![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 8:50:04
In reply to Re: Night sweats with fluoxetine or trazodone?, posted by SLS on September 7, 2015, at 7:50:17
> > Cyproheptadine can reverse sweating brought on by antidepressant use.
> >
> > Eric
>
> Terazosin is supposed to work well to treat SRI diaphoresis, but shouldn't cause the sedation that cyproheptadine does. If terazosin acts similarly to prazosin, one should probably start it at bedtime using the lowest dosage to prevent syncope. Thereafter, the dose can be increased gradually.
>
>
> - ScottFriends,
Be not deceived. Just because the statements here by Scott are allowed by Mr. Hsiung to be seen as supportive, and that he thinks by allowing Scott to post advise concerning drugs that it will be good for his community as a whole. But if you die from the advise posted here by Scott, why is the standard stated here by Mr. Hsiung, (that what he does will in his thinking be good for his community as a whole), override your right to life? You see , you could be deceived to think because Mr. Hsiung does not post to Scott's advise here that nothing is posted by Scott to show a balanced picture of what the drug that he advocates here, which could lead readers to think that taking the drug advocated by Scott is safer than it really is and not only that, the member with the sweating could die from serotonin syndrome, if that is causing the sweating, by thinking that by taking Scott's advise, that serotonin syndrome is not causing the sweating. If the poster delays action, death could be the result if the sweating is caused by serotonin syndrome. And further, Scott does not substantiate his claim about the blood pressure drug that he says is supposed to "work well". That is a promotion by Scott that the FDA has strict rules about that I think that Mr. Hsiung is to be compliant to here as he is controlling what is supportive here. He, in my thinking, is advertising the drug through Scott.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 7, 2015, at 9:47:58
In reply to Lou's urgent warning- The FDA » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 8:50:04
Perhaps I missed something?
In what ways can terazosin be dangerous when administered during an episode of serotonin syndrome? Where can I find information regarding such a reaction?
If I did miss something regarding serotonin syndrome and terazosin, I thank you for pointing that out.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=terazosin+serotonin+syndrome
Please provide evidence so that we may scrutinize both the source and the content.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 10:44:17
In reply to Terazosin and serotonin syndrome? Evidence? » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 7, 2015, at 9:47:58
Scott,
The issue is not if or if not the drug that you are advocating here is dangerous taken by someone trying to treat sweating that is taking two drugs that could cause serotonin syndrome that could cause death. The issue is that you are promoting a drug and when a drug is promoted, there are rules by the FDA that are to be complied with. This is to protect the public an warn them of the potential risks and adverse consequences that could befall a person taking the drug so that th are not deceived into thinking that the drug is safer than it really is.
First, there are mandatory statements that have to be made about the side effects that you did not do.
Second, Mr. Hsiung is a influential figure as a psychiatrist which can carry an endorsement of the drug an then could be accepted as an advertisement for the drug by him. This could be seen as a partnership between you and Mr. Hsiung. Since the FDA requires that the risks along with your promotion be posted together in balance, and you did not post those risks from the drug as listed in the product disclaimers, readers could be deceived into thinking that taking the drug carries no risks at all, as the doctor here does not stop you from advocating the drug and is safe when in reality there is a log list of consequences from the drug which is a blood pressure drug and has consequences.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 7, 2015, at 16:02:56
In reply to Lou's reply-FDA compliance » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 10:44:17
Please do not accuse me of doing anything illegal without citing points of law or FDA regulations.
This is supposed to be a forum of support. Either stop accusing me without evidence, or endeavor to enlighten me. You seem incapable of doing either.
In what ways do I "promote" terazosin?
You seem unable to provide evidence for your statements against me. I therefore ask you to please do so in the future, or, alternatively, not accuse me of anything at all.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 20:37:20
In reply to Evidence? I didn't think so. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 7, 2015, at 16:02:56
> Please do not accuse me of doing anything illegal without citing points of law or FDA regulations.
>
> This is supposed to be a forum of support. Either stop accusing me without evidence, or endeavor to enlighten me. You seem incapable of doing either.
>
> In what ways do I "promote" terazosin?
