![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by floatingbridge on August 8, 2011, at 11:40:50
In reply to Re: Jeez, I did it. Added risperdone. » floatingbridge, posted by SLS on August 8, 2011, at 9:48:09
Wow, Scott. Your google search certainly brought up more than mine ever did.
Thanks!
BTW, I had considered parnate because of fatigue, and that shows up in some of the search engine hits. But it really doesn't target anxiety (in general) as well, according to general knowledge, does it?
Of course, this is a discussion for myself and my doctor.
I really wanted to give you a big second thanks for your google search. :-)
Posted by floatingbridge on August 11, 2011, at 17:31:32
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia, posted by floatingbridge on August 3, 2011, at 22:20:29
Well, I will discuss discontinuing risperdone tomorrow with the pdoc. I think I feel better at a reduced dose of .0625 per night.
Will discuss how long I should really trial it for, since I don't want to bounce around.
I am disappointed right now, but found a therapist. I also think I did pretty good stepping out of my comfort zone to try a new med. I'm not booting it out yet. But ten days hasn't
improved what I most sought to improve.I have read that risperdone is especially helpful for curbing aggression, the sort that can manifest as SI or outbursts. If anything, I internalize. So aggression is there, but not expressed. Just wondering if the mood stabilizer route is the way to go.
Who knows? Until tomorrow....
Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2011, at 19:03:16
In reply to Risperdone, posted by floatingbridge on August 11, 2011, at 17:31:32
I can't speak to whether or not Risperdal is helpful to you. Or whether or not the ramping up of your other medication is affecting your Risperdal response.
But I don't think the means of action is all that specific. It is used to curb irritability and aggression, but it doesn't work directly on those things. It works by reducing agitation. It's a tranquilizer. So that if you're anxious, the tranquilizing effects might be helpful. If you are irritable or aggressive, the tranquilizing affects might help that. If you're buzzy from hypomania, the tranquilizing effects might help that. If you self injure, AP's may help not by addressing some center in your mind that causes self injury, but by calming the agitation that often leads to it. If you obsess or have difficulty with clarity of thought, and those difficulties are caused by anxiety, agitation, or an excess level of adrenaline or cortisol, the tranquilizing effect can be helpful.
Not for nothing were the old AP's called major tranquilizers to the minor tranquilizers of benzos. To me it's a different sort of tranquil. Benzos tranquilize my brain and sometimes make me sleepy. They affect my thought and ability to work in a negative way. While AP's tranquilize more at a deep down physical level. Very helpful for someone who often feels overwhelmed by the stimulation of everyday life.
I don't think any medications work all that specifically. I always loved this link. I had a huge ah-hah reaction to it. I suddenly realized that the fact that SSRI's were helpful in so many disorders didn't mean that those disorders were necessarily caused by low serotonin. It was just that SSRI's had an effect on mood in many people, and that effect was helpful in a wide range of illnesses.
Posted by floatingbridge on August 11, 2011, at 20:21:18
In reply to Re: Risperdone » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2011, at 19:03:16
Dinah, I am finding this a great link. How you ever found it, well thank you for sharing it. I am still reading it (it's suppertime around here), but I am inclined to say it would make a great sticky or whatever those things are called to this site.
The risperdone is tranquilizing. I read something I could almost understand about it potentiating the effects of benzodiazepines, as you had speculated earlier. This seemed a variant particular to, but not exclusively so, to
risperdone. I lost the link :-/. Unlike Abilify, there is nothing activating *for me* about it.My observations to date are increased crankiness and a deeper dip into my depressive/dysphoric state. The dip is not
all day. The crankiness, however, is. That could be explained in other ways such as I feel enough energy to be cranky, because I do have situations to be legitimately displeased with. GI issues seem more pronounced, but I seem to get *that* reaction to a slew of meds :-/. Again, in ten days time, it is difficult for me to be sure.Not being benzodiazepine naive, and being maintained on it for so long has difficulties, and one is feeling uncomfortable with another form of tranquilization.
