Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1081776

Shown: posts 9 to 33 of 41. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's respnse-their blood Lamdage22

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2015, at 9:11:25

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 27, 2015, at 8:20:59

> Because right now it looks like there are no risks and everyone thinks its a no brainer that you MUST try everything.
>
> And thats not really accurate.

Lamdag22
You wrote,[...it looks like there are no risks (in taking the drugs allowed to be promoted here as "medicines")...].
There are laws regarding what is known as "false advertising". False advertising is when someone is misled or deceived by a sign or advertisement or such. A question here could be if this site is an advertisement for psychiatry that drugs people and if so are the readers being deceived into thinking that these drugs are safe and that they are medicines for illnesses and that they are what they say, such as "antidepressants" or "mood stabalizers".
If you examine the television commercials for these drugs, they portray happy people with music and the voice over gives the potential unhappy consequences. But the music going and the way the words come out are done by masterminds of merchandising, making psychiatry a house of merchandise to those psychiatrists that sell the drugs via prescription and the client paying the psychiatrist by those that are convinced by the advertising that they need the drugs for their depression and such. For the consumer can not obtain the drugs without the partnership existing between the drug manufacturers and the psychiatrist/doctor and others that profit from the drugs such as the pharmacy. Then this site could become an advertisement in and of itself for psychiatric drugs because the owner is a psychiatrist which could constitute a{testimonial}. Now t drug makers escape liability by listing the adverse consequences ahead of time. Here, the psychiatrist does not act on posts where drugs are advocated or suggested by following the FDA rules to list the adverse consequences which could falsely lead readers to believe that the dugs advocated are safer than they really are and take them and become addicted to them or be killed by them or receive a life-ruining condition from them by readers thinking that it is supportive to advocate taking these drugs since support here takes precedence or worse, that what is here, will be good or this community as a whole , so Mr. Hsiung thinks.
I try to warn readers here and those that are killed by these drugs, who will have their blood be upon them?
Lou

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 29, 2015, at 10:47:19

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 27, 2015, at 8:20:59

So, why cant we warn readers about risks?

Are you getting paid by pfizer and co. or anything, Scott?

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22

Posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 13:36:02

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 29, 2015, at 10:47:19

> So, why cant we warn readers about risks?
>
> Are you getting paid by pfizer and co. or anything, Scott?

Yes.


- Scott

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22

Posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 13:41:01

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 29, 2015, at 10:47:19

> So, why cant we warn readers about risks?

I don't know. Who is saying that we can't?


- Scott

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 29, 2015, at 14:01:05

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 13:41:01

> > So, why cant we warn readers about risks?
>
> I don't know. Who is saying that we can't?
>
>
> - Scott

Why does nobody feel obligated to do so?

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22

Posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 15:34:54

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 29, 2015, at 14:01:05

> > > So, why cant we warn readers about risks?

> > I don't know. Who is saying that we can't?

Well?

> Why does nobody feel obligated to do so?

Because there is no obligation for anyone to do so. What precedent can you cite that such an obligation exists?

Obviously, there is no obligation for doctors to do so, otherwise they all would. They don't. How do you feel about that? You are on a lot of drugs. Did your doctor inform you about any and all possible adverse events for each drug? If not, have you confronted him with the same vigor as you are confronting the good-hearted people here who are simply making suggestions and relating personal experiences in an effort to provide information?

If you feel that the environment here is deleterious to your health, why not look for one in which all posters are obligated to provide the information regarding any and all adverse events that are possible with each drug mentioned? When you find such a website, it would be a great service to the posting community of Psycho-Babble if you were to provide a URL link to such a site.

Let me know how it goes with your doctors when you confront them. Did your doctor inform you about Nardil and the possibility that it could precipitate psychosis? Do you really expect that people here should be held to a higher standard than what you hold your own doctors to? Why not help out. For each of the drugs you are currently taking, list any and all adverse events that they are each capable of as provided to you by your doctors. Of course, there is no obligation for you to do so, but I would like to see if they missed any.


