![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 76 to 100 of 129. Go back in thread:
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 7:42:43
In reply to Re: Desperate, posted by Twinleaf on February 20, 2012, at 1:17:10
> I think it's wonderful that you are able to understand your daughter so well, and describe her symptoms so clearly, despite the enormous distress her condition must be.causing you. I think you are getting some very good suggestions from people who know a lot about bipolar illness; I hope at least one of them really helps her.
>
> One thing caught my attention: how, under stress, she begins to distort her feelings about others' motives. Do you think this is something that psychotherapy might help her with? In addition, if you found a really good therapist, it would be an additional source of support, which might make things a bit easier for you. I realize that she has two neurologically based illnesses, but the interpersonal stresses resulting from them might be helped considerably by a caring therapist.
Hi Sigi.. thanks for stopping by.Yes, my daughter has a marvelous therapist that played a very large role in stabilizing my daughter three years ago. She's been involved with this situation, but it gets more difficult because my daughter has these distortion problems going on, and she vasscillates between wanting to see T, and crying out that no one is listening to her. My observation is that her treatment providers listen with tremendous caring and are very responsive, but my daughter gets these paranoid ideas and thinks they only listen to me. It's not true - I haven't even been involved in her therapy sessions other than when I'm called in at her request, but her mind is just not working 'with' her right now. That said, the therapist is fabulous and it helps me a lot to know I'm not holding this thing together on my own, for sure.
Solstice
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 8:03:16
In reply to Lou's reply-postvpstuph » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 6:32:23
> > Lou I must congratulate you that you are now posting Thank you's and positive stuff. So appreciative of your comments keep it up. But remember Solstice did ask you not to post on this thread. But since then very nice. Phillipa
>
> Phillipa,
> You wrote,[...Lou I must congratulate you...positive stuff..So appreciative of your comments keep it up...].
> I would like you and others that think that what I am posting is positive to view the following video.
> Lou
> To see this video:
> A. Pull up Google
> B. Type in:
> [youtube, CCHR: Drugging Our Children-Side Effects]
> usually firstFriends,
If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following.
The following is about the fallacy of {false dilemma}. This is usually concerning giving only two choices when there could be more than just two. It is sometimes called the {either/or} fallacy.
In the link here, there are other fallacies mentioned also and I would like for you to look at the {straw man} fallacy , for I intend to post more about this as long as the rule of three does not apply.'
Lou
http:///grammer.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htm
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 8:05:36
In reply to LOU, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 7:34:21
"> >" = Solstice's post to Lou Pilder.
> > You are causing me so much pain. I can hardly go to my own thread without dissolving into tears because of what you are doing.Lou Pilder: I hope you take into consideration how your posting behavior is affecting other people, particularly when they are in a vulnerable state.
Lou Pilder: You described your concerns quite well using a single post. I dare say that you are harassing the initiator of this thread. I'll let administration determine that. I'm sure you realize that harassment is considered to be uncivil.
> > You have shamelessly hijacked my thread with your own agenda, and there is nothing 'caring' or constructive about it. It just speaks so much hatred toward me.
Lou Pilder: I would like to see you initiate your own thread dealing with the issue of the safety of pscychotropic drugs. I am sure you will find people quite happy to participate. Posting your own threads will increase the probability that people will view them, thereby optimizing your potential to forward your agenda to save lives. This is not a bad agenda. I don't find the word "agenda" to be pejorative. Pursuing agendas is an important function in a free society. However, I would not want you to launch a series of endless posts along one of my threads in order to further your agenda. For now, nothing is stopping you from doing this. It would be a favor to me if you would consider my wishes in this.
> > It really hurts me that this is being allowed to continue. People need to be protected from the harm you cause.
Lou Pilder: This is a pretty strong statement made by the initiator of this thread. Perhaps you could take into consideration her feelings when deciding on whether or not to accede to her requests of you.
Lou Pilder: I find your new posting tactics to be quite clever.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 8:06:51
In reply to Lou's request-phalzdhelemmah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 8:03:16
> > > Lou I must congratulate you that you are now posting Thank you's and positive stuff. So appreciative of your comments keep it up. But remember Solstice did ask you not to post on this thread. But since then very nice. Phillipa
> >
> > Phillipa,
> > You wrote,[...Lou I must congratulate you...positive stuff..So appreciative of your comments keep it up...].
> > I would like you and others that think that what I am posting is positive to view the following video.
> > Lou
> > To see this video:
> > A. Pull up Google
> > B. Type in:
> > [youtube, CCHR: Drugging Our Children-Side Effects]
> > usually first
>
> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following.
> The following is about the fallacy of {false dilemma}. This is usually concerning giving only two choices when there could be more than just two. It is sometimes called the {either/or} fallacy.
> In the link here, there are other fallacies mentioned also and I would like for you to look at the {straw man} fallacy , for I intend to post more about this as long as the rule of three does not apply.'