I so appreciate your interest and the exchange of ideas on this. It has been enormously helpful, especially in kick starting and supporting a more observant stance on this. Medication trials can be so subjective, and I can become reactive to medications issues in general.
Thank you. Hope you are feeling well!
Posted by floatingbridge on August 12, 2011, at 1:11:18
In reply to Re: Risperdone » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2011, at 19:03:16
From this link:
>
> http://simonsobo.com/a-reevaluation-of-the-relationship-between-psychiatric-diagnosis-and-chemical-imbalances4) The chemical imbalance model is not an important part of the basic (animal) research being done to test new potential anxiolytics and anti-depressant agents. The chemical imbalance model might or might not stimulate a search for agents that effect given neurotransmitters, but while there is
some research on genetically predisposed strains of mice and
guinea pigs, who may be wired differently, or chemically different, most research is done on ordinary animals that are environmentally stressed and then relieved of this stress by potentially useful chemical agents. For example, the FST (forced swimming test) tests the ability of drugs to postpone
hopelessness in animals forced to swim and swim and swim to remain alive. SSRIs do this. So do noradrenergic agents (which interestingly enough, are more likely to cause the rats
to try to climb out of their test environment (Detke 1995)). More pointedly, for the purposes of my argument, rat pups that are isolated from their mother and litter mates produce ultrasonic sounds that are indicative of stress. SSRIs reduce these sounds. (Oliver, 1994) Recently, there was excitement
that substance P antagonists may be useful psychotropic agents because they were shown to reduce stress induced vocalizations in guinea pig pups (once again separated from their moms). A drug successfully screened in this manner will
certainly not be presented to patients as a drug that is so good at shutting off distress that it even works to subdue what might be considered the prototypical model of terror, a
helpless infant separated from its mother. A patient told he is being given a drug that will kill his reaction to what has been upsetting him will approach that treatment very differently than a patient given a different spin, one told that his medication is treating the chemical imbalance that is causing his ailment. *Similarly, primary care physicians and psychiatrists will be far
more enamored with the thought that an agent has been
tested (and even better, FDA approved) for a specific DSM-IV
disorder if the mindset is that the effectiveness is due to fixing faulty synapses, rather than that the patient is being drugged out of his suffering.*
-----------At the end of the paragraph is the idea that the spin that correcting a scientifically backed chemical imbalance is more appealing providers than 'drugging' a patient out of suffering.
I still wonder at the impasse that occurred in my former treatment why I was literally labelled an addict, told that repeatedly that I was both physically and psychologically
dependent on medication (um, yeah, duh), and driven into a terrible withdrawal. A few months prior, I was getting pretty desperate. I said to my pdoc/therapist that I really needed something to 'hit me on the head' pharmaceutically speaking,
to just put me out of my misery was the occasion arose, and that I did not likembeing heavily medicated 24/7. He started when I said that. He was shaken, actually; I know because he would quote this back me every other session to convey his concern how unhealthy this impulse was, how wrong, how disturbed he was. I am given to colorful language, true, but it did speak of my absolute despair over my dysphoric peaks. How I had always been able to use Xanax (within the bounds
of my prescription) to provide what I tried to explain as my panic button.But I had never abused or acted out these impulses. I had endured and endured, and I was trying express in my clearest voice that I was losing the ability and strength to endure. Yet my behavior had not changed. I kept accurate med records, took my meds as prescribed and admitted my to-go panic button, Xanax, was losing efficacy. Week after week, I soldiered into his office for more therapy of worsening quality and no medical treatment plan in sight.
