![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 141. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:23
In reply to Lou's reply-hynuen-Robert_Burton_1621, posted by Lou Pilder on March 4, 2015, at 5:42:21
> > > Robert,
> You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
>This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
>and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hynuen-Robert_Burton_1621 » Lou Pilder, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 4, 2015, at 6:32:25
> > > > Robert,
> > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
>
> Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
>
>
> >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
>
> The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
>
> >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
>
> I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
>
> You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
>
> Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
>
>
> > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
>
> I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
>
> I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
>
> It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
>
> Robert,
You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
Lou
>
>
Posted by 10derheart on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:24
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hynuen-Robert_Burton_1621 » Lou Pilder, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 4, 2015, at 6:32:25
Posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:25
In reply to Superb post, RB. Appreciate it very much. (nm) » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by 10derheart on March 4, 2015, at 17:33:04
Thanks for the compliment, but no sweat; don't mention it :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:25
In reply to Re: SSRI withdrawal symptoms really scare me!, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 4, 2015, at 19:57:37
>
> > Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
>
> > I feel, from my perspective, that it is better to take into consideration well-evidenced information by people who have expertise in this particular area, than to rely reflexively on sites like drugs.com, but that is of course a matter for you and your doctors.
> >
>
> Just a quick note to supply support for the statement that mirtazapine "has been used" to treat serotonin toxicity. This statement did not, of course, imply that mirtazapine is the optimal treatment for serotonin toxicity or that it is in any way habitually used to treat symptoms along the spectrum of serotonin toxicity. Its 5HT2 antagonism may be a plausible mechanism whereby it has been used to treat ST, though I suspect that given that the potency of this antagonism is not among the highest, then the extent to which it was reported effectively to treat ST may have been proportionate to the degree of severity of the symptoms which were treated.
>
> Note that when I stated that it is erroneous to assert that the combination of mirtazapine with venlafaxine causes a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity, this applied only to any causal role of mirtazapine, not to that of venlafaxine. It also did not imply that mirtazapine has no potential for side-effects which are not related to serotonin-toxicity.
>
> Here are citations to work arguing for, and perhaps demonstrating: (1) the negligible serotonergic effect of mirtazapine; (2) the unlikelihood that it can induce serotonin toxicity; and (3) the fact that it has been used as a treatment for serotonin toxicity or symptoms of serotonin-induced side-effects.
>
> This is, to be sure, simply information I have sourced; my mentioning it carries no expert assessment of its definitiveness. That goes without saying. But it is possible to apply our own general critical intelligence to such information to assess whether it is likely to be worthy of consideration when we make any decisions about medication *with our doctor*. Drawing participants' attention to relevant information is intended to support the decision-making process they engage in with their clinicians. In my experience, some clinicians will not do any research themselves and patients are therefore, particularly if their conditions are long-standing and refactory, obliged through necessity to undertake research themselves. But given that most of us are not experts, the results of our research can mostly only be to expand the stock of information about which we are in a position to notify our clinicians. That can often be (though in those cases where clinicians are not receptive, usually is not) an empowering thing which *supports* and motivates our treatment under clinical supervision.
>
> (1)
>
> "A systematic review of the serotonergic effects of Mirtazapine: implications for its dual action status," Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
>
> "Mirtazapine: not a dual action antidepressant?" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (2004) 38, pp 266-7.
>
> "Mirtazapine enhances frontocortical dopaminergic and corticolimbic adrenergic, but not serotonergic, transmission by blockade of alpha2-adrenergic and serotonin2C receptors: a comparison with citalopram," Eur J Neurosci, (2000) 12(3), pp 1079 - 95.
>
> (2)
>
> "Mirtazapine: unable to induce serotonin toxicity?" Clinical Neuropharmacology, (2003) 26, pp 288-9.
>
> "A Review of Serotonin Toxicity Data: Implications for the Mechanisms of Antidepressant Drug Action," Biological Psychiatry, (2006) 59, pp 1046-51.
>
> "Adverse reactions to mirtazapine are unlikely to be serotonin toxicity," Clin. Neuropharmacology, (2003) 26, pp 287-288.
>
> "Mirtazapine overdose is unlikely to cause major toxicity," Clin Toxicology(Phila), (2014) 52(1), pp 20-4.
>
> (3)
>
> "Mirtazapine as treatment for serotonin syndrome," Pharmacopsychiatry, (1996) 29(2), 81.
>
> An authority refers to the above case study as "unsurprising, as [mirtazapine] is a 5-HT2A antagonist. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that 5-HT2A antagonists are effective treatments for [serotonin toxicity]": see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25, at p 122. The study is also referred to without criticism in Clinical Neuropharmacology (2003) 26(6), pp 288-9 at p 288.
>
> "Mirtazapine abolishes hyperthermia in an animal model of serotonin syndrome," Neuroscience Letters, (2010) 482(3), 216-9.
>
> "The effects of mirtazapine and fluoxetine on hyperthermia induced by 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in rats," Neuroscience Letters, (2011) 499(1), pp 24-7.
>
> Considers mianserin: "Role of 5-HT(2) receptors in the tryptamine-induced 5-HT syndrome in rats," Behavioural Pharmacology (2002) 13(4), pp 313-8.
>
> Considers mianserin: "Functional subsensitivity of 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors mediating hyperthermia following acute and chronic treatment with 5-HT2A/2C receptor antagonists," Psychopharmacology, (1997) 130(2), pp 144-51.
>
> 5-HT2A antagonists: "Potent serotonin (5-HT)(2A) receptor antagonists completely prevent the development of hyperthermia in an animal model of the 5-HT syndrome," Brain Research, (2001) 890(1), pp 23-31.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...it is better to take into consideration well-evidenced information by people who have expertise..than to rely..on sites like drugs.com...].
Now wait a minute. let us examine what this statement could mean.
The statement says that it is {better}. Here we have two things compared, and one is better. A generally accepted understanding of the slang expression, put down, involves comparing two things and saying that one is superior to the other or that one is inferior to the other. With that in mind, let us go on and the poster writes,[...well-evidenced information by people who have expertise...]. Does that mean that the people from drugs.com do not have expertise or use well-evidenced information in the area in question as to the combining of the two drugs could increase the aspect of getting serotonin syndrome exponentially? They got it from those some place, so could not those have the expertise and well-evidenced information to state that there is the great risk of serotonin syndrome from taking the combination of the two drugs? If not, why not?
You see, readers, there is a Great Deception going on of which I am prevented from posting here about due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mt. Hsiung. Mr. Hsiung also states that posters are to be civil at all times and that being supportive takes precedence, but he can leave an uncivil or unsupportive statement to be seen as civil or supportive because in his thinking it will be good for his community as a whole to do so. This puts me at a great disadvantage to offer support and education here, which is the goal of this forum.
You see, the site drugs.com is highly actuated and I know of no adverse reviews of the site. If they list adverse reactions from interactions of drugs, and they were reckless, do you not think that there would be challenges to what they say? I know of no challenges to the site's interaction feature. In fact, I see the same list of interactions on other sites. This could mean that there is well-evidenced information being presented. I am asking that readers not to accept any statements that could be construed to be defamatory about the site drugs.com as fact here, for to ignore the consequences of taking drugs together, could cost you your life.
Lou
>
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:26
In reply to Lou's reply-hynuen- » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by Lou Pilder on March 4, 2015, at 7:55:46
> > > > > Robert,
> > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> >
> > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> >
> >
> > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> >
> > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> >
> > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> >
> > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> >
> > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> >
> > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> >
> >
> > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> >
> > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> >
> > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> >
> > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> >
> > Robert,
> You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> Lou
> > Friends,
It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
Lou
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> >
>
>
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:26
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hynuen-Robert_Burton_1621 » Lou Pilder, posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 4, 2015, at 6:32:25
No message.
Posted by Lamdage22 on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:27
In reply to Lou's reply and warning from Robert Burton's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2015, at 6:22:31
knock off of wich drug Lou?
Posted by Robert_Burton_1621 on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply and warning from Robert Burton's post-, posted by Lamdage22 on March 6, 2015, at 12:07:59
> knock off of wich drug . . .?
Mianserin
Mirtazapine: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/4205?from=summary#section=Top
Mianserin: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/4184?from=summary
There may be little difference between these drugs: http://www.psychotropical.com/mirtazapine-a-paradigm-of-mediocre-science
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-hynuen-Robert_Burton_1621 (LIKE) » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by SLS on March 6, 2015, at 8:22:04
> No message.