>
> You seem unable to provide evidence for your statements against me. I therefore ask you to please do so in the future, or, alternatively, not accuse me of anything at all.
>
>
> - ScottScott,
Not complying with the FDA rules for advocating a drug is not a crime. You can find these rules in a search such as:
[what are the FDA rules for advocating a drug?]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2015, at 6:20:17
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 20:37:20
> > Please do not accuse me of doing anything illegal without citing points of law or FDA regulations.
> >
> > This is supposed to be a forum of support. Either stop accusing me without evidence, or endeavor to enlighten me. You seem incapable of doing either.
> >
> > In what ways do I "promote" terazosin?
> >
> > You seem unable to provide evidence for your statements against me. I therefore ask you to please do so in the future, or, alternatively, not accuse me of anything at all.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> Not complying with the FDA rules for advocating a drug is not a crime. You can find these rules in a search such as:
> [what are the FDA rules for advocating a drug?]
> LouFriends,
When a drug is promoted on social media it has rules to follow by the FDA. These rules are to protect readers from being misled in thinking that there is no risks involved in taking the promoted drug so that there is to accompany the promotion of the drug with particular statements. One such is to warn readers of the potential dangers of the drug in question as Scott says that the drug {works well}, which is a promotional statement for that drug. Hers what the FDA means by the following example
Lou
http://www.rxlist.com/hytrin-drug.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 4:29:27
In reply to Lou's reply-FDA rules, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2015, at 6:20:17
> > > Please do not accuse me of doing anything illegal without citing points of law or FDA regulations.
> > >
> > > This is supposed to be a forum of support. Either stop accusing me without evidence, or endeavor to enlighten me. You seem incapable of doing either.
> > >
> > > In what ways do I "promote" terazosin?
> > >
> > > You seem unable to provide evidence for your statements against me. I therefore ask you to please do so in the future, or, alternatively, not accuse me of anything at all.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > Not complying with the FDA rules for advocating a drug is not a crime. You can find these rules in a search such as:
> > [what are the FDA rules for advocating a drug?]
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> When a drug is promoted on social media it has rules to follow by the FDA. These rules are to protect readers from being misled in thinking that there is no risks involved in taking the promoted drug so that there is to accompany the promotion of the drug with particular statements. One such is to warn readers of the potential dangers of the drug in question as Scott says that the drug {works well}, which is a promotional statement for that drug. Hers what the FDA means by the following example
> Lou
> http://www.rxlist.com/hytrin-drug.htmScott,
You wrote,[...this is supposed to be a forum for support...].
I am trying to save lives here, and I think that by me doing what I can under the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsuing, that what I post here is supportive here in a mental-health forum chaired by a psychiatrist whose goals are different from mine here, but never the less, I think that my goals to save lives here overrides Mr. Hsiung's goal of doing what in his thinking will be good for his community as a whole. The goal of doing what will be good for the community as a whole is used to justify genocide and slavery and discrimination and segregation and all other crimes against humanity. That turns my stomach here when I read it.
And for you to be allowed to promote drugs here without posting a balanced message as to the harmful effects that the drug that you are promoting could befall a user, is not supportive in my thinking and the FDA has rules that I think are to be complied with here with just cause to save lives. For when you make claims of efficacy of a drug and fail to communicate any risks associated with its use and omit material facts about the drug, readers could be misled to think that the drug is safer than it really is and also could think that there are no adverse effects at all from the drug which could lead to the user's death.
Now you could continue your advocating of drugs here and omit the dangers of the drug that you are promoting and receive impunity from Mr. Hsiung to continue to do so. That could be seen as a partnership between you and Mr. Hsiung as to what he considers to be supportive. I do not think that you are not in compliance with the FDA rules, for you are being allowed by a psychiatrist to post over and over messages that promote drugs that can cause death and induce suicidal thoughts in the user to not only kill themselves, but to kill others also. I do not consider that to be supportive, for lives could be saved if readers knew the whole truth about the drugs that you are promoting here which you are allowed to omit. It is not the drug company that is sponsoring you, but the sponsorship is this forum itself by the nature that support takes precedence according to Mr. Hsiung. So whatever is allowed here could be thought by even the FDA to be considered by Mr. Hsiung to be supportive. But by you being allowed to leave out material facts and the adverse consequences from the drugs that you promote here, innocent people could die for they could think that you and Mr. Hsiung are being supportive. I say not.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 6:17:50
In reply to Lou's reply-FDA rules-eyepsehynot, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 4:29:27
> But by you being allowed to leave out material facts and the adverse consequences from the drugs that you promote here, innocent people could die for they could think that you and Mr. Hsiung are being supportive.