> Lou
> http:///grammer.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htm
Posted by Twinleaf on February 20, 2012, at 8:09:36
In reply to Re: Desperate » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 7:02:21
Thank you, Scott - that was so kind of you. As you know, I have a very high regard for your posts and try not to miss any of them.
Solstice just posted that she has got that aspect of the situation covered really well. She just needs the best possible ideas for medical treatment, as she has been saying.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 8:11:57
In reply to correction- Lou's request-phalzdhelemmah, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 8:06:51
> > > > Lou I must congratulate you that you are now posting Thank you's and positive stuff. So appreciative of your comments keep it up. But remember Solstice did ask you not to post on this thread. But since then very nice. Phillipa
> > >
> > > Phillipa,
> > > You wrote,[...Lou I must congratulate you...positive stuff..So appreciative of your comments keep it up...].
> > > I would like you and others that think that what I am posting is positive to view the following video.
> > > Lou
> > > To see this video:
> > > A. Pull up Google
> > > B. Type in:
> > > [youtube, CCHR: Drugging Our Children-Side Effects]
> > > usually first
> >
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a discussant in this thread, I am requesting that you read the following.
> > The following is about the fallacy of {false dilemma}. This is usually concerning giving only two choices when there could be more than just two. It is sometimes called the {either/or} fallacy.
> > In the link here, there are other fallacies mentioned also and I would like for you to look at the {straw man} fallacy , for I intend to post more about this as long as the rule of three does not apply.'
> > Lou
> > http:///grammer.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htm
>
> corrected:
> http://grammer.about.com/od/fh/g/falsedilterm.htmcorrection to correction
http://grammar.about.com/od/fh//g/falsedilterm.htm
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 8:14:31
In reply to Re: Desperate » Twinleaf, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 7:42:43
I apologize, Twin.. I don't know where I saw Sigi's name that had me thinking I was replying to Sig.. but I'm distressed and typing through tears.
I'm being bullied in the most insidious of ways... and my daughter deserves better than for her mother to be bullied when she's trying to get help for her. I don't understand why it's being allowed to continue. No one should come here to get help with medications, and have to cope with a bully repeatedly implying that they are killing their child. Thank God my daughter doesn't read this place. It would probably trigger a major hospitalization-worthy episode if she read all this hateful stuff Lou keeps saying.
:-(
Maybe I'll wake up and all those posts will have been deleted from my thread...
Solstice
> > I think it's wonderful that you are able to understand your daughter so well, and describe her symptoms so clearly, despite the enormous distress her condition must be.causing you. I think you are getting some very good suggestions from people who know a lot about bipolar illness; I hope at least one of them really helps her.
> >
> > One thing caught my attention: how, under stress, she begins to distort her feelings about others' motives. Do you think this is something that psychotherapy might help her with? In addition, if you found a really good therapist, it would be an additional source of support, which might make things a bit easier for you. I realize that she has two neurologically based illnesses, but the interpersonal stresses resulting from them might be helped considerably by a caring therapist.
>
>
> Hi Sigi.. thanks for stopping by.
>
> Yes, my daughter has a marvelous therapist that played a very large role in stabilizing my daughter three years ago. She's been involved with this situation, but it gets more difficult because my daughter has these distortion problems going on, and she vasscillates between wanting to see T, and crying out that no one is listening to her. My observation is that her treatment providers listen with tremendous caring and are very responsive, but my daughter gets these paranoid ideas and thinks they only listen to me. It's not true - I haven't even been involved in her therapy sessions other than when I'm called in at her request, but her mind is just not working 'with' her right now. That said, the therapist is fabulous and it helps me a lot to know I'm not holding this thing together on my own, for sure.
>
> Solstice
Posted by papillon2 on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:31
In reply to Sorry Twin!, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 8:14:31
Solstice, I think you are doing a good job in very trying circumstances. You know your daughter the best. Please take gentle, loving care of yourself so you can continue to be there for your children.
Try to avoid the temptation to open Lou's posts if you can. It is not worth the distress it is causing you. Hopefully a moderator will respond soon.
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 8:59:28
In reply to Sorry Twin!, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 8:14:31
> I'm distressed and typing through tears.
>
> I'm being bullied in the most insidious of ways... and my daughter deserves better than for her mother to be bullied when she's trying to get help for her. I don't understand why it's being allowed to continue.I want to make you aware of the "Notify Administrators" button at the bottom of this page. I recommend that you use it.
I wish I could somehow get into your head and immunize you from being upset by certain posts. Others might also be upset by these posts. I would hope that they notify administration as well.
It might be best, for now, to avoid posts by a poster whose words upset you. They should be easy to identify.
Please continue having a dialogue with the posters along this thread. Most of them seem determined to correspond with you despite the appearance of posts that upset you. I don't see that they are distracted by those posts that upset you. Many of us want to talk to you. I, for one, am not distracted by other posts. I hope you continue to post. Please do not capitulate. You have too much at stake not to continue this dialogue.