Scott,
You wrote,[...Like..] for Robert's post.
I am unsure as to what youwant readers to think. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
I wrote, "Like", Lou, to Robert's post because:
A. (redacted by respondent) and that gives me gratification for me to like what he wrote
B. Readers could die by taking Robert's advise, Lou, and that would gratify me so I like the post, Lou
C. Mothers could drug their child by taking what Robert wrote and that would be gratifying to me, Lou, for I like mothers to drug their children in collaboration with a psychiatrist, Lou.
D. Readers could disregard the research from drugs.com from reading Robert's post and I would be gratified, Lou, so I like his post.
E. Robert's use of {eccentric hobby-horse} toward you, Lou, could cause readers to disregard what you post here, Lou, and I would be gratified so I like his post.
F. something else which is____________________
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:28
In reply to Lou's reply and warning from Robert Burton's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2015, at 6:22:31
> > > > > > Robert,
> > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > >
> > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > >
> > >
> > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > >
> > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > >
> > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > >
> > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > >
> > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > >
> > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > >
> > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > >
> > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > >
> > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > Lou
> > > Friends,
> It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> Lou
> http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > >
> > Robert,
You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
Lou
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:28
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-medadvise, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2015, at 5:48:43
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > >
> > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > >
> > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > >
> > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > >
> > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > >
> > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > >
> > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > >
> > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > >
> > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > >
> > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > >
> > > > Robert,
> > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > Lou
> > > > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > Lou
> > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > >
> > > Robert,
> You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> Lou
> > Robert,
Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
Lou
http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:29
In reply to Superb post, RB. Appreciate it very much. (nm) » Robert_Burton_1621, posted by 10derheart on March 4, 2015, at 17:33:04
10,
You wrote that Robert's post is superb. I am unsure as to what you want readers to think from that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
Robert's post is superb because:
A. He could lead readers to believe that they can take a combination of psychotropic drugs as he lists, and not be killed by serotonin syndrome.
B. His use of you, Lou, a person using an eccentric hobby-horse, could lead others to think of you in a disparaging way and decrease the respect and confidence in which you are held.
C. By him posting that drugs could be taken in combination as listed by him, mothers could be swayed to drug their child with that combination as seeing that what he posted could be considered to be supportive here since it stands un sanctioned.
D. By him posting what could be taken as advocating the taking of combinations of mind-altering drugs as listed, children reading here could take those combinations of drugs and have suicidal thinking increased exponentially.
E. something else which is __________________
LouB.
Posted by herpills on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:29
In reply to Lou's reply-hynuen-lyck » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on March 7, 2015, at 16:34:16
> > No message.
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Like..] for Robert's post.
> I am unsure as to what youwant readers to think.I think he means that he liked the post.
Posted by herpills on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:29
In reply to Lou's request-Sue Perb » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 9, 2015, at 10:20:14
> 10,
> You wrote that Robert's post is superb. I am unsure as to what you want readers to think from that.
I think they meant that they thought the post was superb.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:30
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2015, at 13:40:40
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > >
> > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > >
> > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > >
> > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > >
> > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > >
> > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert,
> > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > Lou
> > > > > Friends,
> > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > >
> > > > Robert,
> > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > Lou
> > > Robert,
> Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> Lou
> http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
>
> > > Robert,You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
Lou
[admin, 1050362 ]
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:30
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-1050362, posted by Lou Pilder on March 10, 2015, at 5:50:09
> > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > > Friends,
> > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > Lou
> > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > Robert,
> > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > Lou
> > > > Robert,
> > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > Lou
> > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> >
> > > > Robert,
>
> You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> Lou
> [admin, 1050362 ]
> > >
> > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
Lou
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:30
In reply to another way- Lou's reply to Robert-1050362, posted by Lou Pilder on March 10, 2015, at 6:12:12
> > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert,
> > > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > > Lou
> > > > > Robert,
> > > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > > Lou
> > > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> > >
> > > > > Robert,
> >
> > You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> > And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> > Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> > Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> > Lou
> > [admin, 1050362 ]
> > > >
> > > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
> Lou
> > > Robert,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. This site can reach homes all over the world. When Mr. Hsiung allows posts here that constitute dehumanization of the Jews, it is a world-wide defamation, not just here on this site.
Now here is a post that dehumanizes the Jews as is plainly visible. But what may be unbeknownst to you is that Mr. Hsiung did not abide by his own drafted rule to sanction the post. In fact, a sanction is not posted by him or any of his deputies of record even though he had in place a rule before the post was posted to not post to a link that has anti-Semitic content. The rule was even emphatic as he stated not to do so, period. That meant no exceptions. Then came:
[ admin, 428781 ]
Let readers look at this before going on.
Now if you have looked at the post, the dehumanizing accusations against the Jews that could foster anti-Semitic feelings here and to homes all over the world were allowed to be seen as being allowed to stand, being justified by the owner on the grounds that the hatred toward the Jews is in a link, even though the rule was in place that what is in a link is directly to the text and not immune from sanction just as if it is posted directly. He then says to the poster to post another link that omits the antisemitic hate that dehumanizes the Jews, without redacting what is in the link, nor posting his tagline to please be civil. This means that anti-Semitic propaganda could now be posted with impunity in a link as long as after posting the link, another link is posted omitting the anti-Semitism.
This altering of his own drafted rule is especially made here by the owner, and the owner wants readers to try to trust him for he is doing what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole by making a venue for hate to be posted with impunity as long as another post has a link omitting the defamation against the Jews is posted by the poster while the original post remains un sanctioned. This allows continual anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here without the poster being subjected to the TOS in relation to the enforcement section here. It is a special venue here by Mr. Hsiung for anti-Semitic hate only, for the rule to not post in a link what could be uncivil posted directly applied to posts that had links to uncivil content outside of anti-Semitic hate. In fact, the rule is so broad that I do not post links, but a way for you to see the link without me posting it by having you go to the search box and typing in key words that bring it up to you without it being seen on the board, for what is in the link can not be posted. But the anti-Semitism can be posted in a link. This can lead to thinking that there are two standards here that allow anitsemitic hate to be posted in a link, but anything else that could be uncivil to be not allowed. Just think about how this could dehumanize Jews here as a venue for posting hatred toward the Jews is devised here for members to be excepted from Mr. Hsiung's own drafted rules here. And then Mr. Hsiung could "miss" the link and it could stand forever as being civil and he makes another self-made rule that he says he can choose to not honor my notifications which if honord, would bring the post into light. What if the links had racist taunts in them? Could Mr. Hsiung allow that to be justified by the poster posting a different link omitting the racist taunts? What is the difference, if any?
In 428781, the dehumanizing of the Jews was initiated here to be allowed with the strategy that Mr. Hsiung implemented that could create and develop IMHO hatred toward the Jews here. The fact that Mr. Hsiung altered his own drafted rule to not post anti-Semitism in a link, period, leads one to form their own opinions as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent was in doing so. His intent is plainly stated as that he will be doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. And those Jews that suffer dehumanization from reading the anti-Semitic propaganda as seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and those feelings of dehumanization carried into the child reading here to kill themselves, they can not speak here, their dreams have ended, I will speak for them.
Lou
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by 10derheart on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:31
In reply to Lou's request-Sue Perb » 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 9, 2015, at 10:20:14
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:31
In reply to No thanks, Lou. I won't bite. {yawn} (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on March 10, 2015, at 16:25:37
10,
Since you are not going to accept my offer to post here what you want readers to think about that you wrote that the post by Robert is superb, would you be willing to;
A. Post that you rescind your statement that his post is superb?
B. email me with your answers?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:31
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-dehumanization, posted by Lou Pilder on March 10, 2015, at 8:04:07
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > > Robert,
> > > > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > > > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > > > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > Lou
> > > > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> > > >
> > > > > > Robert,
> > >
> > > You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> > > And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> > > Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> > > Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> > > Lou
> > > [admin, 1050362 ]
> > > > >
> > > > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
> > Lou
> > > > Robert,
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. This site can reach homes all over the world. When Mr. Hsiung allows posts here that constitute dehumanization of the Jews, it is a world-wide defamation, not just here on this site.