I read the above paragraph and thiought that I unknowing crossed a very deep moral/ethical boundary with this doctor by becoming desperate enough to say, in other words, *yes, drug me, please!*. Not by any action other than the expression of my deperation and pain. Instead of mercy, I received no quarter. Within about two months, I was screaming my head off and at the ER with what I now realize
as a double withdrawal of Xanax and Emsam.I feel as if I have been on a forced swim myself for a very long time. I have always found the practice of laboratory forced swims wincingly painful. It is odd that a science that talks so often of genetics actually uses a 'nurture' stressor often in their tests. I think the conditions of a forced swim are
a valuable corollary to real life for many folks, certainly for me. Some of us just break down. However, it may not be giving us the evidence of the kind genetics we are told or believing we are seeing.There are still such moral underpinnings to science that remain for some unexamined. A Puritanicalism I had not seen before.... A squeamishness when encountering suffering.
Posted by Dinah on August 12, 2011, at 7:56:45
In reply to Re: Risperdone » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on August 11, 2011, at 20:21:18
I got the link from Babble. Not long after I came here, I think.
It's hard to understand how some medical dependence is addiction and how some is not considered a bad thing. I'm not sure how I'd function without my Provigil in the morning, and there for a while I thought I'd soon need more just to stay awake. Only other changes in my health woke me up enough to manage on what I'm prescribed. And it was physiological h*ll to wean myself from Luvox. Never again do I want to feel brain zaps.
Maybe the difference is how much the doctors see the drugs as having a negative impact on our lives? Or which medications bring a "high"? I've never quite understand that concept as I don't at all like the sensation that comes from large amounts of alchohol or pain meds. They make me feel sick and dizzy. But I daresay some meds are seen in a negative light by doctors.
Wishing to medicate away pain seems natural enough to me, and no cause for disapproval. The pain of agitation and anxiety can be overwhelming to those of us who are overly subject to it.
To some extent I blame the pdoc from h*ll for my worsening of symptoms. I was always anxious and prone to agitation, but I think those years on Luvox really did have a kindling effect, and lowered my threshold for reaction.
Posted by SLS on August 12, 2011, at 8:21:27
In reply to Re: Risperdone » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on August 12, 2011, at 7:56:45
Hi Dinah.
> To some extent I blame the pdoc from h*ll for my worsening of symptoms. I was always anxious and prone to agitation, but I think those years on Luvox really did have a kindling effect, and lowered my threshold for reaction.Excellent insights!
I hope you continue to visit the Medication board from time to time. Your knowledge and understanding are extremely valuable.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 12, 2011, at 12:38:46
In reply to Re: Risperdone » Dinah, posted by SLS on August 12, 2011, at 8:21:27
Thanks, Scott. :)
But I must confess that what little I know about meds, I mostly learned here, from posters like you.
Posted by Phillipa on August 12, 2011, at 19:22:36
In reply to Re: Risperdone » SLS, posted by Dinah on August 12, 2011, at 12:38:46
Dinah didn't realize you had used luvox you mention difficulty weaning off. How high a dose did you get to? And did it work for you at all. Thanks Phillipa
Posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 3:35:04
In reply to Compelled to quote.... » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on August 12, 2011, at 1:11:18
The Sabo article starts with a valid premise - that alleviating chronic psychic pain can produce significant resolution of many psychiatric disorders - but it seems to fall in the same mindset of other doctors saying that psych meds somehow produce a euthymic effect as simple and uncomplicated as painkillers. The same mindset that sees what psychiatric patients go through as merely the same life circumstances and stressors that everyone goes through. There are a lot of people diagnosed with depression who could benefit from psychotherapy and CBT and lifestyle changes and better support and better coping skills, et.al. and should not be on psych meds. But what about the many, many people with complex syndromes and hard biological deficits? I don't understand psychiatrists who have so little empathy for the raw pain and suffering their patients go through, and treat them like difficult weak children who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It's as if you need to be running around naked threatening people with a knife or a bowl of Jello or something, to get psychiatrists to realize that what we have is every bit as real a disease as cancer. The brains of people with MI are demonstrably different and damaged and produced severely reduced emotional and cognitive functioning. What's so hard about understanding this?
fb I'm glad you found another doctor. Mental illness has nothing to do with personality or life circumstances. You can enjoy people's company and have crippling social phobia. You can be an eternal optimist and have debilitating depression. If your old doc has ideas about you seeking some sort of drug-induced emotional high or tranquilized calm, then it's good you moved on. There is NOTHING wrong about seeking meds to get better. If they want to they can withdraw all cancer drug therapy and tell the patients to take Vitamin C and diet and exercise and go for a vacation and a 2nd honeymoon and see how far that gets them.