You are a very strong and determined mother. Don't quit now.
There is some precedence for the use of topiramate (Topamax) in treating mixed-state that are resistant to other treatments. However, at this time, I am not promoting it over the other treatments being considered.
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.topiramate.html
http://www.bipolardisorderliving.com/bipolar-disorder-topamax/
Keep the best and throw out the rest.
- Scott
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 9:16:21
In reply to Re: Desperate » Solstice, posted by papillon2 on February 20, 2012, at 8:48:31
> Solstice, I think you are doing a good job in very trying circumstances. You know your daughter the best. Please take gentle, loving care of yourself so you can continue to be there for your children.
>
> Try to avoid the temptation to open Lou's posts if you can. It is not worth the distress it is causing you. Hopefully a moderator will respond soon.I've opened a few of them - but believe it or not, most I haven't. Unfortunately, as I run my cursor over a post in the thread, it shows me the first couple of sentences, and it's hard to avoid my cursor point hitting his posts that are above or below someone else's. That said, I've read enough of Lou's mantra that I don't have to open it. To just wake up and see five posts in a row with Lou's name on it - I don't have to read it to know what's in it. I know his agenda.. and hijacking a thread to defeat it is at the top of his list, whether her acknowledges it or not.
I am so grateful that he has not yet succeeded in thwarting my attempt to get help from the community.. because everyone has been wonderful at posting all their various ideas and experiences.
And I do hope admin shows up and puts a stop to it. :-(
Thanks for letting me know that you care, papi..
Solstice
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:21:18
In reply to Re: Solstice thread. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 7:37:51
> > > > Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects.
>
> You excised this line from the following post.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010913.html
>
> My words included the following:
>
> "I can't guarantee anything. If I were a doctor, and observed this in many of my patients and in those of my colleagues, I could be more confident in saying such things."
>
> Be careful not to post my words out of context. I will not tolerate it.
>
> > Just because someone posts concerning their promotion of a drug for children to take, their promotion could be short of the full understnding of the drug that they are promoting."
>
> You are not aware of the extent of my education, both in and post schooling. I believe you are intimating that I am not to be considered seriously because I "could be short of the full understnding of the drug" Using the term "could be" doesn't immunize you from incivility for your using the words that follow. I feel accused and put-down.
>
> > ...the drug that they are promoting.
>
> What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
>
> I have decided to not report your post to administration this time. Please be careful in your treatment of my words in the future.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
It is posted here that I took a line from such and such a post. But I did not.
Here is the poost in this thread that iis the subject here. I wouuld like for you that are interested to click on the link first, and then read the rest of my defense of myself here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
now if you have clicked on that and examined it, you could see that the line that the other pposter here, came from this post which is not the same as the postt that I am said to have taken the sttatement out of.
Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated. If there is another post about Topomax, I am not referring to that post, for the poster that I replied to posted the statement that is in the link to the post that I have posted the link to here.
There is much more to this....
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:34:57
In reply to Lou defends himself-phalzaakeue » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:21:18
> > > > > Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects.
> >
> > You excised this line from the following post.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010913.html
> >
> > My words included the following:
> >
> > "I can't guarantee anything. If I were a doctor, and observed this in many of my patients and in those of my colleagues, I could be more confident in saying such things."
> >
> > Be careful not to post my words out of context. I will not tolerate it.
> >
> > > Just because someone posts concerning their promotion of a drug for children to take, their promotion could be short of the full understnding of the drug that they are promoting."
> >
> > You are not aware of the extent of my education, both in and post schooling. I believe you are intimating that I am not to be considered seriously because I "could be short of the full understnding of the drug" Using the term "could be" doesn't immunize you from incivility for your using the words that follow. I feel accused and put-down.
> >
> > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> >
> > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
> >
> > I have decided to not report your post to administration this time. Please be careful in your treatment of my words in the future.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> It is posted here that I took a line from such and such a post. But I did not.
> Here is the poost in this thread that iis the subject here. I wouuld like for you that are interested to click on the link first, and then read the rest of my defense of myself here.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> now if you have clicked on that and examined it, you could see that the line that the other pposter here, came from this post which is not the same as the postt that I am said to have taken the sttatement out of.
> Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated. If there is another post about Topomax, I am not referring to that post, for the poster that I replied to posted the statement that is in the link to the post that I have posted the link to here.
> There is much more to this....
> LouFriends,
In my defense of mysef here, notice in the link here in question that Topomax is referred to as a {tool}. So it could be {one more} tool.
The grammatical structure leads me to believe in regards to the accepted definition of these words that there is a promotion here for the drug Topomax to be included in the drugs that the mother is giving the child via the psychiatrist/doctor that is the prescriber of the drugs. Now I know that the maker of Topomax has run into legal trouble when Topomax is used for psychiatric disorders when it is an ant-seizure drug. (off-lable use}. A lot of the information that I get concerning these drugs comes from transcripts of the cross-examination of defendants in trials concerning these drugs in the last 20 years or so.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:53:12
In reply to Lou defends himself-, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:34:57
> > > > > > Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects.
