![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on April 17, 2008, at 21:15:25
In reply to Former renowned psychiatrist: Psychiatry a Hoax, posted by antiserial on April 17, 2008, at 18:09:46
Interesing. Thanks Phillipa
Posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 0:08:39
In reply to Former renowned psychiatrist: Psychiatry a Hoax, posted by antiserial on April 17, 2008, at 18:09:46
Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association
4 December 1998
Loren R. Mosher, M.D. to Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
Dear Rod,
After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.
Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent society. Yet it helps wage war on "drugs". "Dual diagnosis" clients are a major problem for the field but not because of the "good" drugs we prescribe. "Bad" ones are those that are obtained mostly without a prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a profit -- directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and "industry sponsored symposia" draw crowds with their various enticements, while the serious scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects their influence as well: the most important part of a resident's curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e., prescription writing.
These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts -- rather we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a neurotransmitter -- whatever its configuration. So, our guild organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we have come to define as patients. We condone and promote the widespread use and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long term effects -- tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house connection, money.
In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an association) such that the two organizations have adopted similar public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing itself the "champion of their clients" the APA is supporting non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring: NAMI with tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is speaking what APA agrees with, but can't explicitly espouse. He is allowed to be a foil; after all - he is no longer a member of APA. (Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA, NAMI, and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.
"Biologically based brain diseases" are certainly convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are all just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent example). So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view, all the major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual /scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.
I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being systematically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It must mean -- at least in part that they view psychiatry as being very limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric practitioners will have no real, relationships -- so vital to the healing process -- with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their sole role will be that of prescription writers -- ciphers in the guise of being "helpers".
Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so -- although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller -- its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax -- as practiced today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.
What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after experiencing three decades of its history?
1. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances without the members' permission.
2. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it is -- that is, be honest.
3.Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups, i.e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.
4.Talk to the membership -- I can't be alone in my views.We seem to have forgotten a basic principle -- the need to be patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are your patient's employee." In the end they will determine whether or not psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 6:26:50
In reply to His resignation letter, posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 0:08:39
Gosh.
You should also take a look at the piles of letters submitted to medical journals, as well as the content of those journals, that find drugs to be effective and necessary for the majority of people with PROPERLY DIAGNOSED affective disorders.
Does psychotherapy work as a global treatment for these disorders? No. Do drugs work as a global treatment for these disorders? No, but they do work. I dispute the conclusions of many authors who claim to demonstrate an equivalency between the two types of treatment. PROPERLY DIAGNOSED Major Depressive Disorder is not the same as "depression". Depression is but one symptom of a biological illness.
When a medical treatment works for people with severe depression, I assure you that many of them realize that there are magic pills. That's exactly how it feels. Penicillin is a magic pill, too, by the way. Thank God for medical science and pharmaceutical companies. Although the marketers and ghostwriters might not be particularly well liked at this point, we owe much to these sources of magic pills. You know, some very healthy minds are attacked with these affective disorders too. They may not have a single "issue" to be remediated. In other words, some of us have but ONE obstacle to overcome in order to be mentally healthy. That obstacle is a biological abnormality that seems to settle in the brain. Resetting the brain with drugs is a miracle. Resetting mine proved to be quite a challenge. I'm whistling a happy tune now. It is the most encouraging remission I have had in 25 years.
I find myself thanking God every 13 minutes or so for the existence of my magic pills.
I don't understand the motivations of people who make it their goal to refute the utility of our current treatments. I'm really not sure what is to be gained when speaking this way. I imagine some people are very angry that, up until now, drug treatments haven't worked or produced idiosyncratic intolerable side effects. Hell, I imagine many people are angry with God for their lack of success up until now. I was for a little while.
- Scott
Posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 7:50:30
In reply to Re: His resignation letter » antiserial, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 6:26:50
>Resetting the brain with drugs is a miracle. Resetting mine proved to be quite a challenge. I'm whistling a happy tune now. It is the most encouraging remission I have had in 25 years.
If you truly have reset your brain, why are you still dependant on psychopharmaceuticals? It's possible to reset the brain with single dosages of LSD or other hallucinogens, but with all the occultic peer pressure and influence these days, the results could be disastrous.
>Hell, I imagine many people are angry with God for their lack of success up until now. I was for a little while.My God told me to stop taking meds, and for this I'm grateful to this day.
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 8:45:48
In reply to Re: His resignation letter » SLS, posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 7:50:30
Why do you find it necessary to project your experiences as being so global?
