Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 6905

Shown: posts 33 to 57 of 57. Go back in thread:

 

Re: sources of information

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:56:17

In reply to Re: sources of information Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on October 14, 2002, at 20:20:35

> I did not mean that only doctors should be posting, but that when they do, such as your previous "guest" doctors, that they have full disclosure of their affiliations with commercial interests or with any commercial product.

Hmm, that's not such a bad idea. How much disclosure would you consider "full"? And would you settle for disclosures -- or require that they not have any affiliations?

> There are no rescources to contradict a pharmrep when they hold all of the cards and ask for scientific evidence to disprove them when they are contradicted. They are in positions of authority and the members of this bboard are by and large not able to contradict their claims on equivalent terms (for instance does any one of us have access to the tests Forest lab did including the ones they discarded in order to change the test parameters to be able to cherry-pick their results submitted to the FDA?).

If there aren't any resources to contradict him, why don't you necessarily believe him? And if you don't necessarily believe him, why would others?

> Firstly, anyone that claims to be a doc or in similar position of authority that dispenses medical advice (which is what pharmrep is actually doing) - that deliberately comes here putting themselves in a position of authority should have their credentials verified in some way shouldn't they?

If you assume people believe everything they hear, yes. Voluntary verification of credentials might be interesting. But exactly what credentials would I need to verify? And how would I verify them?

> (liscence no. for verification comes to mind)

But someone could just make up a license number. Or give me someone else's...

> Secondly perhaps start a board called something like "Professional Psycho-babble corner" or something of the sort where these verified MHP's that have received verification could take place before MHP's are allowed to speak from a position of authority.

Yes, but wasn't part of the idea also keeping them from posting on other boards? How would I do that? Especially since they might not say they're MHPs?

> It's the mixing of authority with inquisitive but vulnerable consumers that bother me on the main babble board. Having two seperate boards would at least identify things for what they really are rather than pretending what they aren't.

Sorry, are you saying I'm pretending that there's no mixing of professionals and consumers on PB?

Bob

 

Educate members. You can't police the internet.

Posted by wcfrench on October 20, 2002, at 14:31:21

In reply to Re: sources of information, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:56:17

I think the most important thing to keep in mind for posters here is that you can only take the information and recommendations people give you about meds with a grain of salt. All meds work differently for everyone, and if someone tells you that a med "works great" in general, they're lying. Because everyone has different reactions.

Although there might be a lot of undisclosed professionals posting here, I think we can safely assume that the base of Psycho Babble is composed of well-meaning consumers seeking advice. Think about it. What would be more important, more likely: if you were a professional trying to push the internet toward a medicine of your choice, receiving little benefit, if any, from the process, OR an honest consumer in search of advice that could possibly benefit the quality of his/her life. If you were each of these people, who do you think is more likely to seek out a site such as Psycho Babble? Put yourself in the "salesman" shoes. Now in the consumer's shoes. And if you were a salesman, or a doctor pushing pharmaceutical companies that you made money from, how many customers could you really "convert" to your medicine, and would they even be your customers? This isn't an insurance sales site, no one comes here to be sold. People come here seeking opinions, empathy, understanding, and the comfort of talking to someone else that has been in the same boat you have. And in the rare occasion that someone asks another about a specific drug recommendation, they should know that who they are talking to, though friendly and personable, is albeit still a stranger. We can't go around listening to strangers on the internet who tell us to try medicines. We seek opinions, experiences, and a general sense of how the medicine works, but never should listen to a direct recommendation. And anyone posting here, salesman, doctor, or otherwise, saying that "you should take this" is taking this board way out of context and shouldn't be listened to. You should listen to people's experience on a medicine, several people, and read as many threads as you can find on it before you even consider talking to your doctor about it. No one listens to one person who says "take this, it's better than this." Every knowledgable Psycho Babble member knows that no one drug is "better" than another, because they all have a unique mechanism of action that works differently on all people.

You guys are clouding the issue. Instead of worrying about who's posting here and how to control them, you have to realize that the internet is full of strangers, and you can't control who's posting here. You will never be able to. And whether a pharmaceutical representative posts under the name "pharmrep" or "johndoe" will always be a mystery to us. That's how the internet works! That's why so many people use it! You think all these people would be on Psycho Babble if they had to put their driver's licenses and birth certificates on file? All you can do is keep in mind who we are talking to and remember how to deal with them. Yes, most of the people here are great people all in search of similar information, but some are not, and we will never be able to control that.