> > >
> > > You excised this line from the following post.
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010913.html
> > >
> > > My words included the following:
> > >
> > > "I can't guarantee anything. If I were a doctor, and observed this in many of my patients and in those of my colleagues, I could be more confident in saying such things."
> > >
> > > Be careful not to post my words out of context. I will not tolerate it.
> > >
> > > > Just because someone posts concerning their promotion of a drug for children to take, their promotion could be short of the full understnding of the drug that they are promoting."
> > >
> > > You are not aware of the extent of my education, both in and post schooling. I believe you are intimating that I am not to be considered seriously because I "could be short of the full understnding of the drug" Using the term "could be" doesn't immunize you from incivility for your using the words that follow. I feel accused and put-down.
> > >
> > > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
> > >
> > > I have decided to not report your post to administration this time. Please be careful in your treatment of my words in the future.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Friends,
> > It is posted here that I took a line from such and such a post. But I did not.
> > Here is the poost in this thread that iis the subject here. I wouuld like for you that are interested to click on the link first, and then read the rest of my defense of myself here.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> > now if you have clicked on that and examined it, you could see that the line that the other pposter here, came from this post which is not the same as the postt that I am said to have taken the sttatement out of.
> > Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated. If there is another post about Topomax, I am not referring to that post, for the poster that I replied to posted the statement that is in the link to the post that I have posted the link to here.
> > There is much more to this....
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> In my defense of mysef here, notice in the link here in question that Topomax is referred to as a {tool}. So it could be {one more} tool.
> The grammatical structure leads me to believe in regards to the accepted definition of these words that there is a promotion here for the drug Topomax to be included in the drugs that the mother is giving the child via the psychiatrist/doctor that is the prescriber of the drugs. Now I know that the maker of Topomax has run into legal trouble when Topomax is used for psychiatric disorders when it is an ant-seizure drug. (off-lable use}. A lot of the information that I get concerning these drugs comes from transcripts of the cross-examination of defendants in trials concerning these drugs in the last 20 years or so.
> LouFriends,
Now Scott writes that he has seen Topomax do wonders for a condition. Now there then is a testamonial for that Topomax could do wonders for others, which is a type of promotional technique used in marketing to promote what is wanted for prople to buy.
But I say to you, that I have seen many ruined lives of people that took Topomax. One is a friend of mine, a lovely woman, whose future as a lawyer has been stopped for she can not pass the state bar exam. Her memory has been damaged, as she has gone from a top graduate to one that can not remember what she had learned in law school. She has taken the exam 4 times and failed. Now the loss of memory happened after she was taking the drug. I guess one could argue that the loss of memoryy is from something else. But when over and over people show this type of cognative dysfunction after they took topomax, it could go a long way for people to make their own determination a to if the drug caused it or not.
Now Scott states that one could avoid the cognative issues if they take it innitially in a particular way. I have never seen any report that confirms that. If there is one, I ask for you to post a link to it here, now.
Lou
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 10:05:58
In reply to Lou defends himself-, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:34:57
Lou Pilder.
Thank you for replying to my question.
> > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.> Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated.
I feel accused. You are paraphrasing my words and substituting "advocate" for "promote". You now add "advocate" as if the definitions for these two words were the same. I did not promote Topamax. "Promote" is the word you first used to describe my behavior. You did not use the word "advocate".
SLS: "One more tool to be aware of is Topamax. It works for mixed states, as does Depakote. Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects. 100 mg may be all that is needed. I have seen it work wonders for mixed states. Topamax is known to produce weight loss, just in case that is an issue."
This is simply education and support.
Just to address your characterization my use of my grammer, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have included a quotation of my words so that they could be scrutinized. I did not suggest that anyone take Topamax. Clearly, I suggested that the poster be aware of the existence of Topamax. I did not promote nor advocate that it be used.
I do advocate the use of Topamax for bipolar disorder. I currently do not promote it. Perhaps I will in the future.
Promote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote
"to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity."
This is not a question of grammer. It is a question of diction.
- Scott
Posted by Zyprexa on February 20, 2012, at 10:10:41
In reply to Desperate, posted by Solstice on February 18, 2012, at 21:08:07
Perphenazine might work. Its a typical AP that is well sedating, might calm her down. Oh ya its not weight gaining. I find it fairly effective. I'm schitzoaffective. Which is schitzophrenia and bipolar. I used to get racing thoughts, irritable, etc.