How do you know what anyone else experiences?
- Scott
Posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 9:49:24
In reply to Re: His resignation letter » antiserial, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 8:45:48
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 9:59:32
In reply to Who's doing the real projection here? (nm) » SLS, posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 9:49:24
All that matters is that you feel well.
I guess that is my projection.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2008, at 10:20:39
In reply to Re: Who's doing the real projection here? » antiserial, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 9:59:32
> All that matters is that you feel well.
>
> I guess that is my projection.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
You wrote,[..>All< that matters is that you feel well...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here by the grammmatical structure of your statement above.
The generally accepted meaning of {all} in the context of your statement in question could mean {the whole}, which then could have your statement be meaning,[...the whole that matters is that you feel good...].
Then, a generally accepted meaning of {the whole} is to mean a complete or totality. If that is the meaning here, then your statement has the potential IMO to mean to some,[...the totality of what matters is that you feel good...]. Then a generally accepted meaning of {matters} is [regardless of the consequesnse]. If that is what you are wanting to mean here, then IMO your statement could be thought to have the potential to mean by some as;
[...the totality, regardless of the consequenses, is to feel good].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by your statement in question here, so if you could clarify that any of the generally accepted meanings could or could not be what you are wanting to mean here, and if those are not what you are wanting to mean to post here what could be different from those that IMO could have the potential for what you are wanting to mean,then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 10:38:10
In reply to Lou's request to SLS for clarification-adsjutmens? » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2008, at 10:20:39
Lou,
I make it my business not to respond to such requests for clarification. I believe that I write clearly enough not to need the amplifications of my meanings.
- Scott
Posted by Quintal on April 18, 2008, at 14:22:46
In reply to His resignation letter, posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 0:08:39
>While professing itself the "champion of their clients" the APA is supporting non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring: NAMI with tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is speaking what APA agrees with, but can't explicitly espouse. He is allowed to be a foil; after all - he is no longer a member of APA. (Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA, NAMI, and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.
This part caught my attention. As someone who was recently in a position to receive enforced treatment, it's heartening to know there are psychiatrists who oppose their profession being used as a tool for social control. It reminds me somewhat of R.D. Laing's theory of Schizophrenia as a weapon which is used to attack, invalidate and control 'black sheep' and other social misfits. "Madness Explained: Psychosis and Human Nature" explores this vein more deeply. It was actually given to me by a member of my mental health team.
__________________________________________________
By Etienne ROLLAND-PIEGUE (Tokyo, Japan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)The philosopher Karl Jaspers, who was trained as a psychiatrist, made a distinction between `understanding' and `explaining' madness. He argued that in the case of psychoses, the most severe form of mental illness, no attempt should be made at understanding what appears as incoherent speech or meaningless behavior by investigating a patient's background and making sense of what he has to say. Rather, psychologists should try to explain psychotic behavior by dividing patients into discrete categories and establishing causal links that should ultimately point towards brain malfunctions or genetic defects.
Richard Bentall shows us that attempts to explain and to understand mental symptoms are inextricably linked. Rather than postulating an unambiguous dividing line between the mentally sane and the insane, he proposes that irrational beliefs and abnormal behaviors manifested by psychotic patients can be seen as the far end of a continuum on which people are distributed. The differences between those who are diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder and those who are not amount to relatively little, and these differences appear to be understandable when viewed in the context of what we know about normal human psychology.
The classification of psychiatric disorders into neuroses (such as benign forms of depression or phobias) and psychoses (such as manic depression and schizophrenia) dates back to Emil Kraepelin and a number of Karl Jaspers' contemporaries. Although the concepts originally formulated by German psychiatrists at the turn of the twentieth century underwent a series of transformations, the idea that psychiatric disorders fall into a finite number of categories remain the organizing principle for psychiatric practice and research, as evidenced by the successive editions of the DSM diagnostic manual. For Bentall, these classifications have little more scientific value than astrological predictions based on zodiac signs. According to his rather extreme contention, we should abandon psychiatric diagnoses altogether and instead try to explain and understand the actual experiences and behaviors of psychotic people.
Bentall then moves on to show how psychological research can cast light on phenomena such as hallucinatory voices, depressed mood, delusional beliefs, manic episodes and incoherent speech. For each of these `complaints', he provides simple models or psychological mechanisms framed in ways that can be tested experimentally. Once the various psychotic complaints have been explained in this way, Bentall claims that the ghostly conundrum of madness evaporates: the complaints (particular classes of behaviors and experiences that have been singled out because they sometimes cause distress) are all there is. Madness is explained.
