![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by steve on March 2, 2001, at 23:08:53
to this thread.
Posted by ShelliR on March 3, 2001, at 9:57:05
In reply to Dr. Bob, would you have a reply, posted by steve on March 2, 2001, at 23:08:53
Under FAQ on psychobabble, written by Dr. Bob:
What's going on here?
The main idea is to give those who use my sites a way to interact with each other. In particular, this may foster interchange between professionals and the public. In general, I think that's a good
thing, but this isn't a perfect world, so I must also remind you:Don't necessarily believe everything you hear. Just because you see something on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. THE ONLY MESSAGES HERE I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ARE MY OWN. (My caps)
What you say may conceivably be used against you. Professionals, especially, should be careful not to establish unintentional therapist-patient relationships.
shelli
Posted by JahL on March 3, 2001, at 10:55:17
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » steve, posted by ShelliR on March 3, 2001, at 9:57:05
>
>
> Under FAQ on psychobabble, written by Dr. Bob:
>
> What's going on here?
>
> The main idea is to give those who use my sites a way to interact with each other. In particular, this may foster interchange between professionals and the public. In general, I think that's a good
> thing, but this isn't a perfect world, so I must also remind you:
>
> Don't necessarily believe everything you hear. Just because you see something on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. THE ONLY MESSAGES HERE I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ARE MY OWN. (My caps)
>
> What you say may conceivably be used against you. Professionals, especially, should be careful not to establish unintentional therapist-patient relationships.
>
> shelliExactly. Driving cars is dangerous (& unlike meds, has no positive impact on yr hlth). This doesn't mean we can't discuss the pleasures of the open road or advertise cars for sale. In yr country Steve it would be unconstitutional to prevent such discussion.
This site fosters the exchange of info that most pdocs just aren't aware of & which would otherwise not be in the public domain.
Steve, medical books facilitate dx, & offer treatment algorithms which anyone minded to do so could instigate for themselves. Would you advocate curtailing public access to these (thus leading to patient ignorance-a manifestly bad thing)?
Thanx 4 bringing the FAQ 2 my attn, Shelli. Dr Bob has covered himself by issuing disclaimers & as such, has no case to answer.
J
Posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 0:53:10
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply, posted by JahL on March 3, 2001, at 10:55:17
Your reply fails to address the points I make.
Freedom of speech is a great thing, it means that anyone can say anthing, no matter how misguided, stupid or vile, as the Ku Klux Klan can attest. It does NOT mean that private citizens are obliged to let people vent such speech on private premises. Nobody has a constitutional right to post on a private bulletin board, I don't know where you come up with such notions.
The second point where I think there is some confusion is in regards to what I complained about. I have no problem with anyone posting treatment guidelines for different illnesses, in fact it is commendable. However to suggest that people go for potentially life threatening treatments without proper oversight is another matter. Surely you wouldn't suggest a do it yourself cardiological work up? Or a non doctor performing heart surgery? Then why do you stand up for someone one who wants a non doctor to perform molecular brain surgery?
>
> Exactly. Driving cars is dangerous (& unlike meds, has no positive impact on yr hlth). This doesn't mean we can't discuss the pleasures of the open road or advertise cars for sale. In yr country Steve it would be unconstitutional to prevent such discussion.
>
> This site fosters the exchange of info that most pdocs just aren't aware of & which would otherwise not be in the public domain.
>
> Steve, medical books facilitate dx, & offer treatment algorithms which anyone minded to do so could instigate for themselves. Would you advocate curtailing public access to these (thus leading to patient ignorance-a manifestly bad thing)?
>
> Thanx 4 bringing the FAQ 2 my attn, Shelli. Dr Bob has covered himself by issuing disclaimers & as such, has no case to answer.
>
> J
Posted by Joy on March 4, 2001, at 8:01:24
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » JahL, posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 0:53:10
Steve,
Lighten up. We don't need censorship here. Don't you know what personal responsibility is? Nobody has to take any advice given here, but it should be able to be given freely no matter how you personally feel about it. There are many different opinions here and everybody has a right to express what they believe. I have found better information here than at my psychs office because these people are taking the meds and giving their reactions and thoughts. I certainly would like that to continue. You don't have to read anything that does not appeal to you. Just go to another topic.
NO CENSORSIP! Just my two cents!
Joy> Your reply fails to address the points I make.