Posted by Dinah on August 16, 2011, at 5:03:25
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » floatingbridge, posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 3:35:04
It's been a while since I read the article, so I'm not sure if he implies that. But what I took from the article was sort of a refutation of what some people were saying about SSRI's at the time. That if you responded well to an SSRI, it meant that you were low on serotonin, or had some specific underlying condition. Or that such and such condition was caused by low serotonin.
I don't think the fact that the drug has a universal way of acting means that the patient doesn't have a real biological condition. Aspirin or prednisone work on a wide range of illnesses by reducing pain and inflammation. It isn't correcting some natural deficit of aspirin or steroids. It's just that many, but not all, medical conditions respond well to the conditions aspirin and prednisone bring about in the body.
It's the same reason AP's are helpful for more than psychosis. They have a tranquilizing effect. Many mental illnesses respond well to a tranquilizing effect whether or not there is an imbalance of dopamine.
I just took from it that psych meds might not be as specific as they are sometimes thought to be. That doesn't mean they are used to treat real conditions. But then I haven't read the article in full for some time.
Posted by floatingbridge on August 16, 2011, at 8:24:52
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » floatingbridge, posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 3:35:04
You heard about the jello...?
Posted by Phillipa on August 16, 2011, at 20:19:28
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » floatingbridge, posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 3:35:04
For me what's going on in my life is the stabalizing factor and seems to determine if I feel well or not. I do think I'd sleep as did before without the benzos even after 41 years but it's become a crutch. Now the strange luvox did something to my brain. Trying now to wean off it. Phillipa
Posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 23:24:27
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » hyperfocus, posted by Dinah on August 16, 2011, at 5:03:25
Yes that was one of the main points of the article - that ameliorating sadness and anxiety causes psych conditions across the spectrum to improve. I didn't mean to direct my response to you particularly. I just felt that he extended this observation into a familiar view that mental illness was somehow less deserving of drug therapy and research, that it was somehow less serious than cancer or other chronic diseases, and the treatment focus should be on psychodynamic processes. There was an article posted here from an NY paper recently that seemed to make similar claims - that the whole psych drug industry was essentially a multi-billion dollar charade. That kind of stuff really triggers me after meeting so many people here on PB who are just like me desperately seeking drug therapy that can help them get their lives back after losing so many years to this disease.
Of course a lot of us are atypical. The view that is espoused there could be true for the majority of MI patients. I'm one of those patients with hard biological deficits and complex symptoms and causes and that's the reason I ended up here. I'm inclined to believe that most MI patients are like me and people on PB but maybe they aren't. And yeah definitely if I didn't have so many deficiencies growing up I wouldn't be so ill right now...or maybe not. <sigh> I don't know. It's hard to figure out.
Posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 23:28:53
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » hyperfocus, posted by floatingbridge on August 16, 2011, at 8:24:52
that whole incident. Maybe they'll put it into the new DSM. Jellotaxia? Or maybe Wobbly Personality Disorder.
At least it wasn't chocolate pudding. We should count our blessings. Just take it one dish, or rather one day at a time.
Posted by SLS on August 17, 2011, at 7:01:32
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » Dinah, posted by hyperfocus on August 16, 2011, at 23:24:27
> that ameliorating sadness and anxiety causes psych conditions across the spectrum to improve.
In my opinion:
In more severe cases, I think this amelioration of psychosocial stress would help improve CGI scores as perceived by clinician ratings, but not necessarily improve the depressive illness overall as would be evident using other evaluation methods. I don't doubt, however, that the reduction of psychosocial stresses will help increase one's chances of response to medication and help prevent relapse. However, the more vegetative the condition, the less effect the amelioration of sadness and anxiety will have.
