![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by AMD on May 6, 2004, at 16:46:38
In reply to whats wrong with.........., posted by linkadge on May 6, 2004, at 16:29:35
I don't know ... it's suspicious! I missed the post where chemist established his expertise.
:-)
Posted by linkadge on May 6, 2004, at 18:19:56
In reply to Sorry to break up the party, but who is chemist?, posted by AMD on May 6, 2004, at 16:46:38
I understand. I try and verify everything I read from whomever I read it.
Linkadge
Posted by lauram on May 6, 2004, at 19:57:12
In reply to Re: Sorry to break up the party, but who is chemist?, posted by linkadge on May 6, 2004, at 18:19:56
I find chemist to be extremely helpful. I am on Lamictal and Seroquel for BPII and find the information useful. I always cross check the input given.
Posted by harryp on May 6, 2004, at 20:08:52
In reply to Re: Sorry to break up the party, but who is chemist?, posted by lauram on May 6, 2004, at 19:57:12
I agree that chemist is very helpful and knowledgeable.
I think, though, that people do chemist and themselves a disservice by routinely addressing their questions to him (or her) specifically.
I'm sure chemist has other things to do than answer everyone's drug questions. Posters who directly ask for advice from chemist are also likely to turn off other users (some of whom may be as knowlegeable as chemist) who might offer useful suggestions or personal experience.
Posted by poppi on May 6, 2004, at 23:23:12
In reply to Good point, posted by harryp on May 6, 2004, at 20:08:52
Anyone who takes this board serious enough to think a real live person who works with chemicals and is not a druggist (Pharmacist} and posts here is for real needs a wake up call! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!Not meaning to be derogatory to Chemist personally!! He probably gives good advice at times! Just my .02!
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 0:45:32
In reply to Re: Who is chemist?, posted by poppi on May 6, 2004, at 23:23:12
>
> Anyone who takes this board serious enough to think a real live person who works with chemicals and is not a druggist (Pharmacist} and posts here is for real needs a wake up call! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
>
> Not meaning to be derogatory to Chemist personally!! He probably gives good advice at times! Just my .02!see my reply in the thread entitled Lamictal insanity, to AMD, called ``okay, i'll tell you.'' if you have any further questions, feel free to give me a shout. i don't claim to have all the solutions to all problems, but really feel free to request my C.V. and judge for yourself. and i am not a pharmacist, although i taught the pill-rollers for a year as a post-doc at the University of California, San Francisco, and they still can't count to 30 or 60 or 90....thanks for your $0.02, chemist
Posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:00:22
In reply to hi, poppi, i'll tell you » poppi, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 0:45:32
My apologies to chemist if my remarks offended him. I assure you they were not intended in an offensive manner. Reckon I just should have kept my big mouth shut. Just one question before I back on outta here. Why do pharmicists always put themselves up on a level that they are always looking down on you? No matter how tall you are they seem to be up there????
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 1:20:25
In reply to i am not a pharmacist, although i taught the pill, posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:00:22
> My apologies to chemist if my remarks offended him. I assure you they were not intended in an offensive manner. Reckon I just should have kept my big mouth shut. Just one question before I back on outta here. Why do pharmicists always put themselves up on a level that they are always looking down on you? No matter how tall you are they seem to be up there????
i hear you: it's because they count (or used to, until autocounters became the rage a few years back) in multiples of 30 for a living, and rely on pre-packaged inserts and out-dated computer support for contraindications, and do not have the medical training to address the real issues, and they are (RPs) not ``real' doctors, in any sense of the word. they are service people - and, as seinfeld would say - not that i'm saying that there's anything wrong with that, but they went to medical schools and were surrounded by fellow students who studied medicine, dentistry, and nursing (to mention the most popular), and now they spend their days in a shopping center pharmacy counting pills for a measly $75,000/year. ah, the envy....where's ayn rand when you need her? all the best, chemist
Posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:34:15
In reply to Re: i am not a pharmacist, although i taught the pill » poppi, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 1:20:25
Who's John Galt?