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 10:22:21
In reply to Lou defends himself-topotragehdeigh, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 9:53:12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656323/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11215835
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15519117
Also: Dodson WE, Kamin M, Kraut L, et al. Topiramate titration to response: analysis of individualized therapy study (TRAITS) Epilepsia. 2003;37:61520.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 10:25:30
In reply to Re: Desperate » papillon2, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 9:16:21
Just in case you didn't see this:
Regarding Topamax treatment, evidence suggests that gradual dosage escalations can help to minimize adverse neurocognitive effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656323/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11215835
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15519117
Also: Dodson WE, Kamin M, Kraut L, et al. Topiramate titration to response: analysis of individualized therapy study (TRAITS) Epilepsia. 2003;37:61520.
- Scott
Posted by Zyprexa on February 20, 2012, at 10:31:33
In reply to Re: Desperate, posted by Solstice on February 18, 2012, at 23:27:20
to get rid of the shakes you could take cogentin. I take that, it works.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 12:51:03
In reply to Scott's response » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on February 20, 2012, at 10:05:58
> Lou Pilder.
>
> Thank you for replying to my question.
>
> > > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
>
> > > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
>
> > Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated.
>
> I feel accused. You are paraphrasing my words and substituting "advocate" for "promote". You now add "advocate" as if the definitions for these two words were the same. I did not promote Topamax. "Promote" is the word you first used to describe my behavior. You did not use the word "advocate".
>
> SLS: "One more tool to be aware of is Topamax. It works for mixed states, as does Depakote. Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects. 100 mg may be all that is needed. I have seen it work wonders for mixed states. Topamax is known to produce weight loss, just in case that is an issue."
>
> This is simply education and support.
>
> Just to address your characterization my use of my grammer, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have included a quotation of my words so that they could be scrutinized. I did not suggest that anyone take Topamax. Clearly, I suggested that the poster be aware of the existence of Topamax. I did not promote nor advocate that it be used.
>
> I do advocate the use of Topamax for bipolar disorder. I currently do not promote it. Perhaps I will in the future.
>
> Promote:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote
>
> "to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity."
>
> This is not a question of grammer. It is a question of diction.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
The post above is one that I think can go a long way to undertsanding the issues here. I will include the link to the post in question here to go back to in order to see the issues involved.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
Now bw advised that in situations like this, the words in question can become what is what. It is what can be seen, not what the maker of the words says that it means after the fact, but in most of the cases that I have prosecuted, the defendant raises to the judge/magistrate that the word means something different.
Now here is how those type of cases haave been handled in my cases:
The rule is that it is not what the person who is the maker of the word says that it means, or the one contesting the word's meaning says that it means, but what a reasonable person could think that it means. I know of only one case that then went further as to that the phrase {reasonable person} was contested to mean.
Also the magistrate/judge usually states that the plaintif can not invoke what they want the word to mean, except by dictionary definition and such. This is because the defendant does not have to be a mind-reader.
Now in the case at hand here, there are three words that the maker of the document in question here is bringing up. First, he is the maker of the words, I am defending my post from what I read that he made with his words. I can not tell what he wants to mean after the fact, for I could only post my response as seeing the words before the fact. Now let's look at the words....to be contimued
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 13:05:28
In reply to Lou's defense-avderdhaphact » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 12:51:03
> > Lou Pilder.
> >
> > Thank you for replying to my question.
> >
> > > > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> >
> > > > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
> >
> > > Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated.
> >
> > I feel accused. You are paraphrasing my words and substituting "advocate" for "promote". You now add "advocate" as if the definitions for these two words were the same. I did not promote Topamax. "Promote" is the word you first used to describe my behavior. You did not use the word "advocate".
> >
> > SLS: "One more tool to be aware of is Topamax. It works for mixed states, as does Depakote. Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects. 100 mg may be all that is needed. I have seen it work wonders for mixed states. Topamax is known to produce weight loss, just in case that is an issue."
> >
> > This is simply education and support.
> >
> > Just to address your characterization my use of my grammer, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have included a quotation of my words so that they could be scrutinized. I did not suggest that anyone take Topamax. Clearly, I suggested that the poster be aware of the existence of Topamax. I did not promote nor advocate that it be used.
> >
> > I do advocate the use of Topamax for bipolar disorder. I currently do not promote it. Perhaps I will in the future.
> >
> > Promote:
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote
> >
> > "to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity."
> >
> > This is not a question of grammer. It is a question of diction.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> The post above is one that I think can go a long way to undertsanding the issues here. I will include the link to the post in question here to go back to in order to see the issues involved.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> Now bw advised that in situations like this, the words in question can become what is what. It is what can be seen, not what the maker of the words says that it means after the fact, but in most of the cases that I have prosecuted, the defendant raises to the judge/magistrate that the word means something different.
> Now here is how those type of cases haave been handled in my cases:
> The rule is that it is not what the person who is the maker of the word says that it means, or the one contesting the word's meaning says that it means, but what a reasonable person could think that it means. I know of only one case that then went further as to that the phrase {reasonable person} was contested to mean.
> Also the magistrate/judge usually states that the plaintif can not invoke what they want the word to mean, except by dictionary definition and such. This is because the defendant does not have to be a mind-reader.