> I just felt that he extended this observation into a familiar view that mental illness was somehow less deserving of drug therapy and research, that it was somehow less serious than cancer or other chronic diseases, and the treatment focus should be on psychodynamic processes. There was an article posted here from an NY paper recently that seemed to make similar claims - that the whole psych drug industry was essentially a multi-billion dollar charade. That kind of stuff really triggers me after meeting so many people here on PB who are just like me desperately seeking drug therapy that can help them get their lives back after losing so many years to this disease.
I find these purports to be a trigger for me as well. I should think that these inaccurate percepts by these people would vanish were they to suddenly suffer the precipitation of a major mental illness. They would surely begin whistling a different tune.
Q: What motivates these people to promulgate false information about mental illness and the perpetuation of stigma? What is the agenda? Their attitudes seem cynical to me. I am not a big advocate of forming beliefs within that limiting milieu.
- Scott
Posted by floatingbridge on August 17, 2011, at 8:22:54
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote.... » hyperfocus, posted by SLS on August 17, 2011, at 7:01:32
Well, I don't understand the fine point of the complaints with this essay, though I must be missing something. I didn't feel medication was being given the back seat to therapy but rather our scientific assumptions of exactly how those medicines work was tentative,
Here's the abstract again:
The assumption that the etiologies of DSM-IV disorders are
fundamentally related to chemical imbalances is challenged.
While the chemical imbalance model may eventually be empirically shown to be unequivocally accurate in specific
disorders, this is not presently the case for any disorder. The
attempt to correct chemical imbalances through medication is
at the heart of modern psychiatric treatment, as are evidence-
based protocols which follow from the establishment of an
accurate diagnosis. * There is much to be said for this
approach, but the downside is that other medication treatment
strategies are rendered illegitimate.* Instead of correcting
imbalances, it is argued that *pharmacological agents may be viewed as inducing particular psychological states which
though not specifically related to diagnosis, are nonetheless the basis for the usefulness of the medication.* This
perspective provides justification for using medications in
clinical situations that may not even be DSM-IV defined. To
properly use medications in this way, patients must more often be viewed in the complexity usually associated with psychotherapy. A case is made against the widespread use
of medications by non-psychiatrists as well as the 15-minute,
once-a-month medication visits that have become standard psychiatric practice, both the product of the chemical imbalance model.I read this as supporting the use of medications the way many babblers do. In off-label ways to induce or count-
induced *psychological states* of well being. We really do not understand the chemical shortage or imbalance model all that
well, though talk as if this model were a truth accepted.
*there is much to be said for this approach, but the downside
is that other treatment strategies are rendered illegitimate*.How many of us use medication successfully off-label?
Further, the induction of a (helpful) psychological state with off label usage has it's best chance of being done in a more therapeutic alliance that the 15 min check in.
So read *inducing a physcological state* vs *the chemical imbalance theory*. The first sound less scientific and takes
more observation on the author's part than the 15 min dsm consult.I do not see the author replacing medication with therapy; rather widening the view in which and how we prescribe.
Again I see what I quoted a few posts up that the chemical imbalance model is more comfortable dispensing what are seen as 'missing chemicals' rather than inducing a psychological state for it's own state which might be viewed more like 'drugging' a patient. Read this way, is the author against the amelioration of real suffering or does he seek to widen application, done so with the care and observation that spending more than 15 minutes with a client can?
You all can give me a reality check here.
Thanks.
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2011, at 5:54:55
In reply to Re: Compelled to quote...., posted by floatingbridge on August 17, 2011, at 8:22:54
> Well, I don't understand the fine point of the complaints with this essay,
I was really replying to someone else's statements, which I see might not be an accurate representation of the article you posted here. I'm sorry for the confusion.
I agree with much of your paraphrasing of the article.