Danged iffen I know. But I do know a little about GIS/optimization as you referred to it. GIS maybe but optimization we will have to talk about. That could mean many things to many different people. As for the rest of your resume, sounds pretty impressive. Of course it don't take much to impress this old redneck hillbilly!!
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 1:35:32
In reply to Good point, posted by harryp on May 6, 2004, at 20:08:52
> I agree that chemist is very helpful and knowledgeable.
>
> I think, though, that people do chemist and themselves a disservice by routinely addressing their questions to him (or her) specifically.
>
> I'm sure chemist has other things to do than answer everyone's drug questions. Posters who directly ask for advice from chemist are also likely to turn off other users (some of whom may be as knowlegeable as chemist) who might offer useful suggestions or personal experience.hi harryp, i do have other things to do, but this board is very near and dear to my heart....see my response to AMD entitled ``okay, i'll tell you,'' under the Lamictal insanity thread. and again, i am far from being the expert on everything posted on this board...all the best, chemist
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 1:39:47
In reply to Re: i am not a pharmacist, although i taught the pill, posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:34:15
> Who's John Galt?
>
> Danged iffen I know. But I do know a little about GIS/optimization as you referred to it. GIS maybe but optimization we will have to talk about. That could mean many things to many different people. As for the rest of your resume, sounds pretty impressive. Of course it don't take much to impress this old redneck hillbilly!!i wasn't born in texas, but got here as fast as i could....you want to talk neural networks, AI, genetic algorithms, and monto carlo applied to buniness solutions, let's do it....i have a lone star tall-boy in pocket, justin ropers, and some junior brown going on in the background, which ought to mean a whole lot more than a fancy CV....get with you soon, chemist
Posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:51:09
In reply to Re: i am not a pharmacist, although i taught the pill, posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:34:15
Sorry Chemist, I adjusted the spelling a bit. Curious bout the monte carlo applied to business solutions. Even with the spelling changed i'm still asea. Give me a hint.
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 2:11:59
In reply to monte carlo applied to business solutions, posted by poppi on May 7, 2004, at 1:51:09
> Sorry Chemist, I adjusted the spelling a bit. Curious bout the monte carlo applied to business solutions. Even with the spelling changed i'm still asea. Give me a hint.
start with metropolis' article in j. chem. phys., circa 1957 or 1958 (metroplolis bias-sampling ring a bell?)...start an ensemble of random ``walkers'' with a potential function that need not be - and is not - differentiated. you randomly move each walker - here, let's assume a Cartesian space, not Minkowski 4-space, i.e,, time-independent - and you have previously computed the kinetic and potential energies for you ensemble of walkers. after the move, you evaluate the ``energy'' of each walker: if it hgher than the (new) ensemble average, discard the walker. if E_{walker} <= E_{ensemble}, keep walker but weight the contribution with a boltzmann factor, i.e., exp(-beta*E), where beta == (1/(k_b}T) (yes, i write everything in plain TeX, not LaTeX), and note that temperature here does not necessarily jibe with the traditional temperature definition (instead, market cap, P:E, trading volume, etc.). then branch for generation of new walkers to keep your ensemble constant in N, which entails weighting the already weighted walkers that survived. very quick, very precise, very easy to code, and you can actually get the *global* minimum on the PES. i use a variant - quantum diffusion monte carlo - where a change of variables from t to i(tau) (i == sqrt(-1)) in the time-dependent schrodinger equation leads to fick's second law of diffusion. problems: expectation values are very, very hard to extract (see work by ann mccoy at ohio) but you can get the quantities you need - in many cases - by following this recipe (QDMC). also, you can do quantum simmulated annealing - vary hbar from 1 to 6, usually - and for lennard-jones clusters, global minima are reached in many cases. if you define your kinetic and potential terms as functions of business solutions, the results are quite attractive....all the best, chemist
Posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 2:54:35
In reply to Re: monte carlo applied to business solutions » poppi, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 2:11:59
> > Sorry Chemist, I adjusted the spelling a bit. Curious bout the monte carlo applied to business solutions. Even with the spelling changed i'm still asea. Give me a hint.