> Now here is a post that dehumanizes the Jews as is plainly visible. But what may be unbeknownst to you is that Mr. Hsiung did not abide by his own drafted rule to sanction the post. In fact, a sanction is not posted by him or any of his deputies of record even though he had in place a rule before the post was posted to not post to a link that has anti-Semitic content. The rule was even emphatic as he stated not to do so, period. That meant no exceptions. Then came:
> [ admin, 428781 ]
> Let readers look at this before going on.
> Now if you have looked at the post, the dehumanizing accusations against the Jews that could foster anti-Semitic feelings here and to homes all over the world were allowed to be seen as being allowed to stand, being justified by the owner on the grounds that the hatred toward the Jews is in a link, even though the rule was in place that what is in a link is directly to the text and not immune from sanction just as if it is posted directly. He then says to the poster to post another link that omits the antisemitic hate that dehumanizes the Jews, without redacting what is in the link, nor posting his tagline to please be civil. This means that anti-Semitic propaganda could now be posted with impunity in a link as long as after posting the link, another link is posted omitting the anti-Semitism.
> This altering of his own drafted rule is especially made here by the owner, and the owner wants readers to try to trust him for he is doing what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole by making a venue for hate to be posted with impunity as long as another post has a link omitting the defamation against the Jews is posted by the poster while the original post remains un sanctioned. This allows continual anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here without the poster being subjected to the TOS in relation to the enforcement section here. It is a special venue here by Mr. Hsiung for anti-Semitic hate only, for the rule to not post in a link what could be uncivil posted directly applied to posts that had links to uncivil content outside of anti-Semitic hate. In fact, the rule is so broad that I do not post links, but a way for you to see the link without me posting it by having you go to the search box and typing in key words that bring it up to you without it being seen on the board, for what is in the link can not be posted. But the anti-Semitism can be posted in a link. This can lead to thinking that there are two standards here that allow anitsemitic hate to be posted in a link, but anything else that could be uncivil to be not allowed. Just think about how this could dehumanize Jews here as a venue for posting hatred toward the Jews is devised here for members to be excepted from Mr. Hsiung's own drafted rules here. And then Mr. Hsiung could "miss" the link and it could stand forever as being civil and he makes another self-made rule that he says he can choose to not honor my notifications which if honord, would bring the post into light. What if the links had racist taunts in them? Could Mr. Hsiung allow that to be justified by the poster posting a different link omitting the racist taunts? What is the difference, if any?
> In 428781, the dehumanizing of the Jews was initiated here to be allowed with the strategy that Mr. Hsiung implemented that could create and develop IMHO hatred toward the Jews here. The fact that Mr. Hsiung altered his own drafted rule to not post anti-Semitism in a link, period, leads one to form their own opinions as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent was in doing so. His intent is plainly stated as that he will be doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. And those Jews that suffer dehumanization from reading the anti-Semitic propaganda as seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and those feelings of dehumanization carried into the child reading here to kill themselves, they can not speak here, their dreams have ended, I will speak for them.
> Lou
> > > >
> > > RFobert,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. When Jews are allowed to dehumanized here by the allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, then a subset of readers could think that Jews are inferior here as human beings to be seen as less than others here that have the protection of the rules, while the Jews do not have equal protection here from insults to their faith and Judaism is allowed to be defamed which could result in Jewish readers feeling put down and have feelings of unworthiness, as psychiatrists define such in depression.
In an instance here, the poster writes,[ admin, 1055904 ]. Let us look at that post before going on.
Now if you have read that post, notice that what is purported, as can be seen as civil here, is the dehumanization of Jews. The statement by the poster is the foundation of dehumanizing anti-Semitism, and is allowed to be seen as supportive here. And worse, I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And worse, the poster has impunity from the enforcement terms of service here and can continue to post even more of the same with impunity because Mr. Hsiung refuses to post his tagline to please be civil to the post where it is originally posted. This could give gratification to Jew-haters seeing that what is unsupportive that could lead a Jew to feel put down is considered to be civil here because it lacks sanction. and even worse, Mr. Hsiungg states that he can in a deliberate manner leave anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive, even though he admits that it is not supportive, because in his thinking:
[It will be good for this community as a whole to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned]
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1077202.html
That could lead a Jewish reader to feel dehumanized here when they read it, for it can be deduced from what Mr. Hsiung has posted here that Jews do not get the equal protection of his rules, but worse, he can choose to go out of his own rules and allow dehumanizing statements against Jews to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted.
This tactic is not new, my friend. It is an old tactic that was eradicated many years ago and now it's ugly head is arising here to inflame hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitic hate is being allowed to be seen here as supportive, and worse, that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it. That could summons Jew-haters to come out of their holes all over the world as them seeing that a psychiatrist is allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. This could go to schools and universities and to terror groups giving them support for their hate thinking of Jews as non-humans, undeserving of the rights of other human beings. Children reading here could bully Jewish children in schools thinking that they have an ally of the psychiatrist and could even show their mothers the anti-Semitic hate being allowed to be seen as supportive here pointing out "I saw it on Dr.-Bob's as civil, because I saw where he says that if it is not sanctioned, it is supportive and that being supportive takes precedence."
The dehumanization of Jews is nothing new, my friend. It is what can create and develop discrimination and lead to Jews being considered as inferior in a community so that those that even kill Jews can think in their sick minds that they are doing good, for they did not kill a human being in their sick minds.
Lou
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:32
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-dehumanization-skmyndz, posted by Lou Pilder on March 12, 2015, at 5:41:12
> > > > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > > > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > > > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > > > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > > > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > > > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > > > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > > > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > > > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > > > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > > > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > > > > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > > > > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > >
> > > > You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> > > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> > > > And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> > > > Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> > > > Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> > > > Lou
> > > > [admin, 1050362 ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > [ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
> > > Lou
> > > > > Robert,
> > Let there be no misunderstanding here. This site can reach homes all over the world. When Mr. Hsiung allows posts here that constitute dehumanization of the Jews, it is a world-wide defamation, not just here on this site.
> > Now here is a post that dehumanizes the Jews as is plainly visible. But what may be unbeknownst to you is that Mr. Hsiung did not abide by his own drafted rule to sanction the post. In fact, a sanction is not posted by him or any of his deputies of record even though he had in place a rule before the post was posted to not post to a link that has anti-Semitic content. The rule was even emphatic as he stated not to do so, period. That meant no exceptions. Then came:
> > [ admin, 428781 ]
> > Let readers look at this before going on.
> > Now if you have looked at the post, the dehumanizing accusations against the Jews that could foster anti-Semitic feelings here and to homes all over the world were allowed to be seen as being allowed to stand, being justified by the owner on the grounds that the hatred toward the Jews is in a link, even though the rule was in place that what is in a link is directly to the text and not immune from sanction just as if it is posted directly. He then says to the poster to post another link that omits the antisemitic hate that dehumanizes the Jews, without redacting what is in the link, nor posting his tagline to please be civil. This means that anti-Semitic propaganda could now be posted with impunity in a link as long as after posting the link, another link is posted omitting the anti-Semitism.
> > This altering of his own drafted rule is especially made here by the owner, and the owner wants readers to try to trust him for he is doing what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole by making a venue for hate to be posted with impunity as long as another post has a link omitting the defamation against the Jews is posted by the poster while the original post remains un sanctioned. This allows continual anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here without the poster being subjected to the TOS in relation to the enforcement section here. It is a special venue here by Mr. Hsiung for anti-Semitic hate only, for the rule to not post in a link what could be uncivil posted directly applied to posts that had links to uncivil content outside of anti-Semitic hate. In fact, the rule is so broad that I do not post links, but a way for you to see the link without me posting it by having you go to the search box and typing in key words that bring it up to you without it being seen on the board, for what is in the link can not be posted. But the anti-Semitism can be posted in a link. This can lead to thinking that there are two standards here that allow anitsemitic hate to be posted in a link, but anything else that could be uncivil to be not allowed. Just think about how this could dehumanize Jews here as a venue for posting hatred toward the Jews is devised here for members to be excepted from Mr. Hsiung's own drafted rules here. And then Mr. Hsiung could "miss" the link and it could stand forever as being civil and he makes another self-made rule that he says he can choose to not honor my notifications which if honord, would bring the post into light. What if the links had racist taunts in them? Could Mr. Hsiung allow that to be justified by the poster posting a different link omitting the racist taunts? What is the difference, if any?