- Scott
Posted by Simon Sobo. M.D. on September 9, 2011, at 23:22:23
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia: SLS and others. What is it? » Christ_empowered, posted by floatingbridge on July 29, 2011, at 21:28:05
You might be interested in these article by me on bipolar disorder, http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/mood-disorders/content/article/10168/54226
http://simonsobo.blogspot.com/2005/03/summary-of-bipolar-disorder-article.html and
Posted by Simon Sobo. M.D. on September 9, 2011, at 23:40:46
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on August 3, 2011, at 9:03:25
Google Analytics led me to this site regarding my article being cited. In looking through some of the posts I think this article in particular, trying to deal with the whole issue of the weaknesses of psychiatric diagnosis might be the most helpful for your posters. "The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation"
http://simonsobo.com/the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-dsm-iv
Posted by floatingbridge on September 10, 2011, at 18:36:46
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia, posted by Simon Sobo. M.D. on September 9, 2011, at 23:40:46
Thank you for posting. Since someone (Dinah?) posted a link to your site, I've been slowly going through the articles.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2011, at 18:37:46
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia, posted by Simon Sobo. M.D. on September 9, 2011, at 23:40:46
> Google Analytics led me to this site regarding my article being cited. In looking through some of the posts I think this article in particular, trying to deal with the whole issue of the weaknesses of psychiatric diagnosis might be the most helpful for your posters. "The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation"
> http://simonsobo.com/the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-dsm-ivFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following video.
Lou
To view this video:
A. Pull up Google
B. Type in:
[youtube, Making a : The Untold Story of Psychotropic drugging Pt 2]
There will be a pic of a lady the time is 10 min posted on Jan 10 2009
Posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2011, at 20:26:23
In reply to Re: Cyclothymia, posted by Simon Sobo. M.D. on September 9, 2011, at 23:40:46
Perfectly said and right on target. To me understanding and talking are more important than chemicals. And I do know first hand that SSRI's do not help anxiety. Add a benzo and yes but it's the benzo the body just adapts to the SSRI or other med. Thanks for reenforcing what I have felt all along. Meds in of themselves are not the answer for me. Maybe lower than prescribing dose lowers anxiety enough for my brain to find a solution to the problem. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2011, at 20:46:20
In reply to Lou's response-dheuddrpsyd, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2011, at 18:37:46
> > Google Analytics led me to this site regarding my article being cited. In looking through some of the posts I think this article in particular, trying to deal with the whole issue of the weaknesses of psychiatric diagnosis might be the most helpful for your posters. "The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation"
> > http://simonsobo.com/the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-dsm-iv
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following video.
> Lou
> To view this video:
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [youtube, Making a : The Untold Story of Psychotropic drugging Pt 2]
> There will be a pic of a lady the time is 10 min posted on Jan 10 2009
>Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on this link. Then there is a link that is in the post that leads to a site that catalogs crimes such as murder and also suicides of people that were taking psychotropic drugs.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob org/babble/20110902/msgs/996161.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2011, at 20:50:11
In reply to Lou's response-, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2011, at 20:46:20
> > > Google Analytics led me to this site regarding my article being cited. In looking through some of the posts I think this article in particular, trying to deal with the whole issue of the weaknesses of psychiatric diagnosis might be the most helpful for your posters. "The strengths and weaknesses of DSM IV: How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation"
> > > http://simonsobo.com/the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-dsm-iv
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you view the following video.
> > Lou
> > To view this video:
> > A. Pull up Google
> > B. Type in:
> > [youtube, Making a : The Untold Story of Psychotropic drugging Pt 2]
> > There will be a pic of a lady the time is 10 min posted on Jan 10 2009
> >
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you click on this link. Then there is a link that is in the post that leads to a site that catalogs crimes such as murder and also suicides of people that were taking psychotropic drugs.
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob org/babble/20110902/msgs/996161.htmlcorrected:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110902/msgs/996161.html
This is the end of the 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.