Dr. Bob, I agree with you, but I don't like the way you argue. You ask questions in response to a question, and it seems to further delude the issue. This, of course, is just a civil disagreement.

I think you are both right in a lot of respects, but you simply cannot control who visits and posts to this website, just as you cannot control who uses the internet for bad deeds. The only thing you can do is educate the ones that use it.

-Charlie

 

Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet.

Posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 11:54:14

In reply to Educate members. You can't police the internet., posted by wcfrench on October 20, 2002, at 14:31:21

> I think the most important thing to keep in mind for posters here is that you can only take the information and recommendations people give you about meds with a grain of salt. All meds work differently for everyone, and if someone tells you that a med "works great" in general, they're lying. Because everyone has different reactions.
>
> Although there might be a lot of undisclosed professionals posting here, I think we can safely assume that the base of Psycho Babble is composed of well-meaning consumers seeking advice. Think about it. What would be more important, more likely: if you were a professional trying to push the internet toward a medicine of your choice, receiving little benefit, if any, from the process, OR an honest consumer in search of advice that could possibly benefit the quality of his/her life. If you were each of these people, who do you think is more likely to seek out a site such as Psycho Babble? Put yourself in the "salesman" shoes. Now in the consumer's shoes. And if you were a salesman, or a doctor pushing pharmaceutical companies that you made money from, how many customers could you really "convert" to your medicine, and would they even be your customers? This isn't an insurance sales site, no one comes here to be sold. People come here seeking opinions, empathy, understanding, and the comfort of talking to someone else that has been in the same boat you have. And in the rare occasion that someone asks another about a specific drug recommendation, they should know that who they are talking to, though friendly and personable, is albeit still a stranger. We can't go around listening to strangers on the internet who tell us to try medicines. We seek opinions, experiences, and a general sense of how the medicine works, but never should listen to a direct recommendation. And anyone posting here, salesman, doctor, or otherwise, saying that "you should take this" is taking this board way out of context and shouldn't be listened to. You should listen to people's experience on a medicine, several people, and read as many threads as you can find on it before you even consider talking to your doctor about it. No one listens to one person who says "take this, it's better than this." Every knowledgable Psycho Babble member knows that no one drug is "better" than another, because they all have a unique mechanism of action that works differently on all people.
>
> You guys are clouding the issue. Instead of worrying about who's posting here and how to control them, you have to realize that the internet is full of strangers, and you can't control who's posting here. You will never be able to. And whether a pharmaceutical representative posts under the name "pharmrep" or "johndoe" will always be a mystery to us. That's how the internet works! That's why so many people use it! You think all these people would be on Psycho Babble if they had to put their driver's licenses and birth certificates on file? All you can do is keep in mind who we are talking to and remember how to deal with them. Yes, most of the people here are great people all in search of similar information, but some are not, and we will never be able to control that.
>
> Dr. Bob, I agree with you, but I don't like the way you argue. You ask questions in response to a question, and it seems to further delude the issue. This, of course, is just a civil disagreement.
>
> I think you are both right in a lot of respects, but you simply cannot control who visits and posts to this website, just as you cannot control who uses the internet for bad deeds. The only thing you can do is educate the ones that use it.
>
> -Charlie
==============================================
It is not simply a matter of policing the entire internet. That subject is too broad to be considered here.

Specifically the issue is, how far is a specific site devoted argueably to helping one of the most emotionally vulnerable population of the internet, going to be allowing the emboldening of the pharmecutical industry to hawk their wares as *a position of authority*.

This is not an insult to the intelligence of the PB populace but rather a serious matter of how one dispute those in a position of authority representing themselves as members of the medical community, and most importantly, those dispensing actual medical advice in that position of authority (in this case through real or imaginary doctors to try to bypass the *direct medical advice* part).

Alan

 

Re: sources of information - soon to be addressed (nm) Dr. Bob

Posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 11:55:18

In reply to Re: sources of information, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:56:17

 

Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet.

Posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 15:36:46

In reply to Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet., posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 11:54:14

How would a pharmaceutical rep know better than your doctor what dosage to take and what changes you should make to your medicine? Don't listen to him! Seeking the experience of a plethora of people on Psycho Babble who have actually been on the medicine is INVALUABLE compared to a pharmaceutical representative's statistical proof. This guy has never even taken Lexapro, and no one should listen to him if he says to alter dosages. And, if I were Dr. Bob, I'd allow him to post with the EXPLICIT restraint of medication recommendations. He can "sell," or give "proof" or tell us "we shouldn't be experiencing that," but never should he say, you should up your dosage. Pharm reps know very little compared to doctors and patients.

-Charlie

 

Re: Educate members

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:22:47

In reply to Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet., posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 11:54:14

> the issue is, how far is a specific site ... going to be allowing the emboldening of the pharmecutical industry to hawk their wares as *a position of authority*.

In what sense do you see them as in a position of authority? And do you think it would be OK for them to "hawk their wares" if they weren't in such a position?

Bob

 

Re: Educate members Dr. Bob

Posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:45:11

In reply to Re: Educate members, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:22:47

No matter how good the intentions someone may have, "my" experiences have been that unless a person has had an 'opportunity' to walk in similar shoes, they have no idea of what it is. I think pharmrep has no ulterior motive in extolling the virtues of Lexapro. I do believe he really wishes to be helpful. I'd hestitate to say, but I bet he's young, brash, full of enthusiasm in most things, & rather idealistic about most things. All very good attributes!! But maybe the years & experience will temper his methods (but not I hope, his enthusisam & ideals).

But pharmrep has never had depression & despite Phil's view that he shows remarkable insight, I don't think he knows what it can do & what it feels like - just how much it can alter a person. His comments & advice is going to come from someone never knowing what it can do to the soul of a person. Living with a depressed person, being around them, even treating them is NOT the same. I prefer pdocs that have suffered from depression myself. They're much more empathetic, understanding, determined, AND knowledgable about treating it.

Pharmrep is digging through the info available to him, trying his best to help anyone taking Lexapro. If people accept that his advice has limitations, there's still good that can be gleaned from it.

 

Re: Educate members Dr. Bob

Posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 18:26:18

In reply to Re: Educate members, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 16:22:47

> > the issue is, how far is a specific site ... going to be allowing the emboldening of the pharmecutical industry to hawk their wares as *a position of authority*.
>
> In what sense do you see them as in a position of authority?

In much the same way as the face time they have w/you and your colleagues. They are authorities to you. You take the time to listen and make judgements....but based on critical thinking skills that cuts through all of the "Goober talk" that the simplified pitch is designed to appeal to.

However, you have the knowledge and experience to know where they are coming from and know - as one also being in a position of authority - how to think critically in order to form critical medical judgements and distinctions concerning the details of their pitch.

Consumers do not. That's what makes the playing field so skewed in favor of the commercial pitches that us regular people are subjected to.

For instance, how are we going to know what questions to ask to critically break down their company line when we're not doctors? Re: comparative efficacy rates, what an isomer is, what part of the test results matter and what is simply hype? By taking the package insert into our docs so they can compare them side by side and then read peer-review studies about comparative benefit/analysis of different drugs in med-speak that appears in clinical journals?

>And do you think it would be OK for them to "hawk their wares" if they weren't in such a position?
>
> Bob

How could they hawk their commercial wares if they were not in such a declared position anyway? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Basically, no. Not on a bulletin board that best serves as a sanctuary for exchanging personal information and experiences to best make our own judgements. We have ads for these medications in mags, TV spots and the doc's office brochure stand already.

Why would one consider allowing the same commercial interests infiltrate our board? In the form of virtual "face time" to consumers looking for unbiased answers to be able to make judgements about...?

It makes no sense to put commercial interests between the already intruded upon and complicated doctor/patient relationship. Allowing representatives of corporations to come here and give us the corporate line seems obvious to me, to cloud thatn already intruded upon relationship.

Doctors are the ones that should appropriately be given "face time" - and that is pervasive enough (some would say too pervasive already). A community such as psychobabble is not the appropriate forum for such commercial representation. There is simply too clearly a conflict of interest.