>
> Freedom of speech is a great thing, it means that anyone can say anthing, no matter how misguided, stupid or vile, as the Ku Klux Klan can attest. It does NOT mean that private citizens are obliged to let people vent such speech on private premises. Nobody has a constitutional right to post on a private bulletin board, I don't know where you come up with such notions.
>
> The second point where I think there is some confusion is in regards to what I complained about. I have no problem with anyone posting treatment guidelines for different illnesses, in fact it is commendable. However to suggest that people go for potentially life threatening treatments without proper oversight is another matter. Surely you wouldn't suggest a do it yourself cardiological work up? Or a non doctor performing heart surgery? Then why do you stand up for someone one who wants a non doctor to perform molecular brain surgery?
>
>
> >
> > Exactly. Driving cars is dangerous (& unlike meds, has no positive impact on yr hlth). This doesn't mean we can't discuss the pleasures of the open road or advertise cars for sale. In yr country Steve it would be unconstitutional to prevent such discussion.
> >
> > This site fosters the exchange of info that most pdocs just aren't aware of & which would otherwise not be in the public domain.
> >
> > Steve, medical books facilitate dx, & offer treatment algorithms which anyone minded to do so could instigate for themselves. Would you advocate curtailing public access to these (thus leading to patient ignorance-a manifestly bad thing)?
> >
> > Thanx 4 bringing the FAQ 2 my attn, Shelli. Dr Bob has covered himself by issuing disclaimers & as such, has no case to answer.
> >
> > J
Posted by JahL on March 4, 2001, at 12:36:36
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » JahL, posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 0:53:10
> > Your reply fails to address the points I make.
I am not obliged to address anything! I choose to reply to those points I take exception to, or those which I think are badly thought out (see: your tax analogy)> > Freedom of speech is a great thing, it means that anyone can say anthing, no matter how misguided, stupid or vile, as the Ku Klux Klan can attest. It does NOT mean that private citizens are obliged to let people vent such speech on private premises. Nobody has a constitutional right to post on a private bulletin board, I don't know where you come up with such notions.
I don't know where you get yr inferences from.
Steve, go back & read my post properly & you will see I said it would be unconstitutional to prohibit discussing CARS! due to their inherent danger. Nowhere do I use the word unconstitutional in relation to posting on a private board. Please get yr facts straight before calling my integrity of intellect into question. If we're gonna debate, let's play by the rules, shall we?Oh & you *do* have a constitutional right to post; no-one can legally prevent you from trying. However it is up to the owner of the site whether you yr post is accepted.
> > The second point where I think there is some confusion is in regards to what I complained about. I have no problem with anyone posting treatment guidelines for different illnesses, in fact it is commendable. However to suggest that people go for potentially life threatening treatments without proper oversight is another matter. Surely you wouldn't suggest a do it yourself cardiological work up? Or a non doctor performing heart surgery? Then why do you stand up for someone one who wants a non doctor to perform molecular brain surgery?*Show* me where I stood up for Salarmy. I criticised his posts as irresponsible (again Steve, you are not reading my posts properly). I merely defended the right of individuals on this board to discuss the thorny issue of self-medication generally. As a self-medicator, I felt some affront at yr original post; you were effectively branding me and others like me a criminal because I choose to to ignore laws which work to the detriment of MY hlth.
AGAIN (!), if you actually read my posts you will see that I *don't* encourage self-treatment.
'Molecular brain surgery'. How does taking a tablet equate to surgery? That's just silly hysteria (sorry Dr Bob.). Is taking beta-blockers equivalent to 'open-heart surgery? I think not!!!
I've said what I set out to & I think we shld accept we're not going to agree wholly. You shld consider yourself lucky that you do not suffer from a combination of a life-threatening disorder, and useless, apathetic pdocs. This would explain yr lack of empathy.
Sincerely,
Jah.
Posted by JahL on March 4, 2001, at 12:52:29
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » JahL, posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 0:53:10
I don't think I made myself clear enough (& currently am slightly hypomanic & on a hair-trigger). FWIW I broadly agree with you; blanket statements advocating self-treatmeant are clearly ludicrous. Docs are generally of high intelligence &, not for nothing, undergo years of rigourous training. Yr average 1st-time poster here (I am not talking about the 'experts') is clearly woefully ill-equipped to manage their own care.
It's just not that black & white, & in this context I felt that calling 4 the closure of this board (cos I doubt if such posts will end) was OTT. OK?
J.
Posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 19:25:41
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » steve, posted by JahL on March 4, 2001, at 12:36:36
I can see how you meant to imply that banning the discussion of cars would be unconstitutional. But it wasn't clear from how you phrased it.