Please don't accuse me of promoting the death of others by my language or lack of language, regardless of your definition of the word "supportive".
I have the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to espouse my thoughts and suggest any medical substance or procedure I like. You have the same freedom to recommend that people avoid medical treatments, regardless of outcome. Of course, freedom of speech has its limits. Please be careful of how closely you approach yours.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 7:01:36
In reply to Be careful. I do not promote the death of others. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 6:17:50
> > But by you being allowed to leave out material facts and the adverse consequences from the drugs that you promote here, innocent people could die for they could think that you and Mr. Hsiung are being supportive.
>
> Please don't accuse me of promoting the death of others by my language or lack of language, regardless of your definition of the word "supportive".
>
> I have the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to espouse my thoughts and suggest any medical substance or procedure I like. You have the same freedom to recommend that people avoid medical treatments, regardless of outcome. Of course, freedom of speech has its limits. Please be careful of how closely you approach yours.
>
> bob@dr-bob.org
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote,[...Please do not accuse me of promoting death of others by my language or lack of language. regardless of your definition of he word "support"...].
Death can happen from reading here that a drug is being promoted and the promoter leaves out material facts that if they were known to the reader, they could have a more-informed way to take the drug or not. Without a balanced posting of harmful reactions and by leaving out material facts about the consequences that the drug could inflict and death that could come from these drugs , readers could be misled to think that they are safer than they really are and continue to take the drug to their death.
The FDA wants to protect the health of it's citizens and by people promoting drugs that can induce life-ruining conditions, addiction and death without being compliant with their rules, people could be deceived into believing a lie and be killed by the drugs. Freedom of speech does not annul the FDA rules to protect it's citizens. The FDA stops tobacco companies from attracting children by making the cigarette ads by them to comply with particular rules. That is not denying freedom of speech, but stopping deceit so that the harmful effects could be known. If you leave out material facts when you post a promotion of a drug here, mothers drugging their children in collaboration with a psychiatrist could be misled to believe the drug is safer than it really is that could result in the death of their child because Mr. Hsiung allows you to not be in compliance with FDA rules when promoting a drug here. Any children that are killed by the drugs because Mr. Hsiung does not comply with the rules of the FDA if he is required to do so, could bring up as to who could have their blood be upon them for the deaths. Could it be you? Could it be Mr. Hsiung? Could it be the FDA? Does the Constitution prohibit the FDA? Do not the citizens here have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected by the rules of the FDA to require the whole truth be posted about these drugs so that deaths from the drugs could be prevented? What about those lives?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 7:44:09
In reply to Lou's reply-The Constitution » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 7:01:36
> > > But by you being allowed to leave out material facts and the adverse consequences from the drugs that you promote here, innocent people could die for they could think that you and Mr. Hsiung are being supportive.
> >
> > Please don't accuse me of promoting the death of others by my language or lack of language, regardless of your definition of the word "supportive".
> >
> > I have the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to espouse my thoughts and suggest any medical substance or procedure I like. You have the same freedom to recommend that people avoid medical treatments, regardless of outcome. Of course, freedom of speech has its limits. Please be careful of how closely you approach yours.
> >
> > bob@dr-bob.org
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...Please do not accuse me of promoting death of others by my language or lack of language. regardless of your definition of he word "support"...].
> Death can happen from reading here that a drug is being promoted and the promoter leaves out material facts that if they were known to the reader, they could have a more-informed way to take the drug or not. Without a balanced posting of harmful reactions and by leaving out material facts about the consequences that the drug could inflict and death that could come from these drugs , readers could be misled to think that they are safer than they really are and continue to take the drug to their death.