> > In 428781, the dehumanizing of the Jews was initiated here to be allowed with the strategy that Mr. Hsiung implemented that could create and develop IMHO hatred toward the Jews here. The fact that Mr. Hsiung altered his own drafted rule to not post anti-Semitism in a link, period, leads one to form their own opinions as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent was in doing so. His intent is plainly stated as that he will be doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. And those Jews that suffer dehumanization from reading the anti-Semitic propaganda as seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and those feelings of dehumanization carried into the child reading here to kill themselves, they can not speak here, their dreams have ended, I will speak for them.
> > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > RFobert,
>
>
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. When Jews are allowed to dehumanized here by the allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, then a subset of readers could think that Jews are inferior here as human beings to be seen as less than others here that have the protection of the rules, while the Jews do not have equal protection here from insults to their faith and Judaism is allowed to be defamed which could result in Jewish readers feeling put down and have feelings of unworthiness, as psychiatrists define such in depression.
> In an instance here, the poster writes,[ admin, 1055904 ]. Let us look at that post before going on.
> Now if you have read that post, notice that what is purported, as can be seen as civil here, is the dehumanization of Jews. The statement by the poster is the foundation of dehumanizing anti-Semitism, and is allowed to be seen as supportive here. And worse, I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And worse, the poster has impunity from the enforcement terms of service here and can continue to post even more of the same with impunity because Mr. Hsiung refuses to post his tagline to please be civil to the post where it is originally posted. This could give gratification to Jew-haters seeing that what is unsupportive that could lead a Jew to feel put down is considered to be civil here because it lacks sanction. and even worse, Mr. Hsiungg states that he can in a deliberate manner leave anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive, even though he admits that it is not supportive, because in his thinking:
> [It will be good for this community as a whole to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned]
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1077202.html
> That could lead a Jewish reader to feel dehumanized here when they read it, for it can be deduced from what Mr. Hsiung has posted here that Jews do not get the equal protection of his rules, but worse, he can choose to go out of his own rules and allow dehumanizing statements against Jews to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted.
> This tactic is not new, my friend. It is an old tactic that was eradicated many years ago and now it's ugly head is arising here to inflame hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitic hate is being allowed to be seen here as supportive, and worse, that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it. That could summons Jew-haters to come out of their holes all over the world as them seeing that a psychiatrist is allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. This could go to schools and universities and to terror groups giving them support for their hate thinking of Jews as non-humans, undeserving of the rights of other human beings. Children reading here could bully Jewish children in schools thinking that they have an ally of the psychiatrist and could even show their mothers the anti-Semitic hate being allowed to be seen as supportive here pointing out "I saw it on Dr.-Bob's as civil, because I saw where he says that if it is not sanctioned, it is supportive and that being supportive takes precedence."
> The dehumanization of Jews is nothing new, my friend. It is what can create and develop discrimination and lead to Jews being considered as inferior in a community so that those that even kill Jews can think in their sick minds that they are doing good, for they did not kill a human being in their sick minds.
> Lou
>
> > > > Robert,
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The dehumanization of the Jews can be fostered by showing a design that over and over supports that Jews are inferior or have an inferior faith as in the posts here that I am objecting to being allowed to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted. And also since there could be up to 6 deputies that my notifications go to, they also have joined Mr. Hsiung in allowing those posts where they are in record to be seen as civil and worse, will be good for this community as a whole to be seen as supportive, for they could have sanctioned them by themselves as the FAQ states and they did not do so. And Mr. Hsiung says to consider that administrative action, or no action, to notifications comes from all of them. This could mean that there was a collaboration and intent to defame the Jewish people here by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive here. This is all under the umbrella of Mr. Hsiung's stated goals, to be supportive and educational and to use fairness and the Golden Rule in applying his rules here. But then he says that he could choose to not use the golden rule and to allow what is un supportive because in his thinking by doing so, it will be good for this community as a whole. That means that the anti-Semitic posts allowed to be seen as supportive, will in some way by him be good for this community as a whole. I am awaiting for him to post here what this good entails here. And if he ever posts that, then you can see my response to whatever he posts.
The dehumanizing of the Jews here can be seen in the following post. In the last statement, it says to pray to Jesus , he is tour legal representative.
The foundation of dehumanizing the Jews is held up by pillars of hate. This is one such pillar as what it could purport is that to reach God in prayer, one has to pray to Jesus to do so, for He as the poster says, is our legal representative to God and pray to him. The implication is that Jew's prayers do not get to God because they do not pray to Jesus. This demeans Judaism as an inferior faith because as the statement implies, Judaism's members do not have their prayers heard by God.
I am prohibited from posting a repudiation to that here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. So the statement becomes anti-Semitic propaganda here because it is not allowed, at least by me, to be repudiated. That tactic by Mr. Hsiung that prohibits the repudiation to be posted by me here, is not fair in the thinking of those that understand that fairness could mean to allow equal access here of different points of view, and my point of view form a Jewish perspective as revealed to me is not allowed to be posted here by Mr. Hsiung.
Here is the post which I could post the URL to because unsanctioned posts can be posted here, but I like to use my mode of posting links. To see this post and look at the last sentence, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
[ faith, 820386 ]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:32
In reply to Re: SSRI withdrawal symptoms really scare me!, posted by fido on March 6, 2015, at 18:13:37
> Since I'm on strattera right now I might try adding a SSRI to it and then see what happens. But even if this combo worked then I couldnt really tell wether it's the SSRI or strattera or both in combination which work.
> So far I only know that lexapro 20mg for several months definitely didn't work for me at all. But it could be different with another SSRI.
> But prozac and fluvoxamine are no options cause of interactions. This means only zoloft is left, and maybe brintellix but this is too new and who knows how safe it really is.
>
> It's really complicated somehow.
> Even if SSRI strattera helped with depression but not adhd then it would also suck cause I dont know if I could add ritalin to the mix. This could be too much.
>
> If SSRI strattera should not work then I could switch to nortriptyline. But then I also dont know if I could add ritalin. I only know that TCA can interfere with Ritalin metabolism and raise blood levels which can also be risky.
>
> It's really complicated when you have as many different issues as I have. And unless any antidepressant which I take makes a really huge difference in how I feel I may not even be able to tell if it works at all. Maybe some of the ADs which I have been on "worked" but they were simply so weak that they couldn't prevent me from still getting depressed. But then they're also not helpful at all.fido,
You wrote,[...not helpful at all...].
What you are doing is taking mind-altering chemicals into your nervous system that many come from being used to kill insects and parasitic worms and used as dyes and explosives and even mothballs. Many of the chemicals are {nerve agents} used in the commission of mass-murder.
I am prevented here from posting what I need to in order to give educational information that I think could save lives and prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions due to prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. But there is a way for me to have this prohibited information given to you here and this could be done by you asking your provider of drugs to enter this forum and then I could have dialog with the psychiatrist/doctor to bring this out through him/her.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:32
In reply to Lou's reply to Robert-dehumanization-pryersnothrd, posted by Lou Pilder on March 12, 2015, at 8:52:22
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > > > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > > > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > > > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > > > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > > > > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > > > > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > > > > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > > > > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > > > > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > > > > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > > > > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > > > > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > > > > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > > > > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > > > > > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > > > > > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> > > > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> > > > > And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> > > > > Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> > > > > Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > [admin, 1050362 ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > > [ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
> > > > Lou
> > > > > > Robert,
> > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. This site can reach homes all over the world. When Mr. Hsiung allows posts here that constitute dehumanization of the Jews, it is a world-wide defamation, not just here on this site.
> > > Now here is a post that dehumanizes the Jews as is plainly visible. But what may be unbeknownst to you is that Mr. Hsiung did not abide by his own drafted rule to sanction the post. In fact, a sanction is not posted by him or any of his deputies of record even though he had in place a rule before the post was posted to not post to a link that has anti-Semitic content. The rule was even emphatic as he stated not to do so, period. That meant no exceptions. Then came:
> > > [ admin, 428781 ]
> > > Let readers look at this before going on.
> > > Now if you have looked at the post, the dehumanizing accusations against the Jews that could foster anti-Semitic feelings here and to homes all over the world were allowed to be seen as being allowed to stand, being justified by the owner on the grounds that the hatred toward the Jews is in a link, even though the rule was in place that what is in a link is directly to the text and not immune from sanction just as if it is posted directly. He then says to the poster to post another link that omits the antisemitic hate that dehumanizes the Jews, without redacting what is in the link, nor posting his tagline to please be civil. This means that anti-Semitic propaganda could now be posted with impunity in a link as long as after posting the link, another link is posted omitting the anti-Semitism.