> Now in the case at hand here, there are three words that the maker of the document in question here is bringing up. First, he is the maker of the words, I am defending my post from what I read that he made with his words. I can not tell what he wants to mean after the fact, for I could only post my response as seeing the words before the fact. Now let's look at the words....to be contimued
> LouFriends,
There are three words here that I read {in their context} that as considering myself a reasonable person, responded with the understnding of what the words could mean.The three words are: tool, promote and advocate.
The generally accepted meaning of {tool} is that it is ssomething that facilitates getting a job done correctly.
The generally accepted meaning of to {advocate}, is to write in favor of or be supportive of its inclusion in or for something. This usually happens in what is referred to as a {testamonial} of praise.
The generally accepted meaning of {promote} is to write something that one could think to adopt because there is language that {raises above} what else is in that set of things being talked about.
Now in this case, we have the maker of the words stating:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msg/1010901.html
Let's see how a resonable person could think as to what the maker of the post could be meaning.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 13:36:08
In reply to Lou's defense-The words, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 13:05:28
> > > Lou Pilder.
> > >
> > > Thank you for replying to my question.
> > >
> > > > > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> > >
> > > > > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
> > >
> > > > Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated.
> > >
> > > I feel accused. You are paraphrasing my words and substituting "advocate" for "promote". You now add "advocate" as if the definitions for these two words were the same. I did not promote Topamax. "Promote" is the word you first used to describe my behavior. You did not use the word "advocate".
> > >
> > > SLS: "One more tool to be aware of is Topamax. It works for mixed states, as does Depakote. Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects. 100 mg may be all that is needed. I have seen it work wonders for mixed states. Topamax is known to produce weight loss, just in case that is an issue."
> > >
> > > This is simply education and support.
> > >
> > > Just to address your characterization my use of my grammer, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have included a quotation of my words so that they could be scrutinized. I did not suggest that anyone take Topamax. Clearly, I suggested that the poster be aware of the existence of Topamax. I did not promote nor advocate that it be used.
> > >
> > > I do advocate the use of Topamax for bipolar disorder. I currently do not promote it. Perhaps I will in the future.
> > >
> > > Promote:
> > >
> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote
> > >
> > > "to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity."
> > >
> > > This is not a question of grammer. It is a question of diction.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Friends,
> > The post above is one that I think can go a long way to undertsanding the issues here. I will include the link to the post in question here to go back to in order to see the issues involved.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> > Now bw advised that in situations like this, the words in question can become what is what. It is what can be seen, not what the maker of the words says that it means after the fact, but in most of the cases that I have prosecuted, the defendant raises to the judge/magistrate that the word means something different.
> > Now here is how those type of cases haave been handled in my cases:
> > The rule is that it is not what the person who is the maker of the word says that it means, or the one contesting the word's meaning says that it means, but what a reasonable person could think that it means. I know of only one case that then went further as to that the phrase {reasonable person} was contested to mean.
> > Also the magistrate/judge usually states that the plaintif can not invoke what they want the word to mean, except by dictionary definition and such. This is because the defendant does not have to be a mind-reader.
> > Now in the case at hand here, there are three words that the maker of the document in question here is bringing up. First, he is the maker of the words, I am defending my post from what I read that he made with his words. I can not tell what he wants to mean after the fact, for I could only post my response as seeing the words before the fact. Now let's look at the words....to be contimued
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> There are three words here that I read {in their context} that as considering myself a reasonable person, responded with the understnding of what the words could mean.The three words are: tool, promote and advocate.
> The generally accepted meaning of {tool} is that it is ssomething that facilitates getting a job done correctly.
> The generally accepted meaning of to {advocate}, is to write in favor of or be supportive of its inclusion in or for something. This usually happens in what is referred to as a {testamonial} of praise.
> The generally accepted meaning of {promote} is to write something that one could think to adopt because there is language that {raises above} what else is in that set of things being talked about.
> Now in this case, we have the maker of the words stating:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msg/1010901.html
> Let's see how a resonable person could think as to what the maker of the post could be meaning.
> Lou
>Friends,
Here is the link to the post in question that the words are in discussion.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
In the forst statement, the context is defined. The daughter might be experiancing a bipolar mixed-state.
Noew the maker of the words in question responds to that context. The statements are:
A. One more tool to be aware of is Topomax.
B. It works for mixed-states
C. I have seen it work wonders for mixed-states
D. Mixed states are not pleasant for the sufferer
Now I am "the defendant" here as I am defending my response as being what a reasonable person could think when reading the words in question in it's context.
Inj (A), the maker writes that Topomax is a tool, and one more tool. So Topomax could be thought by a reasonable person to a drug that could be included in the tool-box to facilitate helping the mother to get the doctor/psychitrist to prescribe the drug to the daughter.
Then in {B}, the maker of the word state that it {works} for mixed-states. This is a testamoniial of that in the maker of the words thinking, it could be good to get the daughter to take the drug via the psychiatris/doctor to prescribe the drug because it {works}.