> The FDA wants to protect the health of it's citizens and by people promoting drugs that can induce life-ruining conditions, addiction and death without being compliant with their rules, people could be deceived into believing a lie and be killed by the drugs. Freedom of speech does not annul the FDA rules to protect it's citizens. The FDA stops tobacco companies from attracting children by making the cigarette ads by them to comply with particular rules. That is not denying freedom of speech, but stopping deceit so that the harmful effects could be known. If you leave out material facts when you post a promotion of a drug here, mothers drugging their children in collaboration with a psychiatrist could be misled to believe the drug is safer than it really is that could result in the death of their child because Mr. Hsiung allows you to not be in compliance with FDA rules when promoting a drug here. Any children that are killed by the drugs because Mr. Hsiung does not comply with the rules of the FDA if he is required to do so, could bring up as to who could have their blood be upon them for the deaths. Could it be you? Could it be Mr. Hsiung? Could it be the FDA? Does the Constitution prohibit the FDA? Do not the citizens here have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected by the rules of the FDA to require the whole truth be posted about these drugs so that deaths from the drugs could be prevented? What about those lives?
> Lou
>
Friends,
Freedom of speech does allow for advertising long as it is not deceptive or false.
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjg5BXh9w2g
Posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2015, at 11:28:23
In reply to Lou's urgent warning- The FDA » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2015, at 8:50:04
Lou stop it right now. Find a place somewhere that can find something to write other than negative. I no longer come to babble why because you you and your death warning. This has got to stop. And I know no one has replied as they most likely would like you to fade out. Remember you are not a youngster either anymore. Will you allow heart medications or open heart surgery to save your life? Or chemo if you get or have cancer? Your choice. bye. P
Posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 14:31:21
In reply to Re Stop » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2015, at 11:28:23
> Lou stop it right now.
> I no longer come to babble why because you you and your death warning. This has got to stop.
Hi Phillipa.
Lou Pilder doesn't bother me except for the fact that he bothers others enough to have them stop posting. Perhaps this is a goal of his. Certainly, you need not stop posting on account of my limited exchange with him here. I'm doing just fine. If I do stop posting, it will be for the lack of moderation in all of its facets.
Have you written a letter directly to Dr. Bob? I have.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 14:58:26
In reply to Night sweats with fluoxetine or trazodone?, posted by Lucy_B on September 4, 2015, at 11:53:45
> Hi, folks. Has anyone ever experienced drenching night sweats after awhile on fluoxetine
The night sweats may be an effect of trazodone due to its being metabolized into mCPP. However, it also happens quite frequently with SRIs like Effexor and Paxil in the absence of trazodone, and usually pesists throughout treatment. Still, it might make sense to attempt to discontinue the trazodone first in order to evaluate its role in producing hyperhidrosis. This way, you won't have to exclude possibly effective antidepressants from consideration.
Have you tried removing trazodone yet?
If trazodone is not culpable in producing night sweats, and you are generally treatment resistant, you may want to consider treating hyperhidrosis separately should it emerge with the use of an otherwise effective antidepressant. Terazosin is currently being considered when this occurs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23638448
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731399
* Sorry for the distractions.
- Scott
Posted by Lucy_B on September 9, 2015, at 15:01:16
In reply to Re: Night sweats with fluoxetine or trazodone? » Lucy_B, posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 14:58:26
> > Hi, folks. Has anyone ever experienced drenching night sweats after awhile on fluoxetine
>
> The night sweats may be an effect of trazodone due to its being metabolized into mCPP. However, it also happens quite frequently with SRIs like Effexor and Paxil in the absence of trazodone, and usually pesists throughout treatment. Still, it might make sense to attempt to discontinue the trazodone first in order to evaluate its role in producing hyperhidrosis. This way, you won't have to exclude possibly effective antidepressants from consideration.
>
> Have you tried removing trazodone yet?
>
> If trazodone is not culpable in producing night sweats, and you are generally treatment resistant, you may want to consider treating hyperhidrosis separately should it emerge with the use of an otherwise effective antidepressant. Terazosin is currently being considered when this occurs.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23638448
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731399
>
> * Sorry for the distractions.