> > > This altering of his own drafted rule is especially made here by the owner, and the owner wants readers to try to trust him for he is doing what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole by making a venue for hate to be posted with impunity as long as another post has a link omitting the defamation against the Jews is posted by the poster while the original post remains un sanctioned. This allows continual anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here without the poster being subjected to the TOS in relation to the enforcement section here. It is a special venue here by Mr. Hsiung for anti-Semitic hate only, for the rule to not post in a link what could be uncivil posted directly applied to posts that had links to uncivil content outside of anti-Semitic hate. In fact, the rule is so broad that I do not post links, but a way for you to see the link without me posting it by having you go to the search box and typing in key words that bring it up to you without it being seen on the board, for what is in the link can not be posted. But the anti-Semitism can be posted in a link. This can lead to thinking that there are two standards here that allow anitsemitic hate to be posted in a link, but anything else that could be uncivil to be not allowed. Just think about how this could dehumanize Jews here as a venue for posting hatred toward the Jews is devised here for members to be excepted from Mr. Hsiung's own drafted rules here. And then Mr. Hsiung could "miss" the link and it could stand forever as being civil and he makes another self-made rule that he says he can choose to not honor my notifications which if honord, would bring the post into light. What if the links had racist taunts in them? Could Mr. Hsiung allow that to be justified by the poster posting a different link omitting the racist taunts? What is the difference, if any?
> > > In 428781, the dehumanizing of the Jews was initiated here to be allowed with the strategy that Mr. Hsiung implemented that could create and develop IMHO hatred toward the Jews here. The fact that Mr. Hsiung altered his own drafted rule to not post anti-Semitism in a link, period, leads one to form their own opinions as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent was in doing so. His intent is plainly stated as that he will be doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. And those Jews that suffer dehumanization from reading the anti-Semitic propaganda as seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and those feelings of dehumanization carried into the child reading here to kill themselves, they can not speak here, their dreams have ended, I will speak for them.
> > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > RFobert,
> >
> >
> > Let there be no misunderstanding here. When Jews are allowed to dehumanized here by the allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, then a subset of readers could think that Jews are inferior here as human beings to be seen as less than others here that have the protection of the rules, while the Jews do not have equal protection here from insults to their faith and Judaism is allowed to be defamed which could result in Jewish readers feeling put down and have feelings of unworthiness, as psychiatrists define such in depression.
> > In an instance here, the poster writes,[ admin, 1055904 ]. Let us look at that post before going on.
> > Now if you have read that post, notice that what is purported, as can be seen as civil here, is the dehumanization of Jews. The statement by the poster is the foundation of dehumanizing anti-Semitism, and is allowed to be seen as supportive here. And worse, I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And worse, the poster has impunity from the enforcement terms of service here and can continue to post even more of the same with impunity because Mr. Hsiung refuses to post his tagline to please be civil to the post where it is originally posted. This could give gratification to Jew-haters seeing that what is unsupportive that could lead a Jew to feel put down is considered to be civil here because it lacks sanction. and even worse, Mr. Hsiungg states that he can in a deliberate manner leave anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive, even though he admits that it is not supportive, because in his thinking:
> > [It will be good for this community as a whole to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned]
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1077202.html
> > That could lead a Jewish reader to feel dehumanized here when they read it, for it can be deduced from what Mr. Hsiung has posted here that Jews do not get the equal protection of his rules, but worse, he can choose to go out of his own rules and allow dehumanizing statements against Jews to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted.
> > This tactic is not new, my friend. It is an old tactic that was eradicated many years ago and now it's ugly head is arising here to inflame hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitic hate is being allowed to be seen here as supportive, and worse, that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it. That could summons Jew-haters to come out of their holes all over the world as them seeing that a psychiatrist is allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. This could go to schools and universities and to terror groups giving them support for their hate thinking of Jews as non-humans, undeserving of the rights of other human beings. Children reading here could bully Jewish children in schools thinking that they have an ally of the psychiatrist and could even show their mothers the anti-Semitic hate being allowed to be seen as supportive here pointing out "I saw it on Dr.-Bob's as civil, because I saw where he says that if it is not sanctioned, it is supportive and that being supportive takes precedence."
> > The dehumanization of Jews is nothing new, my friend. It is what can create and develop discrimination and lead to Jews being considered as inferior in a community so that those that even kill Jews can think in their sick minds that they are doing good, for they did not kill a human being in their sick minds.
> > Lou
> >
> > > > > Robert,
> Let there be no misunderstanding here. The dehumanization of the Jews can be fostered by showing a design that over and over supports that Jews are inferior or have an inferior faith as in the posts here that I am objecting to being allowed to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted. And also since there could be up to 6 deputies that my notifications go to, they also have joined Mr. Hsiung in allowing those posts where they are in record to be seen as civil and worse, will be good for this community as a whole to be seen as supportive, for they could have sanctioned them by themselves as the FAQ states and they did not do so. And Mr. Hsiung says to consider that administrative action, or no action, to notifications comes from all of them. This could mean that there was a collaboration and intent to defame the Jewish people here by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive here. This is all under the umbrella of Mr. Hsiung's stated goals, to be supportive and educational and to use fairness and the Golden Rule in applying his rules here. But then he says that he could choose to not use the golden rule and to allow what is un supportive because in his thinking by doing so, it will be good for this community as a whole. That means that the anti-Semitic posts allowed to be seen as supportive, will in some way by him be good for this community as a whole. I am awaiting for him to post here what this good entails here. And if he ever posts that, then you can see my response to whatever he posts.
> The dehumanizing of the Jews here can be seen in the following post. In the last statement, it says to pray to Jesus , he is tour legal representative.
> The foundation of dehumanizing the Jews is held up by pillars of hate. This is one such pillar as what it could purport is that to reach God in prayer, one has to pray to Jesus to do so, for He as the poster says, is our legal representative to God and pray to him. The implication is that Jew's prayers do not get to God because they do not pray to Jesus. This demeans Judaism as an inferior faith because as the statement implies, Judaism's members do not have their prayers heard by God.
> I am prohibited from posting a repudiation to that here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. So the statement becomes anti-Semitic propaganda here because it is not allowed, at least by me, to be repudiated. That tactic by Mr. Hsiung that prohibits the repudiation to be posted by me here, is not fair in the thinking of those that understand that fairness could mean to allow equal access here of different points of view, and my point of view form a Jewish perspective as revealed to me is not allowed to be posted here by Mr. Hsiung.
> Here is the post which I could post the URL to because unsanctioned posts can be posted here, but I like to use my mode of posting links. To see this post and look at the last sentence, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> [ faith, 820386 ]
> > > >
> > > > Robert and friends,
The pillars of hate that hold up the foundation of anti-Semitism as dehumanization of the Jews are many. One such pillar of hate is what is known as {replacement theology} or {supersessionism}. There are different types of replacement theology and one is called {punitive} replacement theology. This one is allowed to be seen here as civil and worse, will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be good for this community as a whole to allow it to be seen as supportive and civil here. He does post openly what could be thought to be that he is doing this deliberately to me so that I could be used as a target of hate so he can see how others discuss it. I question as to if a psychiatrist could do this to me here without my permission according to the American Psychiatric Association or any other association that could have oversight for him doing this to me here. But what he is doing to me here is against all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
One of the posts allowed here that I am objecting to that Mr. Hsiung and up to 6 of his deputies are allowing to be seen as supportive and will not take remedial action to post a repudiation to the statements in the posts that accuse Jews of the killing called {deicide}. And worse, that all the Jews forever will be punished and their children for what they are accused of. This pillar of hate that holds up hatred toward the Jews as dehumanizing Jews is in more than one place here, standing as supportive against my years of objections. But before we see the horror of this all, I would like for you to do a search in Google for {replacement theology} in order to understand what this entails as how it dehumanizes Jews.