- Scott

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks SLS

Posted by 10derheart on August 29, 2015, at 22:15:17

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 13:36:02


nice ;-)

succinct

perfect

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 0:58:58

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 15:34:54

If you know that doctors wont do it there is even more reason to tell readers everything you know.

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 1:26:48

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 0:58:58

Who says wether or not you have an obligation?

From an ethical point of view, yeah you do.

Ill give you that: Doctors do as well.

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 1:27:34

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 1:26:48

But you know most doctors wont do it and thats a reason for you not to as well.

Flawed logic.

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by SLS on August 30, 2015, at 7:49:12

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 1:27:34

> Flawed logic.

BIG TIME.


- Scott

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 8:10:00

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by SLS on August 30, 2015, at 7:49:12

So it is my doctors fault? He would never have prescribed Nardil if i hadnt asked for it.

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 8:26:58

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 8:10:00

Maybe its time to just let it go. Nothing that i do now can undo what happened.

And that psychiatrist probably wont give a sh*t.

 

Lou's rsponse-the death of their child SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2015, at 11:13:39

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 15:34:54

> > > > So, why cant we warn readers about risks?
>
> > > I don't know. Who is saying that we can't?
>
> Well?
>
> > Why does nobody feel obligated to do so?
>
> Because there is no obligation for anyone to do so. What precedent can you cite that such an obligation exists?
>
> Obviously, there is no obligation for doctors to do so, otherwise they all would. They don't. How do you feel about that? You are on a lot of drugs. Did your doctor inform you about any and all possible adverse events for each drug? If not, have you confronted him with the same vigor as you are confronting the good-hearted people here who are simply making suggestions and relating personal experiences in an effort to provide information?
>
> If you feel that the environment here is deleterious to your health, why not look for one in which all posters are obligated to provide the information regarding any and all adverse events that are possible with each drug mentioned? When you find such a website, it would be a great service to the posting community of Psycho-Babble if you were to provide a URL link to such a site.
>
> Let me know how it goes with your doctors when you confront them. Did your doctor inform you about Nardil and the possibility that it could precipitate psychosis? Do you really expect that people here should be held to a higher standard than what you hold your own doctors to? Why not help out. For each of the drugs you are currently taking, list any and all adverse events that they are each capable of as provided to you by your doctors. Of course, there is no obligation for you to do so, but I would like to see if they missed any.
>
>
> - Scott

Friends,
It is written here that there is no obligation for anyone here to warn readers about the risks of the adverse consequences that could befall the taker of these drugs advocated here as "medicines".
Really? In defining who has any obligation, looking at the FDA rules for {advertising} of these drugs and the rules for {endorsement} of these drugs, the question here could be if Mr. Hsiung is giving {endorsement} to the drugs advocated by members to take for their real or imagined ills or is the member posting an {endorsement}. This brings up as to if there is an {advertisement} or a {testimonial} or and {endorsement} and by who?
As to who would be in violation of any rule of the FDA, I think that anyone advocating these drugs as medicines, is giving an {endorsement} of the drugs that falls in the FDA regulations as to if there is a violation of their rules.
I do not think that the posting member is violating the FDA rules, but the rules cover advertisements that IMHHHHO could have Mr. Hsiung as a advertiser of these drugs since he allows the advocating of the drugs as part of his promotion of what is supportive and what will be good for his community as a whole as he thinks. The use by him as {being *good*} could be thought to be an endorsement not only by him, but by psychiatry since he is a psychiatrist. And worse, a psychiatrist could know that people could be killed by these drugs and does not post a warning in posts that advocate to take the drug. And even worser, mothers trying to determine to drug their child or not could be seriously misled here to believe that the drugs are safer than they really are since a psychiatrist could appear by being silent to the posts that advocate taking the drugs as to posting a warning of the adverse consequences to taking the drugs. That could cause a mother to accept, and have serious misgivings about these drugs, what they think is a testimonial and endorsement by the psychiatrist which could result in the death of their child. Who will have their blood upon them?
Lou

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks

Posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 12:09:28

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by SLS on August 29, 2015, at 15:34:54

How do i feel about doctors not telling the risks? I think it is Criminal.