Then in {C},the maker of the words states that he has eseen it work wonders for mixed-states. This type of ttestamonial {raises above} the others in consideration which could be thought to be a promotion of the drug by a reasonable person.
Then in {D], the unpleasentness of the sufferer of the mixed state is brought in. This could be thought by a reasonable person to be an advoction to take the drug because the promis that it works from the previous statement gives rise to an advoction to take it to stop the mixed stte because it works ccording to the maker of the wordss. The maker of the words is speaking in favor of the drug, which could be thought to be advocating that the drug be taken, in this case by the daughter. In fact, the mother is confronted with {what if she doesn't go right now to the doctor to get the drug for the daughter?}. This is because the maker of the words states that {it works}, {it is a tool},{he has seen it work wonders} and {mixed-states are not pleasent for tthe sufferer}. What is a mother to do here? She is confronted with that the drug is ssaid by the maker of the words that the daughter is suffering unpleasently and that the drug will work wonders. If that was me as parent, I would rush to get that drug right away , for there is the aspect that it will stop the suffereing of the child. Topomax is a drug used for siezure dissorder. As of my last understanding, the drug is not approved by the FDA for treating mixed-state of bipolar disorder.
Now I hope that you could see something that has been previously unbeknownst to you here. This is just the start. I intend to show you thinks to come, and things that I think could give you a whole new life, and you could sing a new song.
Lou
Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 20, 2012, at 13:57:25
In reply to Re: Desperate » papillon2, posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 9:16:21
Hi Solstice,
Did you see my post above with information about valproate (Depakote)?
I think it may have been missed due to Lou's hijacking. In my opinion, Lou should not be posting on your thread when you specifically asked him not to. If he wants to 'discuss' the safety of psych meds he should start he own thread. Mind you, if it was up to me he would have been blocked a long time ago!
Take care.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 14:50:39
In reply to Re: Lou's defense-ehynupsong, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2012, at 13:36:08
> > > > Lou Pilder.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for replying to my question.
> > > >
> > > > > > > ...the drug that they are promoting.
> > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "promoting"? Do you think I have motives to suggest the efficacy of drugs for reasons that are not altruistic? I feel accused and put-down.
> > > >
> > > > > Then, the post here in the link talks about taking Topomax. As I understand the grammatical structure of the statement, it is offering Topomax as something that the mother could have the child take which in my understanding of the word {promotion}, could include as that as being advocated.
> > > >
> > > > I feel accused. You are paraphrasing my words and substituting "advocate" for "promote". You now add "advocate" as if the definitions for these two words were the same. I did not promote Topamax. "Promote" is the word you first used to describe my behavior. You did not use the word "advocate".
> > > >
> > > > SLS: "One more tool to be aware of is Topamax. It works for mixed states, as does Depakote. Topamax treatment must be initiated at a very low dosage and titrated gradually in order to avoid cognitive side effects. 100 mg may be all that is needed. I have seen it work wonders for mixed states. Topamax is known to produce weight loss, just in case that is an issue."
> > > >
> > > > This is simply education and support.
> > > >
> > > > Just to address your characterization my use of my grammer, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have included a quotation of my words so that they could be scrutinized. I did not suggest that anyone take Topamax. Clearly, I suggested that the poster be aware of the existence of Topamax. I did not promote nor advocate that it be used.
> > > >
> > > > I do advocate the use of Topamax for bipolar disorder. I currently do not promote it. Perhaps I will in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Promote:
> > > >
> > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote
> > > >
> > > > "to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity."
> > > >
> > > > This is not a question of grammer. It is a question of diction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Friends,
> > > The post above is one that I think can go a long way to undertsanding the issues here. I will include the link to the post in question here to go back to in order to see the issues involved.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> > > Now bw advised that in situations like this, the words in question can become what is what. It is what can be seen, not what the maker of the words says that it means after the fact, but in most of the cases that I have prosecuted, the defendant raises to the judge/magistrate that the word means something different.
> > > Now here is how those type of cases haave been handled in my cases:
> > > The rule is that it is not what the person who is the maker of the word says that it means, or the one contesting the word's meaning says that it means, but what a reasonable person could think that it means. I know of only one case that then went further as to that the phrase {reasonable person} was contested to mean.
> > > Also the magistrate/judge usually states that the plaintif can not invoke what they want the word to mean, except by dictionary definition and such. This is because the defendant does not have to be a mind-reader.
> > > Now in the case at hand here, there are three words that the maker of the document in question here is bringing up. First, he is the maker of the words, I am defending my post from what I read that he made with his words. I can not tell what he wants to mean after the fact, for I could only post my response as seeing the words before the fact. Now let's look at the words....to be contimued
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > There are three words here that I read {in their context} that as considering myself a reasonable person, responded with the understnding of what the words could mean.The three words are: tool, promote and advocate.