>
>
> - ScottThanks, Scott! I have cut way down on the Traz (was on a very low dose to begin with) and started using a lighter blanket. That seems to have helped for the moment. :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 9, 2015, at 16:25:14
In reply to Re Stop » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2015, at 11:28:23
> Lou stop it right now. Find a place somewhere that can find something to write other than negative. I no longer come to babble why because you you and your death warning. This has got to stop. And I know no one has replied as they most likely would like you to fade out. Remember you are not a youngster either anymore. Will you allow heart medications or open heart surgery to save your life? Or chemo if you get or have cancer? Your choice. bye. P
,
You wrote,[...your death warning..]..
Do you bare responsibility for the deaths from the drugs that people take as a result of seeing the promotion of these drugs here to be supportive? How could you wash your hands of the blood of the dead from here that thought the drugs promoted here were safer than they really are because the rules by the FDA are not complied with here?
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 19:17:27
In reply to Re: Re Stop » Phillipa, posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 14:31:21
> > Lou stop it right now.
> >
> > I no longer come to babble why because you you and your death warning. This has got to stop.
> Hi Phillipa.
>
> Lou Pilder doesn't bother me except for the fact that he bothers others enough to have them stop posting. Perhaps this is a goal of his. Certainly, you need not stop posting on account of my limited exchange with him here. I'm doing just fine. If I do stop posting, it will be for the lack of moderation in all of its facets.
>
> Have you written a letter directly to Dr. Bob? I have.I doubt that Dr. Bob will respond to so many emails, but he must see them if they show up in his inbox. You never know...
In the meantime, you might want to limit your interactions with certain people. I think some people are simply looking for the stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes reactions in others. To post your reactions to these provocations only serves to stimulate continued posting on the part of these people, and allows for a reset of the 3-post rule.
It is difficult to not react immediately and emotionally to upsetting posts made by others. I still fall into this trap sometimes. However, your input is critical in many cases, and I would not want you to discontinue your efforts to improve Psycho-Babble, even should that involve posts similar to that you submitted here. I try to choose my battles, and try not to allow someone's thread to be hijacked by me or anyone else.
Your posts are very supportive of me. Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 19:59:20
In reply to Re Stop » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 9, 2015, at 11:28:23
> > Lou stop it right now.
> >
> > I no longer come to babble why because you you and your death warning. This has got to stop.> Hi Phillipa.
>
> Lou Pilder doesn't bother me except for the fact that he bothers others enough to have them stop posting. Perhaps this is a goal of his. Certainly, you need not stop posting on account of my limited exchange with him here. I'm doing just fine. If I do stop posting, it will be for the lack of moderation in all of its facets.
>
> Have you written a letter directly to Dr. Bob? I have.I doubt that Dr. Bob will respond to so many emails, but he must see them if they show up in his inbox. You never know...
In the meantime, you might want to limit your interactions with certain people. I think some people are simply looking for the stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes reactions in others. To post your reactions to these provocations only serves to stimulate continued posting on the part of these people, and allows for a reset of the 3-post rule.
It is difficult to not react immediately and emotionally to upsetting posts made by others. I still fall into this trap sometimes. However, your input is critical in many cases, and I would not want you to discontinue your efforts to improve Psycho-Babble, even should that involve posts similar to that you submitted here. I try to choose my battles, and try not to allow someone's thread to be hijacked by me or anyone else.
Your posts are very supportive of me. Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on September 10, 2015, at 19:06:23
In reply to Re: Re Stop » Phillipa, posted by SLS on September 9, 2015, at 19:59:20
I want to second Scott. I discovered some time ago not to even open posts by our friend, nor to open posts that are responses to posts by our friend This is why I appreciate Scott's efforts to reply and change the subject line to the original issue, so I know the post isn't a response to Lou. I don't understand why people frustrate themselves over this. It happens all over the web, like flies at a picnic. Just something you have to learn to live with and ignore.
> In the meantime, you might want to limit your interactions with certain people. I think some people are simply looking for the stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes reactions in others. To post your reactions to these provocations only serves to stimulate continued posting on the part of these people, and allows for a reset of the 3-post rule.