>
> start with metropolis' article in j. chem. phys., circa 1957 or 1958 (metroplolis bias-sampling ring a bell?)...start an ensemble of random ``walkers'' with a potential function that need not be - and is not - differentiated. you randomly move each walker - here, let's assume a Cartesian space, not Minkowski 4-space, i.e,, time-independent - and you have previously computed the kinetic and potential energies for you ensemble of walkers. after the move, you evaluate the ``energy'' of each walker: if it hgher than the (new) ensemble average, discard the walker. if E_{walker} <= E_{ensemble}, keep walker but weight the contribution with a boltzmann factor, i.e., exp(-beta*E), where beta == (1/(k_b}T) (yes, i write everything in plain TeX, not LaTeX), and note that temperature here does not necessarily jibe with the traditional temperature definition (instead, market cap, P:E, trading volume, etc.). then branch for generation of new walkers to keep your ensemble constant in N, which entails weighting the already weighted walkers that survived. very quick, very precise, very easy to code, and you can actually get the *global* minimum on the PES. i use a variant - quantum diffusion monte carlo - where a change of variables from t to i(tau) (i == sqrt(-1)) in the time-dependent schrodinger equation leads to fick's second law of diffusion. problems: expectation values are very, very hard to extract (see work by ann mccoy at ohio) but you can get the quantities you need - in many cases - by following this recipe (QDMC). also, you can do quantum simmulated annealing - vary hbar from 1 to 6, usually - and for lennard-jones clusters, global minima are reached in many cases. if you define your kinetic and potential terms as functions of business solutions, the results are quite attractive....all the best, chemistI didn't have time to really peruse Psychobabble for a couple of days but started getting suspicious--from intuition only--about this person named chemist. Then when I returned and spotted the mini-controversy surrounding his/her qualifications, I realized that I wasn't alone.
Then, as I delved deeper into the threads, I started seeing all sorts of slang, American regional gibberish, and all manner of irrelevant and inappropriate postings--inappropriate to the essence of what this board should be all about. In the two years I've scanned this board, I've never such garbage--enough to fully turn me off.
Perhaps this should be directed to Psychobabble Administration, but before I resort to that, I'd like to see a consensus as to whether regular Psychobabble users are on my wavelength. Maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not. But all, I'm saying is, *Let's get rid of all this junk, and stop discussions, like the above, NOW!!*
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 2:55:23
In reply to Re: Sorry to break up the party, but who is chemist?, posted by lauram on May 6, 2004, at 19:57:12
> I find chemist to be extremely helpful. I am on Lamictal and Seroquel for BPII and find the information useful. I always cross check the input given.
...as well you should....please see my response to AMD under the thread ``Lamictal insanity'' entitled ``okay, i'll tell you,'' and i hope this clears things up a bit...all the best, chemist
Posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 2:57:13
In reply to Sorry to break up the party, but who is chemist?, posted by AMD on May 6, 2004, at 16:08:17
> ... and why is he suddenly an authority? Half the messages on this board are for "chemist" now.
My sentiments exactly.
cubbybear
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 3:03:31
In reply to Re: LET'S DUMP THIS CRAP, DR. BOB!!, posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 2:54:35
okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and i do the best i can with my knowledge base. the digression with poppi is, naturally, not appropriate here. you are not bound to any of the suggestions i make - whether right or wrong - and my credentials are yours for the asking. i will note that dr. bob knows full-well who i am, and would have dumped me long ago if his check on my background turned up something fishy. finally, i offer - and glean - information on this board in the hope that we will all benefit, mutually...i defer to posters in areas i have little expertise, and will continue to provide information that may or may not be taken with a grain of salt. and i might add, your contributions for medication-related issues have been really informative...all the best, chemist
Posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 4:00:38
In reply to Re: LET'S DUMP THIS CRAP, DR. BOB!!, posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 2:54:35
> > > Sorry Chemist, I adjusted the spelling a bit. Curious bout the monte carlo applied to business solutions. Even with the spelling changed i'm still asea. Give me a hint.
