into question, is it?"
> ....SURE LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. AT LEAST BY ONE BITTER SOUL ANYWAY. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS BITTERNESS? WHY? MAY I SUGGEST A PROTOCAL TO TREAT IT (just kidding :-0)
> Have I kissed enough butts?
> ....LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. TALK ABOUT AGENDAS AND PURPOSE. WHOA. YOURS ARE OK, BUT MINE AREN'T? IS THAT IT?
> Why things work is not nearly so important as what does work. I currently don't see any evidence that 3-4 day trials of a sequence of antidepressants works. I can think of a few reasons why it could be counterproductive. It might actually prevent someone from being as responsive to any one of the medications once the medication has been introduced a second time to what had previously been a drug-naive brain. In addition, I can't help to be fearful that a "pulsing" of so many antidepressants will precipitate mania in vulnerable individuals and induce an extremely difficult to treat rapid-cycling course. FACT: These things do happen. They are well documented. QUESTION: Will they happen using the Jensen 3-4 day protocol? I don't know. NOT FACT: I think they might.
> ....FLIP FLOP. IN ADDITION, YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THE PROCEDURE WORKS. YOUR ABOVE SCENARIO WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT HAPPEN. DON'T MAKE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ON SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW. NOT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT 3-4 DAY RESPONSES DO OCCUR. THEY'RE ON RECORD IN THE ARCHIVES. SINCE YOU ARE ENGROSSED IN RESEARCH AND DETECTIVE WORK, GO FIND THEM. THEY ARE THERE. "What's this six week wait thing? I feel better my first day on Wellbutrin." JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENT IS WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE NOT HAVING STUDIED TTHE PROCEDURE.
> I'm not sure it makes sense to "rock 'n' roll" when it comes to using such potent drug treatments for such a serious and debilitating illness.
> ....GOOD MOOD AT THE TIME. BAD CHOICE OD WORDS MAYBE. SORRY IF I OFFENDED. THAT'S WHAT MY FAMILY PHYSICIAN SAID TO ME WHEN HE GAVE ME A SAMPLE OF PROZAC...'LET'S ROCK N ROLL'. SINCE A DOCTOR SAID IT TO ME, IT JUST KINDA STUCK. I THOUGHT IT WAS OK.
> Everyone be well, get well, and stay well. God bless all of us.
> ....FLIP FLOP. CONTRADICTION. YOU SHOULDN'T BRING THE DEVINE'S NAME INTO SUCH WRATH AS THIS POST.
> - Scott
> - John
> By the way, John. I am definitely not too funny.
> ....LOL. YOU'RE SO OFF BASE SOMETIMES I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE SERIOUS OR JOKING.
> I also want to make it clear that I am not to be included in the word "we" that you have become so fond of using. I'm not sure the rest of psychoneuropharmacological psychiatry would want to be either.
> ....I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY WORLD, BUT FOR YOUR SAKE, OK.
> What are the names of the three medical schools?
> ....DUNNO. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND OUT.
> If you can believe it, this has been restraint.
> ....MY MY, FROM WHERE DO YOU GET THIS BITTER SOUL? BASED ON YOUR TONE, YOU WOULD ALMOST THINK I BURNED YOUR HOUSE, RAPED YOUR SISTER, STOLE YOUR CAR, AND GOT YOU FIRED FROM WORK. AND TO THINK ALL THIS STARTED WHILE TALKING ABOUT DRUGS. WHEW. BOY DID THIS GET OFF TOPIC, OR WHAT?
WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO BE THE TARGET OF SUCH WRATH???