Alan

 

Re: Educate members IsoM

Posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 18:35:11

In reply to Re: Educate members Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 23, 2002, at 16:45:11


> Pharmrep is digging through the info available to him, trying his best to help anyone taking Lexapro. If people accept that his advice has limitations, there's still good that can be gleaned from it.
>

=============================================

Yes, but the point is that there is no way of knowing what those "limitations" are specifically. Sure, good can be gleaned from anything - but the lack of knowledge to go toe to toe with such a representative as a well educated doctor would seems to me to be the issue.

Their position of authority or expertise can hardly be challenged by citing this and that study that in the eyes of the regular PB consumer, legitimately challenges their claims...or even personal experience when the mission of the expert is to field all questions and dispense medical advice the same way they are advising doctors to dispense their corporate medical advice.

Heck, most doctors just shove a pill in the newest and latest version and repeats the mantra they've been fed. Why should we be shoveled the same - and many without even knowing that we're being shoveled upon?

 

Re: Educate members

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 19:43:09

In reply to Re: Educate members Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 18:26:18

> > In what sense do you see them as in a position of authority?
>
> In much the same way as the face time they have w/you and your colleagues.

I mean, do you see them as experts?

authority
1 c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?authority

> you have the knowledge and experience to know where they are coming from and know - as one also being in a position of authority - how to think critically in order to form critical medical judgements and distinctions concerning the details of their pitch.
>
> Consumers do not.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this. I think the people here, especially with input (including alternative posts of view) from others, can make up their own minds.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7693.html

Bob

 

Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet.

Posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 21:34:43

In reply to Educate members. You can't police the internet., posted by wcfrench on October 20, 2002, at 14:31:21

Yes.

I think most members know that a pharm rep knows far less about a med than doctors, and to a greater extent, fellow patients do. As long as he is not giving direct orders on medication, his opinion or proof is welcome as anyone else's is. Don't you think anyone else on this board could find the info he has presented to us and pitch Lexapro? We make up our own mind, and listen to patients who have taken the medicine over a sales representative. It's not that difficult.

-Charlie

 

Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet. wcfrench

Posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 22:46:38

In reply to Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet., posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 21:34:43

> I think most members know that a pharm rep knows far less about a med than doctors, and to a greater extent, fellow patients do. As long as he is not giving direct orders on medication, his opinion or proof is welcome as anyone else's is. Don't you think anyone else on this board could find the info he has presented to us and pitch Lexapro? We make up our own mind, and listen to patients who have taken the medicine over a sales representative. It's not that difficult.
>
> -Charlie

===============================================
What do you mean? Many *doctors* are making their decisions based largely on info from pharm reps! That's part of the problem. Why do you think "face time" is the be all and end all in the business today? If doctors are indeed swayed by the cherry-picked test results, why then wouldn't suggestable psychological or psychiatric participants on PB be?

Unfortunately pharm rep is indeed instructing how to medicate and from a from a self-claimed position of relative authority (consistently using Forest's own documented test results as evidence) and covering themselves by saying that their advice is based on contact with what a few doctor "friends" are telling them.

What? The docs that they've had face time with producing highly suggestable docs and PBabblers only their proprietary test results? Based on what? If individual responses are so highly idiosyncratic, why would this method of giving cookie-cutter corporate medical advice even be allowed? Has everyone lost it regarding the need for some degree of objectivity?

Why is it alright for a pharmrep to dispense medical advice to a suggestable group in need of psychological help? The people that come here aren't here to pass the time I suspect. They're here to hear personal stories about medications...not the same corporate line that docs get every day but in reconstituted "Goober-talk". And if it's in medspeak, the average joe on this board isn't going to know what the hell they're talking about anyway....technically just far enough above their heads to have the consumer collectively nod their heads in bewilderment and agreement?

Yes, I agree. It's not that difficult to figure what is really going on here.

Alan

 

Pharmrep shouldn't be allow to give medical advice Alan

Posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 23:47:31

In reply to Re: Educate members. You can't police the internet. wcfrench, posted by Alan on October 23, 2002, at 22:46:38

> What do you mean? Many *doctors* are making their decisions based largely on info from pharm reps! That's part of the problem. Why do you think "face time" is the be all and end all in the business today? If doctors are indeed swayed by the cherry-picked test results, why then wouldn't suggestable psychological or psychiatric participants on PB be?