> >
> > start with metropolis' article in j. chem. phys., circa 1957 or 1958 (metroplolis bias-sampling ring a bell?)...start an ensemble of random ``walkers'' with a potential function that need not be - and is not - differentiated. you randomly move each walker - here, let's assume a Cartesian space, not Minkowski 4-space, i.e,, time-independent - and you have previously computed the kinetic and potential energies for you ensemble of walkers. after the move, you evaluate the ``energy'' of each walker: if it hgher than the (new) ensemble average, discard the walker. if E_{walker} <= E_{ensemble}, keep walker but weight the contribution with a boltzmann factor, i.e., exp(-beta*E), where beta == (1/(k_b}T) (yes, i write everything in plain TeX, not LaTeX), and note that temperature here does not necessarily jibe with the traditional temperature definition (instead, market cap, P:E, trading volume, etc.). then branch for generation of new walkers to keep your ensemble constant in N, which entails weighting the already weighted walkers that survived. very quick, very precise, very easy to code, and you can actually get the *global* minimum on the PES. i use a variant - quantum diffusion monte carlo - where a change of variables from t to i(tau) (i == sqrt(-1)) in the time-dependent schrodinger equation leads to fick's second law of diffusion. problems: expectation values are very, very hard to extract (see work by ann mccoy at ohio) but you can get the quantities you need - in many cases - by following this recipe (QDMC). also, you can do quantum simmulated annealing - vary hbar from 1 to 6, usually - and for lennard-jones clusters, global minima are reached in many cases. if you define your kinetic and potential terms as functions of business solutions, the results are quite attractive....all the best, chemist
>
> I didn't have time to really peruse Psychobabble for a couple of days but started getting suspicious--from intuition only--about this person named chemist. Then when I returned and spotted the mini-controversy surrounding his/her qualifications, I realized that I wasn't alone.
>
> Then, as I delved deeper into the threads, I started seeing all sorts of slang, American regional gibberish, and all manner of irrelevant and inappropriate postings--inappropriate to the essence of what this board should be all about. In the two years I've scanned this board, I've never such garbage--enough to fully turn me off.
>
> Perhaps this should be directed to Psychobabble Administration, but before I resort to that, I'd like to see a consensus as to whether regular Psychobabble users are on my wavelength. Maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not. But all, I'm saying is, *Let's get rid of all this junk, and stop discussions, like the above, NOW!!*
>
>
hey champ, does my ``garbage'' compare to posters who want information on how to get on-line meds without a prescription, users of ecstacy who want to keep partying, or myriad posters who are being misdiagnosed and/or mistreated by their doctors? tell you what: the ``American regional gibberish'' comment is more than inappropriate, and the ``irrelavant and inappropriate'' postings are what, exactly? my subtle tries to inject a bit of humor into a post (e.g., considering myself an honarary Aussie because i listen to AC/DC?) are the best that i can do given the severity of problems presented here, and a bit of levity (you might need to look that one up in the OED) is what is called for in a population of individuals who need information, solace, and hope. as you have been posting here for 2 years, i am sure you have read with great pleasure - and can identify with - the ravers who steadfastly deemed ecstacy use as perfectly reasonable (again, consult the OED if you are at a loss) drug. keep 'em coming, and again, thanks for all your contributions. and i am interested in your qualifications, so let's play ball: i'll send to you my CV, and you can send me yours. but in the meantime, by all means, call for a vote to ban me from this site. i will abide. looking forward to hearing about your qualifications, chemist
Posted by slinky on May 7, 2004, at 4:19:47
In reply to Re: monte carlo applied to business solutions » poppi, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 2:11:59