Lou
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 22:17:33
In reply to Lou's reply-dehumanization-hzbludbeuponus, posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2015, at 8:41:19
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > > > > You say that you do not follow my logic. I say to you that what you have posted here could result in the deaths or addictions or life-ruining conditions to other readers here and I am asking that we have an immediate discussion here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Lou, your assertion is misleading, inflammatory and unfair. Nothing I posted "could result in" (i.e., be relevantly causally related to) any of the terrible consequences that you imply in your statement would flow naturally from the post I made.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >This is all because the psychiatrist that operates this forum is allowing your claims here to be seen as supportive and I think otherwise,>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The psychiatrist who operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advice is being supplied. The purpose of this forum is not in the online supply of clinical advice on which participants are intended to act but in describing, and thinking out-loud about, medication problems and *possible* medication strategies that participants might *think over*. No post here carries the express or implied intention or expectation that the content of any post should be acted upon *because* of any assumed expertise in the poster or because the reader has read the post here. Indeed, such expectations are very properly, and responsibly, expressly excluded by Dr Hsiung.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >and your claim that Mirtazapine is used to treat SS, and that the site drugs.com has erroneous information is what is in issue here.>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I never "claimed" that Mirtazapine "is used" (i.e., in the ordinary meaning of that aspect of the tense you have chosen to express my original comment in, habitually) to treat serotonin toxicity. I said that it "has been used" to treat such toxicity; and I say further than an authority argues persuasively that the serotonergic potency of mirtazapine is low to negligible in humans, a fact which the safe combination of venlafaxine and mirtazapine appears to bear out: see Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, (2006) 21, pp 117-25.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You produce accurately my claim, based in my experience, that the drug interaction section of drugs.com *has* erroneous information. I.e., that occassionally its information is erroneous in the level of detail it provides. Yet you then proceed, in one of your highly tendentiously phrased questions, to assert that I claimed that drugs.com is not "based on facts". I never claimed such a thing, nor did I ever claim to profess to a degree of knowledge of the entirety of drugs.com beyond my experience of it. My knowledge that it sometimes throws up erroneous information derives, in the instance to which I adverted, from its assertion that the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine poses a *major* risk of serotonin toxicity. Drugs.com also asserts that the combination of tranylcypromine and nortriptyline poses a *major* risk of serotonin syndrome, an assertion that is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug. I would pose in reply to you the challenge to produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Most certainly did I not assert, or imply, that drugs.com contains information that is *always* or *mostly* erroneous. Not did I ever suggest that drugs.com should not be used or consulted. My point was that it is *better* to refer to specialist views rather than generic information as provided by drugs.com *exclusively*. Drugs.com may be a first port of call, but it shouldn't be the only one.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you could post answers to the following then by my responses I could address your claims here in what I think could save livesprevent life-ruining conditions and addictions.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I do not propose to oblige you in this matter, given the tendentious and quite frankly deeply offensive way you have chosen to phrase your questions. Your purpose is not, clearly, fair-mindedly to elicit clarifications but to inflame prejudice. My answers are as provided above.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I note that you have had a habit of delivering yourself of outrageously unfair imputations against Dr. Hsiung. I do not propose to engage with you further given the nature of the imputations you have chosen to direct at myself.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It may also be as well to remind you that the primary purpose of this thread is to offer responses to fido; it is not meant for you to indulge in the riding of eccentric hobby-horses.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > > > You wrote,[...Nothing I Posted could result in...any of the terrible consequences that you imply...].
> > > > > > > > > > The consequences of your claims being followed by the readers here, are listed by me as death, life-ruing conditions and addictions. Your claims here are:
> > > > > > > > > > A.Drugs.com will say incorrectly that many combinations can cause serotonin syndrome
> > > > > > > > > > B. Drugs.com says that the combination of mixing Mirtazapine with venlafaxine carries the risk of serotonin syndrome. *This is just erroneous.* (stars mine)
> > > > > > > > > > C. Mirtazapine has been used to treat serotonin syndrome.
> > > > > > > > > > Your claims here could be seen as being supportive because the rules by Mr. Hsuing is that if he does not intercede, what is posted is not against his rules. and that being supportive takes precedence. He later goes on to say that he could not intercede where there is a statement that is not supportive because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to do so. This is what is at issue here that I think could cause the deaths of readers, induce a life-ruining condition or addiction and lead parents to drug their child in collaboration with a psychiatrist /doctor.
> > > > > > > > > > The rules here are for support and education. Since Mr. Hsiung has not interceded to your claims, the claims could be seen as supportive and educational, and readers could take your claims as facts. I dispute your claims as facts, in particular, but not limited to that you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss. I would like to see a citation that you use to make that claim so that readers could see for themselves what you are using to claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, because I do not want readers to be misled to think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss, that there is a standard treatment for serotonin syndrome by using Mirtazapine which I think could mislead a subset of readers to think that if they do take a combination of drugs that could induce ss, they could be saved from death by going to an emergency room and all the doctors know to bring out a shot of mirtazapine and the sufferer is saved from death. I base that on that I think a subset of readers could be misled unless you post your citation is because there are readers that could think that your use of (has been used to treat ss) is not having a specification as to {how many} people were treated with Mirtazapine when they had ss and if the citation has that it is unreliable information or not. Readers could think that because you claim that Mirtazapine has been used to treat ss that taking Mirtazapine could not induce serotonin syndrome when it actually can, I can post citations to such for anyone requesting those here.
> > > > > > > > > > And your claim that the site drugs.com could be incorrect in their list of adverse consequences of taking combinations of drugs, could lead readers to think IMHO to ignore their research because Mr. Hsiung has not interceded where you make that claim. Your claim of the site could be incorrect has the potential for readers to ignore their research and be killed by taking combinations of drugs that they list could cause ss and you say could be incorrect or erroneous. I think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy of record has an obligation to intercede in claims like you make here in order that no reader takes your claim as fact and dies from your advise or gets a life-ruining condition or addiction. And if parents that are trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor, I do not want them to be misled to think that taking the combination of drugs that could induce ss as stated in drugs.com could be considered by this site to be incorrect and go ahead and have their child take the combination of drugs that drugs.com says could cause death by serotonin syndrome and their child is killed by the drugs. The claim by Mr. Hsiung is that he does what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. But more than that, he says that readers are to try to trust him. That part about trusting him is what IMHO could lead readers to think that your claims here are facts because he has not intervened to say otherwise and he wants readers to try to trust him. Readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and any deputy or record are validating your claims because he has not interceded.
> > > > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > > > It is written here,[...produce a citation which demonstrates this information to be accurate...]
> > > > > > > > > The issue here is the drug called Mirtazapine. This drug is a knock-off of an illegal drug in the U.S. By itself, it has severe risks of life-ruining conditions and death. Combined with other psychotropic drugs could cause the risks to be increased exponentially.
> > > > > > > > > Here is a link to the FDA concerning Mirtazapine. Please read it. And if anyone tells you that the information here by the FDA is erroneous, or incorrect, ask yourself what their motive could be to sway you to think that the information is incorrect.
> > > > > > > > > And to mothers reading here. You mothers that want to make a more-informed decision as to drug your child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor could read here what you could think is supportive and factual because Me. Hsiung's TOS states that being supportive takes precedence. But be advised that maybe unbeknownst to you mothers, Mr. Hsiung has a hidden clause not posted in his TOS/FAQ that is self-made where he says that he does not have to abide by his own drafted rules if he thinks that by allowing what is unsupportive, it will be good for his community as a whole. Man greater than him in the historical record have used the same tactic to allow slavery, as they said that slavery will be good for the community as a whole. And the same tactic has been used to commit genocide and mass-murder, saying that mass-murder will be good for the community or country, as a whole. And schools have used segregation in the past by saying that segregation will be good for the school as a whole. And there are countries today that say that killing Jews will be good for their country as a whole. I say to you mothers to examine closely here what is being perpetrated as support and education. Be advised that I am prevented from offering here educational material that I think could save lives due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. I do not consider education to be valid here because of the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. When academic freedom is repressed, education could become just propaganda, which is fraudulent education.
> > > > > > > > > Now let us look at this drug, Mirtazapine by the FDA. You mothers, do you want your child to get Stevens -Johnson syndrome, or serotonin syndrome or other life-ruining diseases or death and a worse chance if combined with other psychotropic drugs?
> > > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > > http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/Safetyinformation/ucm215532.htm
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > > You wrote,[...The psychiatrist that operates this forum imposes as a condition of participation that no-one infers from the posts published here that medical advise is being supplied...].