Every other speciality will tell you the risks. That is my experience.

 

Lou's response-what mother Lamdage22

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2015, at 19:35:36

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 30, 2015, at 12:09:28

> How do i feel about doctors not telling the risks? I think it is Criminal.
>
> Every other speciality will tell you the risks. That is my experience.

Friends,
>
> What if the prescribing psychiatrist/doctor did tell of all the risks? What mother would allow their child to be drugged in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor?
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFfiL71yyME

>
>

 

Re: Lou's response-what mother

Posted by Lamdage22 on September 2, 2015, at 12:47:56

In reply to Lou's response-what mother Lamdage22, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2015, at 19:35:36

He says "its up to you" but in reality he should say "its up to ME".

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22

Posted by herpills on September 2, 2015, at 23:30:49

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 27, 2015, at 4:21:26


>
> It seems to me that people on psychobabble are pretty oblivious to the fact that there are risks with trying medication. That it is a gamble.
>
>

Really? I always felt most people on psychobabble were very well aware of the risks, and come here to discuss those risks in much more detail than they would be discussed at a typical doctor's appointment.

What has lead you to believe that people are "oblivious"?

 

Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22

Posted by herpills on September 2, 2015, at 23:32:49

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks, posted by Lamdage22 on August 27, 2015, at 4:23:04

> I know for example that MAOI can kick off psychosis and that Metformin patients need to be monitored for kidney health.
>
> Why not post it??

Well, we could require that every time a drug is mentioned, the complete prescribing information has to be included. Get ready for posts that are 5000 pages long.

 

Lou's response-your mother herpills

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 10:05:01

In reply to Re: Rule of no advocating without telling the risks Lamdage22, posted by herpills on September 2, 2015, at 23:32:49

> > I know for example that MAOI can kick off psychosis and that Metformin patients need to be monitored for kidney health.
> >
> > Why not post it??
>
> Well, we could require that every time a drug is mentioned, the complete prescribing information has to be included. Get ready for posts that are 5000 pages long.
>
> Friends,
It is written here that when a drug is mentioned that the complete prescribing info has to be included and that would make posts here 5000 pages long.
There is merit to that suggestion for this site and others to incorporate what the FDA requires, if anything, when a drug is promoted on these sites. But is not the administration of the sites those that could have the duty to do so?
You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.
My idea to be in compliance with warning readers would be for Mr. Hsiung to be the one here to not allow readers to be misled about the safety of these drugs. I would like for him to intercede with warnings, not other posters.
Lou


 

Lou's response-ehy hole lot more

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 17:12:23

In reply to Lou's response-your mother herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 10:05:01

> > > I know for example that MAOI can kick off psychosis and that Metformin patients need to be monitored for kidney health.
> > >
> > > Why not post it??
> >
> > Well, we could require that every time a drug is mentioned, the complete prescribing information has to be included. Get ready for posts that are 5000 pages long.
> >
> > Friends,
> It is written here that when a drug is mentioned that the complete prescribing info has to be included and that would make posts here 5000 pages long.
> There is merit to that suggestion for this site and others to incorporate what the FDA requires, if anything, when a drug is promoted on these sites. But is not the administration of the sites those that could have the duty to do so?
> You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.
> My idea to be in compliance with warning readers would be for Mr. Hsiung to be the one here to not allow readers to be misled about the safety of these drugs. I would like for him to intercede with warnings, not other posters.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Is the promotion of these drugs here an endorsement by Mr. Hsiung or an advertisement by psychiatry itself? If so, the FDA rules could be applicable here. And the promoter of the drug could be Mr. Hsiung , not the poster, for Mr. Hsiung allows the promotion and says that support takes precedence. But there are thousands killed by these drugs each month. If the FDA made this site compliant to their rules for promotion of these drugs, readers from this site could have a more-informed picture as to what these drugs can do to you.
You can read it in the morning papers, hear it on the radio, drugs are sweeping the nation, the psychiatrists could really know. We need a good old case of compliance, to put the truth right back in our souls, we need a whole lot more of Hsiung and a lot less from the trolls.
Lou
>