>
> It is difficult to not react immediately and emotionally to upsetting posts made by others. I still fall into this trap sometimes. However, your input is critical in many cases, and I would not want you to discontinue your efforts to improve Psycho-Babble, even should that involve posts similar to that you submitted here. I try to choose my battles, and try not to allow someone's thread to be hijacked by me or anyone else.
>
> Your posts are very supportive of me. Thank you.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 5:24:35
In reply to Re: Re Stop, posted by baseball55 on September 10, 2015, at 19:06:23
> I want to second Scott. I discovered some time ago not to even open posts by our friend, nor to open posts that are responses to posts by our friend This is why I appreciate Scott's efforts to reply and change the subject line to the original issue, so I know the post isn't a response to Lou. I don't understand why people frustrate themselves over this. It happens all over the web, like flies at a picnic. Just something you have to learn to live with and ignore.
>
>
> > In the meantime, you might want to limit your interactions with certain people. I think some people are simply looking for the stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes reactions in others. To post your reactions to these provocations only serves to stimulate continued posting on the part of these people, and allows for a reset of the 3-post rule.
> >
> > It is difficult to not react immediately and emotionally to upsetting posts made by others. I still fall into this trap sometimes. However, your input is critical in many cases, and I would not want you to discontinue your efforts to improve Psycho-Babble, even should that involve posts similar to that you submitted here. I try to choose my battles, and try not to allow someone's thread to be hijacked by me or anyone else.
> >
> > Your posts are very supportive of me. Thank you.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> baseball55, I could be your subject person here You wrote,[...not to even open posts by (Lou)...and ignore...].
You were responding to Scott where I could be his subject person in that he wrote,[...limit interactions with (Lou)... (Lou) is looking for stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes...].
Mr. Hsiung is allowing you and Scott to defame me here with accusations that could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. That is not supportive in my understanding and could lead to the deaths of reader here because Mr. Hsiung is promoting the defamation as being supportive, for he states that being supportive takes precedence and by him ignoring my notifications, it will be good for him and the community as a whole for him to do so which allows hatred by you and Scott to abound here.
It is a powerful persuasion tool to allow defamation to abound here for there are vulnerable readers that are influenced by you and Scott in tandem posting hate as promoted by a psychiatrist to be civil and that or advocating shunning is supportive.
But the blood of those killed here by the drugs promoted here, will not be upon me. For I am trying to save lives by what I post here and those that advocate to not read what I post could steer innocent people to their deaths as the enmity spread by you and Scott against me here could be interpreted as anti-Semitic propaganda because what is plainly visible being allowed by Mr. Hsiung could incite members against me as the Jewish member trying to purge out the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted here.
By this being allowed to spread from here like a forest fire, hatred toward the Jews could be fomented that could keep readers from knowing the truth, for anti-Semitism is based on lies against the Jews.
You and Scott are allowed to post to advocate to others to not read my posts. This could stigmatize me as that harm could come to those that do open my posts so that you and Scott are allowed to depict me as an enemy. That is a lie against me for I am trying to save lives by what I post here. The real enemy is the lies being allowed to be posted here about me and the Jews. I am trying to open the eyes of readers to see how the allowing of defamation against me and the Jews here could cause the death of readers.
To allow you and Scott to post that others not open my posts, is a perversion of the Golden Rule which Mr. Hsiung says that his forum incorporates that ideal. Shame on those here that are joining Mr. Hsiung in his thinking that he ignores my notifications so he can be an example for others to also ignore me. That is not the Golden Rule, that is a perversion of the Golden Rule and could IMHHHHO lead you to your deaths.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 7:49:11
In reply to Lou's response-pstigmah » baseball55, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 5:24:35
> > I want to second Scott. I discovered some time ago not to even open posts by our friend, nor to open posts that are responses to posts by our friend This is why I appreciate Scott's efforts to reply and change the subject line to the original issue, so I know the post isn't a response to Lou. I don't understand why people frustrate themselves over this. It happens all over the web, like flies at a picnic. Just something you have to learn to live with and ignore.