Doctors aren't. If you've had a good doctor, he will tell you that most results are produced by the drug companies, and that you really have to search and verify sources of information for accurate results. When I told my last doctor that I'd heard of Remeron being faster working than Prozac, the first thing he said was "you really have to read these results carefully and verify where they come from." On top of that, most doctors base their medication recommendations on past patient response and experience, not a cherry-picked presentation.

> Unfortunately pharm rep is indeed instructing how to medicate and from a from a self-claimed position of relative authority (consistently using Forest's own documented test results as evidence) and covering themselves by saying that their advice is based on contact with what a few doctor "friends" are telling them.

This should not be allowed, and Dr. Bob should block him if he is issuing medical advice. He is not a doctor. And even doctors who post here shouldn't issue medical advice to patients that are not their own. It should not be allowed, and it should not be listened to.

> Why is it alright for a pharmrep to dispense medical advice to a suggestable group in need of psychological help? The people that come here aren't here to pass the time I suspect. They're here to hear personal stories about medications...not the same corporate line that docs get every day but in reconstituted "Goober-talk". And if it's in medspeak, the average joe on this board isn't going to know what the hell they're talking about anyway....technically just far enough above their heads to have the consumer collectively nod their heads in bewilderment and agreement?

Then don't listen to him. Many do not want to hear what he has to say because of his credibility and lack of experience, and they simply heed other's advice. Let him post all he wants in med speak and post meaningless statistics. His audience will diminish and Psycho Babble will alienate him. Most of the thread involves argument anyway, exactly proving the point that we know how to think for ourselves.

-Charlie

 

Re: Pharmrep shouldn't be allow to give medical advice wcfrench

Posted by Alan on October 24, 2002, at 0:39:44

In reply to Pharmrep shouldn't be allow to give medical advice Alan, posted by wcfrench on October 23, 2002, at 23:47:31

> > What do you mean? Many *doctors* are making their decisions based largely on info from pharm reps! That's part of the problem. Why do you think "face time" is the be all and end all in the business today? If doctors are indeed swayed by the cherry-picked test results, why then wouldn't suggestable psychological or psychiatric participants on PB be?
>
> Doctors aren't. If you've had a good doctor, he will tell you that most results are produced by the drug companies, and that you really have to search and verify sources of information for accurate results. When I told my last doctor that I'd heard of Remeron being faster working than Prozac, the first thing he said was "you really have to read these results carefully and verify where they come from." On top of that, most doctors base their medication recommendations on past patient response and experience, not a cherry-picked presentation.
-----------------------------------------------
The sticking point is that very first one....GOOD doctor. From what I read on this bboard and others, you and I are perhaps in the distinct minority - not because of anything sinister - but because the time and leg-work for the average doc to verify and trust their claims is impossible to fulfill with the case load of the majority of HCP's.

Which leads to sticking point two. Doctors do make assumptions based on past experience - but many to a fault - to an almost cookie-cutter mentality that blames the patient for an undesireable outcome with a medication rather than the other way around...leading them to think twice before titrating a patient ad nauseum on the same class of drugs (or worse, polypharmacy as a rule rather than the exception) before even considerng others that they have less experience with.
-----------------------------------------------
>
> > Unfortunately pharm rep is indeed instructing how to medicate and from a from a self-claimed position of relative authority (consistently using Forest's own documented test results as evidence) and covering themselves by saying that their advice is based on contact with what a few doctor "friends" are telling them.
>
> This should not be allowed, and Dr. Bob should block him if he is issuing medical advice. He is not a doctor. And even doctors who post here shouldn't issue medical advice to patients that are not their own. It should not be allowed, and it should not be listened to.
------------------------------------------------
Instucting the adjusting of doses and start-up proceedures and so on (under the guise that this is what their doctor "friends" are telling them) is dispensing medical advice as it is coming from a position of authority. If I had said the same thing it would be a suggestion based on my own personal experience and not prescribing information gleaned from my doctor "contacts".
I agree, Dr. Bob should do something about this.
------------------------------------------------
>
> > Why is it alright for a pharmrep to dispense medical advice to a suggestable group in need of psychological help? The people that come here aren't here to pass the time I suspect. They're here to hear personal stories about medications...not the same corporate line that docs get every day but in reconstituted "Goober-talk". And if it's in medspeak, the average joe on this board isn't going to know what the hell they're talking about anyway....technically just far enough above their heads to have the consumer collectively nod their heads in bewilderment and agreement?
>
> Then don't listen to him. Many do not want to hear what he has to say because of his credibility and lack of experience, and they simply heed other's advice. Let him post all he wants in med speak and post meaningless statistics. His audience will diminish and Psycho Babble will alienate him. Most of the thread involves argument anyway, exactly proving the point that we know how to think for ourselves.
>
> -Charlie
----------------------------------------------
Well taken. But that's you and I you're talking about - not the vast majority that are impressionable that perhaps don't even post, that DO seem to be heeding the pharmreps advice, unaware of the conflict of interest and indeed unaware of the whole of why there IS any conflict of interest to begin with.