As for the 'Molecular brain surgery' issue. It is generally understood in research circles that all psychotropics work by affecting the brain's structure. Downregulation and changes to DNA expression are some of the things that happen. Cam W. can tell you how SSRIs affect, at the very least, 5HT, CRF, NA, GR and DA receptors. THey also cause the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, which is actually believed to cause mild (re) growth of the hippocampus. And yes, those are structural changes.
> > > Your reply fails to address the points I make.
>
> I am not obliged to address anything! I choose to reply to those points I take exception to, or those which I think are badly thought out (see: your tax analogy)
>
> > > Freedom of speech is a great thing, it means that anyone can say anthing, no matter how misguided, stupid or vile, as the Ku Klux Klan can attest. It does NOT mean that private citizens are obliged to let people vent such speech on private premises. Nobody has a constitutional right to post on a private bulletin board, I don't know where you come up with such notions.
>
> I don't know where you get yr inferences from.
> Steve, go back & read my post properly & you will see I said it would be unconstitutional to prohibit discussing CARS! due to their inherent danger. Nowhere do I use the word unconstitutional in relation to posting on a private board. Please get yr facts straight before calling my integrity of intellect into question. If we're gonna debate, let's play by the rules, shall we?
>
> Oh & you *do* have a constitutional right to post; no-one can legally prevent you from trying. However it is up to the owner of the site whether you yr post is accepted.
>
> > > The second point where I think there is some confusion is in regards to what I complained about. I have no problem with anyone posting treatment guidelines for different illnesses, in fact it is commendable. However to suggest that people go for potentially life threatening treatments without proper oversight is another matter. Surely you wouldn't suggest a do it yourself cardiological work up? Or a non doctor performing heart surgery? Then why do you stand up for someone one who wants a non doctor to perform molecular brain surgery?
>
> *Show* me where I stood up for Salarmy. I criticised his posts as irresponsible (again Steve, you are not reading my posts properly). I merely defended the right of individuals on this board to discuss the thorny issue of self-medication generally. As a self-medicator, I felt some affront at yr original post; you were effectively branding me and others like me a criminal because I choose to to ignore laws which work to the detriment of MY hlth.
>
> AGAIN (!), if you actually read my posts you will see that I *don't* encourage self-treatment.
>
> 'Molecular brain surgery'. How does taking a tablet equate to surgery? That's just silly hysteria (sorry Dr Bob.). Is taking beta-blockers equivalent to 'open-heart surgery? I think not!!!
>
> I've said what I set out to & I think we shld accept we're not going to agree wholly. You shld consider yourself lucky that you do not suffer from a combination of a life-threatening disorder, and useless, apathetic pdocs. This would explain yr lack of empathy.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jah.
>
>
Posted by JahL on March 5, 2001, at 6:17:06
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply, posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 19:25:41
> > I can see how you meant to imply that banning the discussion of cars would be unconstitutional. But it wasn't clear from how you phrased it.
It was very clear (ie grammatically correct). What's not is why you have trouble with vaguely complex syntax. If you read the sentence again, you will see I don't 'imply' anything; I say the aforementioned *would* be unconstitutional. Please explain a) how this is unclear (!) & b) how this is implying anything.
> > As for the 'Molecular brain surgery' issue. It is generally understood in research circles that all psychotropics work by affecting the brain's structure. Downregulation and changes to DNA expression are some of the things that happen. Cam W. can tell you how SSRIs affect, at the very least, 5HT, CRF, NA, GR and DA receptors. THey also cause the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, which is actually believed to cause mild (re) growth of the hippocampus. And yes, those are structural changes.Yes, this is all standard information; I don't think I'll be bothering CamW this time. This 'understanding' isn't restricted to research circles!
Again, Steve 'structural change' *does not* imply surgery. Taking steroids alters various structures in the body, not least muscle tissue. But by no stretch of the imagination could this be compared to surgery. Please look @ yr dictionary; surgery is defined by the use of *operations* in a medical context.
I am not going to argue semantics with you. Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to attribute the *correct* meaning to words.
I am dropping out of this one.I can't argue with someone who manipulates the facts to satisfy their agenda. Rules of debate deem the arugment should fit the fact and not vice-versa.
Our only real area of disagreement is over the extremity of yr standpoint. Radicalism is fine for the individual, & terrible for the masses. (ie 1 Nazi does not make Hitler's Germany.)
(a no longer involved in this discussion) Jah.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.