> start with metropolis' article in j. chem. phys., circa 1957 or 1958 (metroplolis bias-sampling ring a bell?)...start an ensemble of random ``walkers'' with a potential function that need not be - and is not - differentiated. you randomly move each walker - here, let's assume a Cartesian space, not Minkowski 4-space, i.e,, time-independent - and you have previously computed the kinetic and potential energies for you ensemble of walkers. after the move, you evaluate the ``energy'' of each walker: if it hgher than the (new) ensemble average, discard the walker. if E_{walker} <= E_{ensemble}, keep walker but weight the contribution with a boltzmann factor, i.e., exp(-beta*E), where beta == (1/(k_b}T) (yes, i write everything in plain TeX, not LaTeX), and note that temperature here does not necessarily jibe with the traditional temperature definition (instead, market cap, P:E, trading volume, etc.). then branch for generation of new walkers to keep your ensemble constant in N, which entails weighting the already weighted walkers that survived. very quick, very precise, very easy to code, and you can actually get the *global* minimum on the PES. i use a variant - quantum diffusion monte carlo - where a change of variables from t to i(tau) (i == sqrt(-1)) in the time-dependent schrodinger equation leads to fick's second law of diffusion. problems: expectation values are very, very hard to extract (see work by ann mccoy at ohio) but you can get the quantities you need - in many cases - by following this recipe (QDMC). also, you can do quantum simmulated annealing - vary hbar from 1 to 6, usually - and for lennard-jones clusters, global minima are reached in many cases. if you define your kinetic and potential terms as functions of business solutions, the results are quite attractive....all the best, chemist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Am i in the right dimension? :-)
Posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 6:58:33
In reply to addendum for cubbybear » cubbybear, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 4:00:38
> >
> >
> hey champ, does my ``garbage'' compare to posters who want information on how to get on-line meds without a prescription,I would call a thread "garbage" when it gets top-heavy in flippant banter between 2 people regarding a subject that is irrelevant to the core topic of Psychobabble. (legal psychotropic drugs). For example, if the posters started going off on a fully-unrelated tangent about sports, politics, religion or their favorite modes of transportation, I'd call it "garbage" (sorry, maybe I should be a bit more tactful by using a phrase like "useless stuff") OR if it's mostly incomprehensible, convoluted, overly technical jargon. As for the latter, if there are posters who like and benefit from overly technical medical jargon, well, then OK; I don't find it offensive or demeaning to the original premise of the board.
As for postings regarding obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription, I recognize that this is a very hot topic. I base my opinion on personal values, as well as experiences as a U.S. citizen residing long-term in Thailand/ In my opinion, as long as an intelligent adult has responsibly armed him/herself with all the prescribing information, including indications/contraindication/side-effects, etc., (as from websites), and is mature enough to make his/her own decisions, then I'd say, that's their own business and they should be free to take their chances on obtaining MOST prescription drugs without a regular prescription. However, they alone are responsible for their actions and should not be free to blame or sue anyone else if things go wrong.
(I would not advocate website purchases of certain drugs requiring a specialist doctor's administration, such as general anaesthesia, or highly habit-forming drugs such as Dormicum or morphine.)
Here in Thailand, there are numerous locally-made and imported medications including skin ointments/creams and anti-biotics, that require a prescription in the U.S., but are available over the counter, here at a a fraction of what they cost in the U.S. Should I have to get the doctor to write a prescription refill for amoxycillin when I already know from previous usage/experience, and website information, as much about the drug as the doctor knows? The same is even more true with regularly used skin creams. In the U.S., why should consumers in California have to get a prescription for contact lenses and pay for an eye examination EVERY TIME THEY NEED A REPLACEMENT LENS?!? Do I smell a bit of a racket here?