Others have to police that kind of thing? If it wasn't a problem to begin with, why would it be necessary to police it?

I'm sorry but this "free market" solution to everything that seems to be permeating every nook and cranie of our lives has gone too far.
And that's not meant to be a purely political statement. It's just that there has to be SOME sort of oversight and lines drawn when it comes to mixing medicine and commercialism.

I see none as of now other than "free market" regulation - which in the case of medicine - especially considering the present climate involving the pervasiveness of commercial interests involved - is no authoratative regulation at all.

Alan

 

Re: medical advice

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2002, at 18:50:02

In reply to Re: Pharmrep shouldn't be allow to give medical advice wcfrench, posted by Alan on October 24, 2002, at 0:39:44

> > > Unfortunately pharm rep is indeed instructing how to medicate and from a from a self-claimed position of relative authority (consistently using Forest's own documented test results as evidence) and covering themselves by saying that their advice is based on contact with what a few doctor "friends" are telling them.
> >
> > This should not be allowed, and Dr. Bob should block him if he is issuing medical advice. He is not a doctor. And even doctors who post here shouldn't issue medical advice to patients that are not their own. It should not be allowed, and it should not be listened to.
>
> Instucting the adjusting of doses and start-up proceedures and so on (under the guise that this is what their doctor "friends" are telling them) is dispensing medical advice as it is coming from a position of authority. If I had said the same thing it would be a suggestion based on my own personal experience and not prescribing information gleaned from my doctor "contacts".

Talking to doctors is what makes him an authority? Anyway:

If medical advice is advice regarding medical conditions or treatment, then it's provided here all the time. We've already discussed the alternative of allowing only doctors to post:

> > Well, this would be a completely different site if only doctors were allowed to post...
>
> Oh, you misunderstood me...or the other way around.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7694.html

Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this. I think the people here, especially with input (including alternative posts of view) from others, can make up their own minds as far as what, if any, advice to take.

At the same time, people who give medical advice shouldn't do so willy-nilly. What they say may conceivably be used against them. And professionals, especially, should be careful not to establish unintentional therapist-patient relationships:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#purpose

Bob

 

Re: medical advice Dr. Bob

Posted by Alan on October 26, 2002, at 15:56:25

In reply to Re: medical advice, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2002, at 18:50:02

OK. If you do not see that the inherent conflict of interest exists, that's fine. But as you say we will all be vigilatnly (and civily) pointing these conflicts out when needed....as alternative views mind you.

Sorry we couldn't come to an agreement about how to regulate the insideous nature of commercialism creeping into this bboard (and medicine in general). Pharmreps and others in a position of authority to dispense medical advice in that claimed position of authority will definitely be kept on their toes.

Alan.

 

Re: thanks (nm) Alan

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2002, at 10:10:38

In reply to Re: medical advice Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on October 26, 2002, at 15:56:25

 

Re: Educate members Dr. Bob

Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:06:53

In reply to Re: Educate members, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2002, at 19:43:09

> Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this.

Translation: We are going to do it my way.

Once again, Bob, I marvel at how difficult,how nearly impossible for you to respond to the heart and soul your posters present, over and over and over again, acting repeatedly on an *idea* of the best interest of the board to which the board itself objects.

This, precisely, is what disqualifies the site as an online community, but makes it instead a controlled group, led by the protypical patriarch, and these are the two fundamental untruths about PyschoBabble that I protest.