> >
> >
> > > In the meantime, you might want to limit your interactions with certain people. I think some people are simply looking for the stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes reactions in others. To post your reactions to these provocations only serves to stimulate continued posting on the part of these people, and allows for a reset of the 3-post rule.
> > >
> > > It is difficult to not react immediately and emotionally to upsetting posts made by others. I still fall into this trap sometimes. However, your input is critical in many cases, and I would not want you to discontinue your efforts to improve Psycho-Babble, even should that involve posts similar to that you submitted here. I try to choose my battles, and try not to allow someone's thread to be hijacked by me or anyone else.
> > >
> > > Your posts are very supportive of me. Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > baseball55, I could be your subject person here You wrote,[...not to even open posts by (Lou)...and ignore...].
> You were responding to Scott where I could be his subject person in that he wrote,[...limit interactions with (Lou)... (Lou) is looking for stimulation that comes from posting in a way that provokes...].
> Mr. Hsiung is allowing you and Scott to defame me here with accusations that could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. That is not supportive in my understanding and could lead to the deaths of reader here because Mr. Hsiung is promoting the defamation as being supportive, for he states that being supportive takes precedence and by him ignoring my notifications, it will be good for him and the community as a whole for him to do so which allows hatred by you and Scott to abound here.
> It is a powerful persuasion tool to allow defamation to abound here for there are vulnerable readers that are influenced by you and Scott in tandem posting hate as promoted by a psychiatrist to be civil and that or advocating shunning is supportive.
> But the blood of those killed here by the drugs promoted here, will not be upon me. For I am trying to save lives by what I post here and those that advocate to not read what I post could steer innocent people to their deaths as the enmity spread by you and Scott against me here could be interpreted as anti-Semitic propaganda because what is plainly visible being allowed by Mr. Hsiung could incite members against me as the Jewish member trying to purge out the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted here.
> By this being allowed to spread from here like a forest fire, hatred toward the Jews could be fomented that could keep readers from knowing the truth, for anti-Semitism is based on lies against the Jews.
> You and Scott are allowed to post to advocate to others to not read my posts. This could stigmatize me as that harm could come to those that do open my posts so that you and Scott are allowed to depict me as an enemy. That is a lie against me for I am trying to save lives by what I post here. The real enemy is the lies being allowed to be posted here about me and the Jews. I am trying to open the eyes of readers to see how the allowing of defamation against me and the Jews here could cause the death of readers.
> To allow you and Scott to post that others not open my posts, is a perversion of the Golden Rule which Mr. Hsiung says that his forum incorporates that ideal. Shame on those here that are joining Mr. Hsiung in his thinking that he ignores my notifications so he can be an example for others to also ignore me. That is not the Golden Rule, that is a perversion of the Golden Rule and could IMHHHHO lead you to your deaths.
> LouFriends,
Mr. Hsiung posts to influence readers to not respond to me by his example of not responding to my notifications to him. Those of you in concert with him that also advocate that others not open my posts or such, could be keeping others from knowing the truth that could prevent their death.
The deaths from these drugs promoted here as "medicines", could be furthered by posters here advocating to be in concert with Mr. Hsiung to post that others do not respond to me or even open my posts. Do you want to second Scott? Do you want to be in concert with baseball55 and Phillipa? Here is a video that you can open and Scott and baseball55 and Phillipa will not know.
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODNPmwveZP4
Posted by herpills on September 11, 2015, at 9:18:06
In reply to Lou's response-Scott and basebal55 will not know, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 7:49:11
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 17:08:19
In reply to Re: Re Stop (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by herpills on September 11, 2015, at 9:18:06
Friends,
You can view the following without Scott and baseal55 ad Phillipa and herpills knowing that you did.
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ActQu37Uo
Posted by herpills on September 22, 2015, at 14:46:05
In reply to Lou's respone-start » herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2015, at 17:08:19
Posted by Phillipa on September 22, 2015, at 21:05:55
In reply to did anyone watch the video? (nm), posted by herpills on September 22, 2015, at 14:46:05
No did you? P
Posted by herpills on October 5, 2015, at 16:08:59
In reply to Re: did anyone watch the video? » herpills, posted by Phillipa on September 22, 2015, at 21:05:55
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.