> > The generally accepted meaning of {tool} is that it is ssomething that facilitates getting a job done correctly.
> > The generally accepted meaning of to {advocate}, is to write in favor of or be supportive of its inclusion in or for something. This usually happens in what is referred to as a {testamonial} of praise.
> > The generally accepted meaning of {promote} is to write something that one could think to adopt because there is language that {raises above} what else is in that set of things being talked about.
> > Now in this case, we have the maker of the words stating:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msg/1010901.html
> > Let's see how a resonable person could think as to what the maker of the post could be meaning.
> > Lou
> >
>
> Friends,
> Here is the link to the post in question that the words are in discussion.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120212/msgs/1010901.html
> In the forst statement, the context is defined. The daughter might be experiancing a bipolar mixed-state.
> Noew the maker of the words in question responds to that context. The statements are:
> A. One more tool to be aware of is Topomax.
> B. It works for mixed-states
> C. I have seen it work wonders for mixed-states
> D. Mixed states are not pleasant for the sufferer
> Now I am "the defendant" here as I am defending my response as being what a reasonable person could think when reading the words in question in it's context.
> Inj (A), the maker writes that Topomax is a tool, and one more tool. So Topomax could be thought by a reasonable person to a drug that could be included in the tool-box to facilitate helping the mother to get the doctor/psychitrist to prescribe the drug to the daughter.
> Then in {B}, the maker of the word state that it {works} for mixed-states. This is a testamoniial of that in the maker of the words thinking, it could be good to get the daughter to take the drug via the psychiatris/doctor to prescribe the drug because it {works}.
> Then in {C},the maker of the words states that he has eseen it work wonders for mixed-states. This type of ttestamonial {raises above} the others in consideration which could be thought to be a promotion of the drug by a reasonable person.
> Then in {D], the unpleasentness of the sufferer of the mixed state is brought in. This could be thought by a reasonable person to be an advoction to take the drug because the promis that it works from the previous statement gives rise to an advoction to take it to stop the mixed stte because it works ccording to the maker of the wordss. The maker of the words is speaking in favor of the drug, which could be thought to be advocating that the drug be taken, in this case by the daughter. In fact, the mother is confronted with {what if she doesn't go right now to the doctor to get the drug for the daughter?}. This is because the maker of the words states that {it works}, {it is a tool},{he has seen it work wonders} and {mixed-states are not pleasent for tthe sufferer}. What is a mother to do here? She is confronted with that the drug is ssaid by the maker of the words that the daughter is suffering unpleasently and that the drug will work wonders. If that was me as parent, I would rush to get that drug right away , for there is the aspect that it will stop the suffereing of the child. Topomax is a drug used for siezure dissorder. As of my last understanding, the drug is not approved by the FDA for treating mixed-state of bipolar disorder.
> Now I hope that you could see something that has been previously unbeknownst to you here. This is just the start. I intend to show you thinks to come, and things that I think could give you a whole new life, and you could sing a new song.
> Lou
>Friends, If you are considering being a discussant in this thread or considering taking or getting someone Topomax, I am requesting that you read the following.
To read this article:
A. Bring up Google
B. Type in:
[Topomax. bipolar disorder, not approved by the FDA]
there will be several. I am looking at the one that explains about those using it for weight loss and that there is no proven study to say that Topomax is effective for any psychiatric condition. Could be first
Lou
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 15:58:16
In reply to Desperate, posted by Solstice on February 18, 2012, at 21:08:07
Okay.. first I want to apologize for perhaps making the issue more about Lou specifically than whats helpful. I dont dislike Lou. I am happy to see him around. He is just as welcome to post on the board as anyone else.I have obviously been in quite a bit of distress over my daughters situation. That likely plays a role in my stumbling a bit in navigating a the hijacking of my thread that is taking place. It has been disruptive and hurtful to me to have to wade through all of that to pick out the posts that are in response to my request for help. That said, no one elses less-than-optimal behavior warrants bad behavior on my part. I don't apologize for not liking my thread being hijacked. But I do want to apologize to Lou and the community for any offense my reactions to this situation have caused. And I apologize to Lou, the community, and Dr. Bob for any incivility on my part.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on February 20, 2012, at 16:06:19
In reply to Desperate, posted by Solstice on February 18, 2012, at 21:08:07
We see my daughter's psychiatrist tomorrow morning. The many - and varied - responses and links to additional information have been an enormous relief and my angst is markedly lower after taking in the last two days of amazing support from the community. I anticipate the thread continuing as I come back here tomorrow to get feedback from the community regarding any changes (or not) in my daughter's treatment plan.That said, from this point forward, I would greatly appreciate no anti-med posts. I am very receptive to non-med treatment ideas, but posts that are critical of psychiatry or medications in general, including posts alluding to dire warnings of danger, should be posted on a separate thread created and participated in by those who have concerns about the dangers of psychotropic medications.
With much appreciation...
Solstice
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.