No doubt, there are many ignorant and uninformed people who purchase anti-biotics here without adequate knowledge of what they're doing. But, I believe that, if people want to be foolish enough to take such gambles with the wrong kind of anti-biotic, then that's their business--much like lighting up a cigarette or drinking a quart of booze every day. I'm in favor of anything that is going to enable the consumer to save money over the unconscionable drug prices that only Americans have been cursed with.
users of ecstacy who want to keep partying,
any postings regarding illegal and dangerous drugs should not appear on this board
or myriad posters who are being misdiagnosed and/or mistreated by their doctors?
I agree fully with that--the board is our salvation and insurance against the ills of the medical establishment
tell you what: the ``American regional gibberish'' comment is more than inappropriate, and the ``irrelavant and inappropriate'' postings are what, exactly?
As I've said, a perfect example is an extended rambling in which two people are comparing the relative merits of their favorite drinks. If that's "their thing", then fine, but the last I've heard was that Psychobabble is intended for discussions about psychotrobic medication. If alcohol is your thing, then you can take your six-pack and join forces on Psychobable /Social
and a bit of levity (you might need to look that one up in the OED)I happen to have a 17 year career in business journalism, B.A. in English, plus 7 year career in teaching English as a Second Language. These are my job credentials but I don't feel obligated to post my C.V. to anyone other than a prospective employer.
i am interested in your qualifications, so let's play ball: i'll send to you my CV, and you can send me yours. but in the meantime, by all means, call for a vote to ban me from this site. i will abide. looking forward to hearing about your qualifications, chemist
I've summarized my career background above. Like you, I never claimed to be *the* expert on any drugs, even the medication I've been taking for 20 years. And, neither I nor anyone else, including yourself, should feel compelled to disclose his/her professional qualifications, much less their C.V. on this board. Psychobabble is is not a dueling match of qualifications. It was never a pre-condition of joining or having the privilege to post.
In my eyes, this board has been the worthwhile tool it is because the majority of posters regularly talk to each other seriously in banter that's practical and relevant for everyone. A little levity is OK and I've done it, so please don't think I'm a purist, prude, or have no sense of humor.
I've spent several hours composing this post in a way that I hope would be tactful and explain myself on the issue. I didn't call for replies from others with the hope that anyone would want you blackballed I did it in order to get a sense of where other people stand. i'm now going to sign off, before I burn out.
Posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 7:07:56
In reply to Re: monte carlo applied to business solutions, posted by slinky on May 7, 2004, at 4:19:47
>
> > start with metropolis' article in j. chem. phys., circa 1957 or 1958 (metroplolis bias-sampling ring a bell?)...start an ensemble of random ``walkers'' with a potential function that need not be - and is not - differentiated. you randomly move each walker - here, let's assume a Cartesian space, not Minkowski 4-space, i.e,, time-independent - and you have previously computed the kinetic and potential energies for you ensemble of walkers. after the move, you evaluate the ``energy'' of each walker: if it hgher than the (new) ensemble average, discard the walker. if E_{walker} <= E_{ensemble}, keep walker but weight the contribution with a boltzmann factor, i.e., exp(-beta*E), where beta == (1/(k_b}T) (yes, i write everything in plain TeX, not LaTeX), and note that temperature here does not necessarily jibe with the traditional temperature definition (instead, market cap, P:E, trading volume, etc.). then branch for generation of new walkers to keep your ensemble constant in N, which entails weighting the already weighted walkers that survived. very quick, very precise, very easy to code, and you can actually get the *global* minimum on the PES. i use a variant - quantum diffusion monte carlo - where a change of variables from t to i(tau) (i == sqrt(-1)) in the time-dependent schrodinger equation leads to fick's second law of diffusion. problems: expectation values are very, very hard to extract (see work by ann mccoy at ohio) but you can get the quantities you need - in many cases - by following this recipe (QDMC). also, you can do quantum simmulated annealing - vary hbar from 1 to 6, usually - and for lennard-jones clusters, global minima are reached in many cases. if you define your kinetic and potential terms as functions of business solutions, the results are quite attractive....all the best, chemist
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Am i in the right dimension? :-)You're OK. You're sane. What appears above may have come from the Twilight Zone.