Or is it? Some readers may argue that experimental clinical psychology only scratches the surface and does not allow us to delve into the depths of the human psyche, as psychoanalysis has accustomed us to do. To this, Bentall would object, first, that he uses some of the insights of psychoanalysis as working hypotheses in his models and, second, that theories that cannot be tested experimentally are not worth considering. Karl Popper, not Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, is his intellectual hero.
__________________________________________________Q
Posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 14:25:20
In reply to Lou's request to SLS for clarification-adsjutmens? » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2008, at 10:20:39
Lou, perhaps the difference is between feeling well and feeling good?
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2008, at 16:40:15
In reply to Re: Lou's request to SLS for clarification-adsjutmens? » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 14:25:20
> Lou, perhaps the difference is between feeling well and feeling good?
Sigismund,
You wrote,[...between feeling well and feeling good...].
I think in the context we could look at some examples and see how they fit. For instance, in music it could be easy, such as:
A. I feel well (James Brown)
B. well vibrations (Beach Boys)
C. Johnny B. well (Chuck Berry)
D. Only the well die young (Billy Joel)
But in the context as Scott's post, I am unsure. What are you leaning toward here and could there be a difference in your opinion?
Lou
Posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 17:47:37
In reply to Lou's reply to Sigismund-gudvibrtns » Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on April 18, 2008, at 16:40:15
Lou, I think I agree with you.
People want to feel good rather than well.
And sometimes they should feel very bad.
Though I wonder if those who should feel worst do at all.
But many people here are/have been sick, I'm sure of that.
The DSM, IMO, is not an interesting map etc etc.
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 18:06:25
In reply to No one wants to be well in the music industry » Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 17:47:37
> Lou, I think I agree with you.
>
> People want to feel good rather than well."Good" is an adjective. "Well" is an adverb. "Feel" is a verb. I chose the adverb in preference to the adjective, as it is grammatically correct. I am just trying to speak good. You know?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 18:19:36
In reply to Who's doing the real projection here? (nm) » SLS, posted by antiserial on April 18, 2008, at 9:49:24
Now that others seem not to know what are the meanings of the words I used in my previous response to you, I will rephrase my earlier statement.
It doesn't matter to me how you reach remission. That you do reach remission is what I wish for you.
- Scott
Posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 18:49:00
In reply to Re: No one wants to be well in the music industry » Sigismund, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 18:06:25
There is a difference (for me) between saying
'All that matters is that you feel good',
and
'All that matters is that you feel well'.Maybe I missed the point?
Posted by bleauberry on April 18, 2008, at 19:54:45
In reply to Former renowned psychiatrist: Psychiatry a Hoax, posted by antiserial on April 17, 2008, at 18:09:46
Certainly the right drugs do help multitudes of people live improved or even reborn lives.
I like the view that the doctor is the patient's employee. I have asked here many times, "Who pays who?" Too bad most doctors don't consider that. Good point by the author.
The way the psychiatry world has been molded and limited by pharmaceutical companies, FDA politics, money, and beaurocracy is something I have always complained about. I have seen serious longterm sufferers on heavy duty drugs not help much, only to be totally cured with something as ridiculous as avoiding gluten foods or taking a targeted vitamin/mineral protocol versus a multivitamin. Psychiatrists are indeed unchallenged to explore the whole person and to explore the many causes of depression, things that cause those neuros to need balancing.
But the way the author just downgraded the whole field wasn't too cool. Like I said, regardless of the all the flaws in the system, multitudes of people have been saved.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 11:33:31
In reply to Re: No one wants to be well in the music industry » SLS, posted by Sigismund on April 18, 2008, at 18:49:00
> There is a difference (for me) between saying
> 'All that matters is that you feel good',
> and
> 'All that matters is that you feel well'.
>
> Maybe I missed the point?Sigismund,
You wrote, [...maybe I missed...?]
The aspect of using the word {well} verses the word {good} may be an esoteric situation. The complication could be the use of {all} in the statement in question. I lean to that when the word {all} is used, where either {good} or {well} could be used in the statement, that {good} could be used in place of {well}. This is because the conotation of feeling {good} could mean that the {mood} >and< the {general health} is what is feeling and the word {all} then could mean the totality.(citation gudfel,bottom under "usage") This is why I think that {good} could be thought in the statement in question.