I do post when a friend sends me a link, and am glad to speak to the fact that in my view, letting a drug rep onto the board in the first place is but one more chipping away at your vulnerable members' trust. This was a trusted place. I resent it highly that your best advice is to tell this population to be even *more* on its toes - and what you will be monitoring is how civil they are in response to yet another insult to their intelligence and to their true needs. It is as if I created a support place for homeless persons - and kept watch and cautioned and banned them on their table manners.

Shall this post be deleted too, oh little dictator? Oh ye of teensy-weensy faith?

Glad to have left. Much affection for the people here, but the structure and administration of the site is frankly crazy-making, in violation of, well, first of all, the Hypocratic Oath. As such. . .nice little passive-aggressive set-up you've got going here. Harvesting narcisstic supplies with archaic but still-effective machinery, and - I said it in my first protest and it's the same now - hurting other people.

Um, Bob. Normal people *care* when it is brought to their attention that they are being hurtful. Normal people have an inborn *strong* desire to attend to that.

It isn't normal to have the *ability* to let it all roll off you. To turn, at every juncture, to the abstracting, rational mind for answers. Those answers will be, per se, wildly inaccurate.

As before, I think it is wrong of you as a person and as a physician to allow your own issues free reign on this site - ownership be damned. This has nothing to do with money. It has to do with what is normal behavior, normal empathy, with what is right. After a certain point, I thought it was the right thing to tell you that your issues becloud the site and are harmful to others - and it is still the right thing.

And of course those who wish to enable you may continue to do so, and those who wish to tiptoe on your very peculiar eggshells may choose to, or may need to, or may not know they deserve anything better.

I want them to know that they do.

I want people to know, It's not them, it is, unfortunately, you.

Zo


 

Re: Educating, Blockings, PBCs and Intentions

Posted by IsoM on October 30, 2002, at 18:39:04

In reply to Re: Educate members Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:06:53

Bob, Zo's post contains some a very strong reason why I wouldn't feel comfortable filling in as a deputy moderator when you can't be monitoring things here.

Zo said "Normal people *care* when it is brought to their attention that they are being hurtful. Normal people have an inborn *strong* desire to attend to that." Well, maybe I'm naive but that's what I believe to. I dislike blocking anyone unless it's obvious to ALL that someone is being very rude & crude. I've seen it in other forums & there's no doubt in anyone's mind when someone really intends to hurt another or to tell them their opinions mean sh*t to them.

I've seen this happen in the PB boards very, very rarely. Yes, there's always some jerks in this world who's only purpose is to make trouble but these forums have had very few. If someone has posted something that's hurt or offended another, usually a mention that it could be understood to be hurtful to some will be enough for the poster to come back & apologize, or the other to say they reacted to quickly. This thread is a perfect example of how we can get along without interference:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021010/msgs/31148.html

Yes, it's unrealistic to believe that everyone will get along all the time. It's also unrealistic to believe that everyone intends good all the time. But I've found that assuming that people mean the best & seriously wish to help, not put down, others, the best is truly brought to the fore. A genuine warmth & understanding will develop & the group will tend to moderate itself with feedback from each other. Rarely will a moderator need to step in.

In case others point to forums where none of this has proven true (& there's lots), note what sort of forum it is & what sort of posters use it. If you start a forum about heavy-metal music (& no! this isn't against anyone who enjoys it), you're going to attract a certain kind of poster. No sweet, old grannies or fuzzy-wuzzy posters, but lots of hard-core metal fans who swear lots & can be contentious.

There's a garden forum that I occasionally post to. Never has anyone been hurt in the slightest & there's no moderating of this site. Yes, I know fellow gardeners rarely have it in for each other (except for a midnight trip to a garden to dig up a coveted plant of a rival) but that's basically what this community is about - helping one another, but in mental & emotional help rather than gardening help.

See? if I was to help out, I'd be very naughty & want to unblock blocked posters. I'd be writing to Spike (anyone remember our other good doctor, besides Dr. Dave, who was so helpful?) asking them to come back. I really, REALLY miss their posts. Spike had occasional outbursts when his mania started to assert itself, but he was always kind & thoughtful.

So I'm sorry, Bob, I know you feel a need to strictly moderate these boards, but I would do so in a much more gentle & amiable manner. I would do my best to bring out the best in other posters & encourage feedback to iron out problems. I think it helps people with mental/emotional disorders grow & learn to better to get along. It's like sending a misbehaving child to its room each time it has a squabble with a friend rather than help the child learn acceptable social interaction.