> > > > > > > > As I read Mr. Hsiung's TOS/FAQ, there is no condition imposed upon readers here for participation except that posters are to be civil at all times as a condition for participation. Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction uncivil statements because one match could start a forest fire, so if it is uncivil, don't post it.
> > > > > > > > This could lead readers to think that what is posted without sanction is not against his rules and is supportive. Mr. Hsiung in a secret post of his, since it is not incorporated in his FAQ, reveals that he admits that there are unsanctioned posts to be seen as supportive and that he will not let readers know that he considers those statements to be un supportive because by allowing those statements to be seen as supportive, it will be in his thinking to be good for this community as a whole for readers to see un supportive statements to be considered to be supportive and will be good later on even if they put down or accuse or are insensitive or un supportive and that there could even be tragic consequences from those statements to be seen here as supportive. And his stated goals for the forum is for support and education and to try to trust him as well for what he does here.
> > > > > > > > This can IMHHHO lead readers to think that medical advise is being supplied here when the advise is allowed to be seen as supportive and will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking good for this community as a whole because he states to trust him here, and worse, he has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from offering education and support here that could expose the propaganda used here that IMHHHHHHO could result in the deaths and/or harm to readers, in particular but not limited to Jewish readers here.
> > > > > > > > Just one example is the allowed statement here,[..No non-Christian will...], which is analogous to, [...No Jew will...], or [...No Islamic person will...], or worse, [...Only Christians will...], which insults all those that believe that they can enter heaven without being a member of Christiandom.
> > > > > > > > > > Now that is an example of what could be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. So there could be a subset of readers here easily IMO persuaded to to think that is accepted advise from Mr. Hsiung and as an example of advocating to take drugs here, that could also IMHHHHHO be taken as medical advise from Mr. Hsiung because:
> > > > > > > > A. He sets himself up as an authority here to trust, as in his TOS/FAQ
> > > > > > > > B. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from posting what I need to in order to expose the anti-Semitic thought being allowed to be seen as supportive here.
> > > > > > > > C. He has posted prohibitions to me that prevent me from showing the history and development of drugs that I think could be educational and save lives here.
> > > > > > > > D. Since there are such prohibitions to me here, then my perspective is excluded that could result in what is being promulgated here to constitute propaganda and not true education.
> > > > > > > > E. I am prevented from posting here the historical relationship between psychiatry and mass-murder.
> > > > > > > > F. Since anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, this could cause readers to have hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me as a Jew here, that could result in readers discarding what I write here, which could lead readers to accept what is posted here concerning drugs to be medically accepted advise.
> > > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > Now you say that drugs.com says that taking tranylcypromine (Parnate) with Nortriptyline poses a major risk of serotonin syndrome which you say is inconsistent with a clinical assessment of the pharmacological mechanisms of each drug, and you want me to post here otherwise.
> > > > > > > Each of the two drugs has the potential to cause serotonin syndrome by themselves and when taken in combination, that risk is exponentially increased. The tragic consequences here is that a subset of readers could rely on what you have posted and that what you are advocating could cause death to those relying on what you posted about the two drugs taken together.
> > > > > > > Here is a link that shows that both drugs can cause serotonin syndrome. I hope it is not too late for readers to see that they both can cause ss and I hope that no one has died from taking these two drugs together seeing here that what you posted could be considered to be supportive and will in Mr. Hsiung's thinking be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/injuries_poisoning/heat_illness/serotonin_syndrome.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You wrote that I post {unfair imputations} concerning the owner/operator here, Robert Hsiung.
> > > > > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The owner-operator here openly states that he is not going to honor my notifications as he will to the other members here. This could be thought to be a discriminatory act on his part and is not in any doubt that he states his intentions here. His intentions are to have others shun me here and not respond to me by seeing that he does not respond to me as an example which is a powerful influence to children reading here. That policy of his could isolate me here which was a tactic of European fascism when Jews were ghettoized and this policy could be thought by a subset of readers to be an anti-Semitic policy for I am the only one that Mr. Hsiung states that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me by his lead. As to if it is unfair for me to point this out, no one here is disputing the fact that it is what it is and Jews are being openly defamed here as being supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and statements that accuse Jews are allowed to be seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
> > > > > > And it is much more than that. For by Mr. Hsiung stating that he is not responding to me so that others could also not respond to me, that could stigmatize me and all Jews on the basis that he is a psychiatrist and is claiming that whatever he does here, including this encouragement for others to shun me here, will be good for this community as a whole. I say that those that understand the history of European fascism, that the historical record shows that to have been a false hope, that culminated in over 70 million deaths. And this false hope is still promulgated today by Jew-haters bent on killing Jews. And why would anyone want the statements that could lead readers to think that Jews are being defamed here that I am objecting to on the admin board in my discussion with Mr. Hsiung that are plainly visible, to be allowed to stand?
> > > > > > Psychologists have studied that question for decades and here is what I have found one of their answers to be. There are other answers and as time runs, as to which answer fits in here, time will be the judge. That answer in question is that those that want to foster hatred toward the Jews by using their authority to do so, hate the Jews and want others to follow their hatred {because they hate the God that the Jews give service and worship to and that gave life to all}. They hate the god in question because they hate life. They show their hatred of life and discriminate against Jews which has been ruled a crime against humanity itself, for it is against life itself.
> > > > > > Here is a link that shows this and until Mr. Hsiung opens up the post and types right down in the post a refutation of what he posted, readers can see this as it is, and it is what it is.
> > > > > > Lou
> > > > > > [admin, 1050362 ]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another way to see the post in question is to go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > > > > [ Lou's reply-heyazakcptabul ]
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. This site can reach homes all over the world. When Mr. Hsiung allows posts here that constitute dehumanization of the Jews, it is a world-wide defamation, not just here on this site.
> > > > Now here is a post that dehumanizes the Jews as is plainly visible. But what may be unbeknownst to you is that Mr. Hsiung did not abide by his own drafted rule to sanction the post. In fact, a sanction is not posted by him or any of his deputies of record even though he had in place a rule before the post was posted to not post to a link that has anti-Semitic content. The rule was even emphatic as he stated not to do so, period. That meant no exceptions. Then came:
> > > > [ admin, 428781 ]
> > > > Let readers look at this before going on.
> > > > Now if you have looked at the post, the dehumanizing accusations against the Jews that could foster anti-Semitic feelings here and to homes all over the world were allowed to be seen as being allowed to stand, being justified by the owner on the grounds that the hatred toward the Jews is in a link, even though the rule was in place that what is in a link is directly to the text and not immune from sanction just as if it is posted directly. He then says to the poster to post another link that omits the antisemitic hate that dehumanizes the Jews, without redacting what is in the link, nor posting his tagline to please be civil. This means that anti-Semitic propaganda could now be posted with impunity in a link as long as after posting the link, another link is posted omitting the anti-Semitism.
> > > > This altering of his own drafted rule is especially made here by the owner, and the owner wants readers to try to trust him for he is doing what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole by making a venue for hate to be posted with impunity as long as another post has a link omitting the defamation against the Jews is posted by the poster while the original post remains un sanctioned. This allows continual anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted here without the poster being subjected to the TOS in relation to the enforcement section here. It is a special venue here by Mr. Hsiung for anti-Semitic hate only, for the rule to not post in a link what could be uncivil posted directly applied to posts that had links to uncivil content outside of anti-Semitic hate. In fact, the rule is so broad that I do not post links, but a way for you to see the link without me posting it by having you go to the search box and typing in key words that bring it up to you without it being seen on the board, for what is in the link can not be posted. But the anti-Semitism can be posted in a link. This can lead to thinking that there are two standards here that allow anitsemitic hate to be posted in a link, but anything else that could be uncivil to be not allowed. Just think about how this could dehumanize Jews here as a venue for posting hatred toward the Jews is devised here for members to be excepted from Mr. Hsiung's own drafted rules here. And then Mr. Hsiung could "miss" the link and it could stand forever as being civil and he makes another self-made rule that he says he can choose to not honor my notifications which if honord, would bring the post into light. What if the links had racist taunts in them? Could Mr. Hsiung allow that to be justified by the poster posting a different link omitting the racist taunts? What is the difference, if any?