Lou
citation (gudfel)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=good
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 12:31:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request to SLS for clarification-adsjutm » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 18, 2008, at 10:38:10
> Lou,
>
> I make it my business not to respond to such requests for clarification. I believe that I write clearly enough not to need the amplifications of my meanings.
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote,[...not to respond to requests for clarification...I write clearly enough...].
If your statement in question is to stand as to what the grammatical structure could purport, then I see what is written as to be what could be interpreted from its grammatical structure.
That then could mean that in your use of the part in your statement,{All that matters}, one could have the potential to think IMO that if {all that matters} could have the grammatical meaning of {regardless of the consequesnces} and then IMO the following could be thought;
A.taking a drug that makes one feel well, even if it could harm one's liver and kill them, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as to be advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statement in question.
B. taking a drug that could cause addiction, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statemet in question.
C. taking a drug that is illegal, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grmmmatical structure of the statement in question.
D. other meanings not listed
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 13:01:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 12:31:59
> > Lou,
> >
> > I make it my business not to respond to such requests for clarification. I believe that I write clearly enough not to need the amplifications of my meanings.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...not to respond to requests for clarification...I write clearly enough...].
> If your statement in question is to stand as to what the grammatical structure could purport, then I see what is written as to be what could be interpreted from its grammatical structure.
> That then could mean that in your use of the part in your statement,{All that matters}, one could have the potential to think IMO that if {all that matters} could have the grammatical meaning of {regardless of the consequesnces} and then IMO the following could be thought;
> A.taking a drug that makes one feel well, even if it could harm one's liver and kill them, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as to be advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statement in question.
> B. taking a drug that could cause addiction, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grammatical structure of the statemet in question.
> C. taking a drug that is illegal, if it makes one feel well, is what the statement in question could be thought IMO as being advocating here as per the grmmmatical structure of the statement in question.
> D. other meanings not listed
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Let us look at the statement in question:
[...All that matters is that you feel well...].
I would like to show intersted mambers the following by email if they like:
A. The historical parallels to the statement in question
B. How the statement in question could be connected to the TOS here of Mr. Hsiung in that he does what in his thinking will be good for the commmunity as a whole and to trust him in that.
C. The past practice here concerning the use of similar grammatical structure of the statement in question.
D. The aspect of our young people that they could think as a result of reading the statement in question.
E. other aspects not listed
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
there is an underscore between my name and the 1188
Posted by linkadge on April 20, 2008, at 19:26:22
In reply to Lou's invitation to those interested in the above-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 13:01:05
>Friends,
>Let us look at the statement in question:Lets not.
Linkadge
Posted by johnj on April 20, 2008, at 20:24:37
In reply to Lou's invitation to those interested in the above-, posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 13:01:05
Dude, you lost me about 4 posts ago. I don't understand what you want to do and I think you are reading into stuff way more than is necessary.
I am totally confused.
johnj
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 20, 2008, at 23:44:57
In reply to Re: Lou's invitation to those interested in the above- » Lou Pilder, posted by johnj on April 20, 2008, at 20:24:37
> Dude, you lost me about 4 posts ago. I don't understand what you want to do and I think you are reading into stuff way more than is necessary.
>
> I am totally confused.
>
> johnj,
You wrote,[....dude..you lost..don't understand...I think you...totally confused...].
If you are lost from 4 posts ago, could you go back to then and ask me something tat could give clarification for you?
What are you confused about? Confusion could generally imply a disorientation of something, such as identity, or time related things and such like different choices to make and not knowing which to make for a need of more infomation. If there is something that I can post here as an answer that could undo the confusion, please just ask.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2008, at 9:03:21
In reply to Re: Lou's invitation to those interested in the above- » Lou Pilder, posted by linkadge on April 20, 2008, at 19:26:22
> >Friends,
> >Let us look at the statement in question:
>
> Lets not.
>
> LinkadgeLinkage,
You wrote,[...Let's not...]
Could you identify any criteria that you used to write here,[...Let's not...]? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by linkadge on April 21, 2008, at 15:06:35
In reply to Lou's request to linkage for identification- » linkadge, posted by Lou Pilder on April 21, 2008, at 9:03:21
Nice try, but I am not even going to respond to your posts anymore. You are not going to rope me into your demented web of nonsense.
Go ahead, pick apart this post. I don't care, I'm not responding any more. Its a waste of my time, just as your posts are a waste of your time.
Linkadge
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.