 

Re: leave my mother out of this Lou Pilder

Posted by herpills on September 6, 2015, at 18:06:07

In reply to Lou's response-your mother herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 10:05:01

> You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.
>

I suggest you look up the definition of "deceived". Your use of that word is incorrect, therefore making your argument false, invalid, and wrong.

Nobody who posts here is responsible for the people that read the posts. That's how it works here, that's how it works on other websites.

and yet you continue to whine and complain...did you ever consider that this particular website will never meet your expectations?

Please consider giving up your arguments...you will NEVER get what you want here. Pleases stop making PBabble all about you.

I'm curious how many people have left this support group because of you.

 

trolls who complain that it's not fair Lou Pilder

Posted by herpills on September 6, 2015, at 18:10:09

In reply to Lou's response-ehy hole lot more, posted by Lou Pilder on September 3, 2015, at 17:12:23


> >
> > Friends,
> Is the promotion of these drugs here an endorsement by Mr. Hsiung or an advertisement by psychiatry itself? If so, the FDA rules could be applicable here. And the promoter of the drug could be Mr. Hsiung , not the poster, for Mr. Hsiung allows the promotion and says that support takes precedence. But there are thousands killed by these drugs each month. If the FDA made this site compliant to their rules for promotion of these drugs, readers from this site could have a more-informed picture as to what these drugs can do to you.
> You can read it in the morning papers, hear it on the radio, drugs are sweeping the nation, the psychiatrists could really know. We need a good old case of compliance, to put the truth right back in our souls, we need a whole lot more of Hsiung and a lot less from the trolls.
> Lou
> >
>

Promotion of anti-psychiatry is also allowed here...and yet you will continue to whine and complain that things aren't fair here, nothing is fair to you, blah blah blah....


 

Lou's reply-yukntalwazgetwhtyuwnt herpills

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 14:40:33

In reply to Re: leave my mother out of this Lou Pilder, posted by herpills on September 6, 2015, at 18:06:07

> > You see, when mothers read here, and it could be your mother, what are they led to believe about these drugs as to what they could do to their child? If the post promotes efficacy claims while failing to post any risks or leave out material facts, then mothers could be deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is and result in the deaths of readers here thinking that because a psychiatrist allows the promotion of the drug without warning of the dangers, that the drug is safe to take.
> >
>
> I suggest you look up the definition of "deceived". Your use of that word is incorrect, therefore making your argument false, invalid, and wrong.
>
> Nobody who posts here is responsible for the people that read the posts. That's how it works here, that's how it works on other websites.
>
> and yet you continue to whine and complain...did you ever consider that this particular website will never meet your expectations?
>
> Please consider giving up your arguments...you will NEVER get what you want here. Pleases stop making PBabble all about you.
>
> I'm curious how many people have left this support group because of you.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...you (Lou) will NEVER get what yow want here...].
What I want is for readers to have life. I am not anti-psychiatry, I am anti-death.
When readers see that death can be prevented here by adopting my ways to do so, then l will get want I want. Now you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
Lou

>
>

 

Re: Lou's reply-yukntalwazgetwhtyuwnt

Posted by Lamdage22 on September 9, 2015, at 4:40:56

In reply to Lou's reply-yukntalwazgetwhtyuwnt herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 14:40:33

I wonder why we cant get along on a agree to disagree basis. Pro and anti psychiatry discussions always get emotional and personal.

I am not as frowned upon as Lou but it goes in the same direction


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.