> > > > In 428781, the dehumanizing of the Jews was initiated here to be allowed with the strategy that Mr. Hsiung implemented that could create and develop IMHO hatred toward the Jews here. The fact that Mr. Hsiung altered his own drafted rule to not post anti-Semitism in a link, period, leads one to form their own opinions as to what Mr. Hsiung's intent was in doing so. His intent is plainly stated as that he will be doing in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. And those Jews that suffer dehumanization from reading the anti-Semitic propaganda as seen as supportive by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and those feelings of dehumanization carried into the child reading here to kill themselves, they can not speak here, their dreams have ended, I will speak for them.
> > > > Lou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > RFobert,
> > >
> > >
> > > Let there be no misunderstanding here. When Jews are allowed to dehumanized here by the allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive where it is originally posted, then a subset of readers could think that Jews are inferior here as human beings to be seen as less than others here that have the protection of the rules, while the Jews do not have equal protection here from insults to their faith and Judaism is allowed to be defamed which could result in Jewish readers feeling put down and have feelings of unworthiness, as psychiatrists define such in depression.
> > > In an instance here, the poster writes,[ admin, 1055904 ]. Let us look at that post before going on.
> > > Now if you have read that post, notice that what is purported, as can be seen as civil here, is the dehumanization of Jews. The statement by the poster is the foundation of dehumanizing anti-Semitism, and is allowed to be seen as supportive here. And worse, I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. And worse, the poster has impunity from the enforcement terms of service here and can continue to post even more of the same with impunity because Mr. Hsiung refuses to post his tagline to please be civil to the post where it is originally posted. This could give gratification to Jew-haters seeing that what is unsupportive that could lead a Jew to feel put down is considered to be civil here because it lacks sanction. and even worse, Mr. Hsiungg states that he can in a deliberate manner leave anti-Semitic propaganda to be seen as supportive, even though he admits that it is not supportive, because in his thinking:
> > > [It will be good for this community as a whole to leave the anti-Semitic propaganda unsanctioned]
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1077202.html
> > > That could lead a Jewish reader to feel dehumanized here when they read it, for it can be deduced from what Mr. Hsiung has posted here that Jews do not get the equal protection of his rules, but worse, he can choose to go out of his own rules and allow dehumanizing statements against Jews to be seen as supportive here where they are originally posted.
> > > This tactic is not new, my friend. It is an old tactic that was eradicated many years ago and now it's ugly head is arising here to inflame hatred toward the Jews as that anti-Semitic hate is being allowed to be seen here as supportive, and worse, that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it. That could summons Jew-haters to come out of their holes all over the world as them seeing that a psychiatrist is allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen here as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. This could go to schools and universities and to terror groups giving them support for their hate thinking of Jews as non-humans, undeserving of the rights of other human beings. Children reading here could bully Jewish children in schools thinking that they have an ally of the psychiatrist and could even show their mothers the anti-Semitic hate being allowed to be seen as supportive here pointing out "I saw it on Dr.-Bob's as civil, because I saw where he says that if it is not sanctioned, it is supportive and that being supportive takes precedence."
> > > The dehumanization of Jews is nothing new, my friend. It is what can create and develop discrimination and lead to Jews being considered as inferior in a community so that those that even kill Jews can think in their sick minds that they are doing good, for they did not kill a human being in their sick minds.
> > > Lou
> > >
> > > > > > Robert,
> > Let there be no misunderstanding here. The dehumanization of the Jews can be fostered by showing a design that over and over supports that Jews are inferior or have an inferior faith as in the posts here that I am objecting to being allowed to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted. And also since there could be up to 6 deputies that my notifications go to, they also have joined Mr. Hsiung in allowing those posts where they are in record to be seen as civil and worse, will be good for this community as a whole to be seen as supportive, for they could have sanctioned them by themselves as the FAQ states and they did not do so. And Mr. Hsiung says to consider that administrative action, or no action, to notifications comes from all of them. This could mean that there was a collaboration and intent to defame the Jewish people here by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive here. This is all under the umbrella of Mr. Hsiung's stated goals, to be supportive and educational and to use fairness and the Golden Rule in applying his rules here. But then he says that he could choose to not use the golden rule and to allow what is un supportive because in his thinking by doing so, it will be good for this community as a whole. That means that the anti-Semitic posts allowed to be seen as supportive, will in some way by him be good for this community as a whole. I am awaiting for him to post here what this good entails here. And if he ever posts that, then you can see my response to whatever he posts.
> > The dehumanizing of the Jews here can be seen in the following post. In the last statement, it says to pray to Jesus , he is tour legal representative.
> > The foundation of dehumanizing the Jews is held up by pillars of hate. This is one such pillar as what it could purport is that to reach God in prayer, one has to pray to Jesus to do so, for He as the poster says, is our legal representative to God and pray to him. The implication is that Jew's prayers do not get to God because they do not pray to Jesus. This demeans Judaism as an inferior faith because as the statement implies, Judaism's members do not have their prayers heard by God.
> > I am prohibited from posting a repudiation to that here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. So the statement becomes anti-Semitic propaganda here because it is not allowed, at least by me, to be repudiated. That tactic by Mr. Hsiung that prohibits the repudiation to be posted by me here, is not fair in the thinking of those that understand that fairness could mean to allow equal access here of different points of view, and my point of view form a Jewish perspective as revealed to me is not allowed to be posted here by Mr. Hsiung.
> > Here is the post which I could post the URL to because unsanctioned posts can be posted here, but I like to use my mode of posting links. To see this post and look at the last sentence, go to the search box at the bottom of this page and type in:
> > [ faith, 820386 ]
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert and friends,
> The pillars of hate that hold up the foundation of anti-Semitism as dehumanization of the Jews are many. One such pillar of hate is what is known as {replacement theology} or {supersessionism}. There are different types of replacement theology and one is called {punitive} replacement theology. This one is allowed to be seen here as civil and worse, will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be good for this community as a whole to allow it to be seen as supportive and civil here. He does post openly what could be thought to be that he is doing this deliberately to me so that I could be used as a target of hate so he can see how others discuss it. I question as to if a psychiatrist could do this to me here without my permission according to the American Psychiatric Association or any other association that could have oversight for him doing this to me here. But what he is doing to me here is against all Jews, not just me as a Jew here.
> One of the posts allowed here that I am objecting to that Mr. Hsiung and up to 6 of his deputies are allowing to be seen as supportive and will not take remedial action to post a repudiation to the statements in the posts that accuse Jews of the killing called {deicide}. And worse, that all the Jews forever will be punished and their children for what they are accused of. This pillar of hate that holds up hatred toward the Jews as dehumanizing Jews is in more than one place here, standing as supportive against my years of objections. But before we see the horror of this all, I would like for you to do a search in Google for {replacement theology} in order to understand what this entails as how it dehumanizes Jews.
> Lou
> > > > Robert and friends,
The pillars of hate holding up the dehumanization of the Jews here as in the historical record that fosters anti-Semitism here by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record leaving anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive here, and worse that it will be in Mr. Hsiung's thinking to be goo for this community as a whole to do so, can be seen in the flowing post which is just one post of a pattern of hate being allowed to fester here against the Jews. This is all done against Mr. Hsiung's own rules that state not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down or accused. And here, an identifiable group is being allowed to be dehumanized by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record which is against all Jews, not just me as a Jew.
Mr. Hsiung attempts to justify the perversion of his own rules and the Golden Rule and what {being fair} means, by claiming that by him doing so that it will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking. This type of thinking is not new my friends, but an old way of thinking that history records graphically to (redacted by respondent).
This type of thinking says that {just wait and see} or {Ill prove to you later} or worse, {trust me}. Those of you that are waiting for this good to come here may not ever see any good from it. For Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record do not stipulate what this good to come will be. And even if this good undefined comes here, it will not erase the emotional infliction of distress that could have come to those Jews reading here that feel put down/accused as a Jew here seeing the anti-Semitism being allowed here to be seen as supportive. That good, whatever it is, will not erase the hate that comes from the flames of anti-Semitism here that can be carried to homes all over the world as that it can be seen that a psychiatrist is allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive by him.
Here is the one of many posts that accuse the Jews of deicide. The statement is in the last large paragraph that reads:
[...The idea that a person who offers salvation to his people and is despised and condemned and made to suffer a horrible death by them...]
This is allowed to stand as civil here by Mr. Hsiung and up to 6 of his deputies. I can post links to posts here that are not sanctioned.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/1002966.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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.