I sincerely hope you can not only accept my view but believe it too. I think your site could grow & I don't mean in volume of posters.

 

Re: blocked for 8 weeks Zo

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2002, at 18:50:21

In reply to Re: Educate members Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 17:06:53

> Shall this post be deleted too, oh little dictator? Oh ye of teensy-weensy faith?

Different points of view are fine, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 4 weeks, so this time it's for 8.

Bob

 

Re: Educating, Blockings, PBCs and Intentions IsoM

Posted by wcfrench on October 30, 2002, at 22:11:19

In reply to Re: Educating, Blockings, PBCs and Intentions, posted by IsoM on October 30, 2002, at 18:39:04

I like what you have to say and I agree. Very well put. Do you feel that the intentions of pharm reps are the same as those of the main set of posters here? I am not sure if they are, and I don't think he should be giving biased medical advice to dependent individuals. Other than these circumstances, everything else is fine.

Tolerable: disagreements, arguments, suggestions, sympathy, socializing.

Intolerable: specific medication dictation (ESPECIALLY biased), insulting, obscenities, advertisements.

I'm sure there are a better set of rules somewhere, but these seem to cover many of the arguments.

-Charlie

 

Re: a kinder, gentler board

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2002, at 0:08:23

In reply to Re: Educating, Blockings, PBCs and Intentions, posted by IsoM on October 30, 2002, at 18:39:04

> I know you feel a need to strictly moderate these boards, but I would do so in a much more gentle & amiable manner. I would do my best to bring out the best in other posters & encourage feedback to iron out problems. I think it helps people with mental/emotional disorders grow & learn to better to get along.

So would you like to give it a try here? :-)

Bob

 

Re: Bob, please don't pressure others... Dr. Bob

Posted by wendy b. on November 1, 2002, at 18:53:02

In reply to Re: a kinder, gentler board, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2002, at 0:08:23

You've reminded us in the past to stop pressuring others to answer specific questions, for example. So I think IsoM should be given a break. I think I've read about 5 times in the last few days where you've repeatedly asked her to moderate, and she has told you why she doesn't want to, and yet you still keep asking her. I wonder why you are doing this? And just saying IsoM is a good, fair, equitable person, would not, in my view, be an acceptable response to my question, even though it's true she IS all of those things. It feels like you're badgering her...


Wendy

> > I know you feel a need to strictly moderate these boards, but I would do so in a much more gentle & amiable manner. I would do my best to bring out the best in other posters & encourage feedback to iron out problems. I think it helps people with mental/emotional disorders grow & learn to better to get along.
>
> So would you like to give it a try here? :-)
>
> Bob

 

Re: pressuring others... IsoM

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2002, at 0:58:40

In reply to Re: Bob, please don't pressure others... Dr. Bob, posted by wendy b. on November 1, 2002, at 18:53:02

> You've reminded us in the past to stop pressuring others to answer specific questions, for example. So I think IsoM should be given a break. I think I've read about 5 times in the last few days where you've repeatedly asked her to moderate, and she has told you why she doesn't want to, and yet you still keep asking her.

Fair enough. IsoM, do you feel pressured? If so, I'll stop...

Bob

 

Re: pressuring others... Dr. Bob

Posted by wendy b. on November 3, 2002, at 8:50:03

In reply to Re: pressuring others... IsoM, posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 2002, at 0:58:40

> > You've reminded us in the past to stop pressuring others to answer specific questions, for example. So I think IsoM should be given a break. I think I've read about 5 times in the last few days where you've repeatedly asked her to moderate, and she has told you why she doesn't want to, and yet you still keep asking her.
>
> Fair enough. IsoM, do you feel pressured? If so, I'll stop...
>
> Bob

No, Bob, it doesn't work this way. Or at least, should I say, it hasn't in the past. In other words, you don't check with anybody else to see if their feelings are hurt, or if they feel they are being put down, before you PBC or block the offending poster. Why should you treat your own mistakes any differently? So, in other words, whether IsoM feels pressured or not, that IS what you're doing to her. And I believe that being a bully about it isn't fair to Iso... Whether she wants to make a point of it or not. And she may not want to because, as a nice person, she doesn't want to hurt YOUR feelings...


Wendy


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.