Posted by platinumbride on May 7, 2004, at 7:39:56
In reply to Re: LET'S DUMP THIS CRAP, DR. BOB!! » cubbybear, posted by chemist on May 7, 2004, at 3:03:31
Why are people attacking chemist???
We all take eachother's opinions (I hope) with a grain of salt.I personally posted a question to chemist recently after no one else responded to my question.
Seems to me that every so often one or antoher poster is particularly "hot" on any particular board here at one time or another.
I think this is getting mean spirited. Those are my two cents.
Diane
okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and i do the best i can with my knowledge base. the digression with poppi is, naturally, not appropriate here. you are not bound to any of the suggestions i make - whether right or wrong - and my credentials are yours for the asking. i will note that dr. bob knows full-well who i am, and would have dumped me long ago if his check on my background turned up something fishy. finally, i offer - and glean - information on this board in the hope that we will all benefit, mutually...i defer to posters in areas i have little expertise, and will continue to provide information that may or may not be taken with a grain of salt. and i might add, your contributions for medication-related issues have been really informative...all the best, chemist
Posted by partlycloudy on May 7, 2004, at 8:35:16
In reply to this feels like a witch hunt » chemist, posted by platinumbride on May 7, 2004, at 7:39:56
I consider chemist's posts a valuable resource and educated opinion, and I am grateful for his knowledgeable responses. I would never use this board, however, to base decisions I might make and take actions to change either my dosages nor medications themselves. These boards help me communicate with my doctors in a more comprehensive way.
Can we not leave this matter behind us?
partlycloudy
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 7, 2004, at 8:54:33
In reply to Re: LET'S DUMP THIS CRAP, DR. BOB!!, posted by cubbybear on May 7, 2004, at 2:54:35
> I started seeing ... American regional gibberish, and all manner of irrelevant and inappropriate postings... In the two years I've scanned this board, I've never such garbage--enough to fully turn me off.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or redirect a follow-up to Psycho-Babble Administration:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/344158.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by harryp on May 8, 2004, at 8:22:06
In reply to i am confused... » Festus, posted by chemist on May 8, 2004, at 0:44:22
I think, chemist, he's probably referring to the countless posts in which people discuss benzo dosages.
Festus,
You have a very legitimate concern. However, I sincerely hope that everyone uses the "common sense test," cross-checks information, and hopefully, gets final advice from their doctor.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that even with access to excellent mental health care, I have found myself largely to be on my own as far as psychopharmaceuticals are concerned. Even good pdocs are often disturbingly passive towards their patients' medication meds, are not well informed, and are not aggressive in finding something that works.
I had to do my own research and be quite bitchy in getting my (excellent, btw) pdoc to prescribe the first drug combination that made it possible for me to contemplate a life that didn't end with suicide on my 30th birthday (I already had detailed plans).
Parnate 40mg/day + 1-4mg/day lorazapam as needed.
(25 mg Trazodone + 1 mg lorazapam for insomnia, Zyprexa for emergencies)
This combo is guaranteed to get a rise from one's internist! After nine years of torture on ineffective, mind-numbing drugs, I'm understandably proud of my "cocktail."
My doctor, fine man that he is, would have much preferred Effexor or Lexapro + a daily antipsychotic. The fact that being an emotionless, overweight houseplant wasn't a satisfactory outcome didn't seem to occur to him. This is a common trait in all the psychiatrists (major med school faculty, btw) I have seen.
Many people here are incomparably worse off than me in the area of medical access. Some of them are receiving non-existant or incompetent care. This is a social shame and inexcusable sin, but as the number of uninsured rise and competent mental health care becomes more elusive, I fear that message boards filled with all-too-experienced users and self-taught pharmacologists may be become more and more the future of psychopharmacology.
This is the end of the 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.