![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kate9999 on April 15, 2001, at 7:35:49
Yeah yeah, I knew that was coming. But I figured it was worth blowing my warning on.
Hey, I know you have a policy on incivility - but what about a policy on scams and predators?
> > I'm sure there are people here who want to give you the benefit of the doubt. You don't deserve it. You're a con-artist and a liar, and "good4u" who posted about this stuff last week was an obvious shill you created. And I'll eat my laptop if your tragic wife or daughter even exist.
>
> Please be civil, or I will need to try to block you from posting. Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups regarding this, if not redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration, will be deleted.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 15:09:44
In reply to Re: please be civil » kate9999 » Dr. Bob, posted by kate9999 on April 15, 2001, at 7:35:49
> Hey, I know you have a policy on incivility - but what about a policy on scams and predators?
That would make sense, but wouldn't those be harder to identify?
Bob
Posted by Sulpicia on April 15, 2001, at 19:32:23
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 15:09:44
> > Hey, I know you have a policy on incivility - but what about a policy on scams and predators?
>
> That would make sense, but wouldn't those be harder to identify?
>
> BobBob -- yes, perhaps. But I dunno...
If the only supporting study offered dates from AJP 1929 and claims that
the patients "did better," better than what? Better than the standard
treatment outcome in 1929??? And what was the standard treatment some 70
years ago?? Exorcism perhaps?
But will wait patiently [and civily] for Harvard's response.
Liz :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 20:09:08
In reply to Re: policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Sulpicia on April 15, 2001, at 19:32:23
> If the only supporting study offered dates from AJP 1929 and claims that
> the patients "did better," better than what? Better than the standard
> treatment outcome in 1929??? And what was the standard treatment some 70
> years ago?? Exorcism perhaps?OK, but then what? How many studies would you require? How recent would they need to be? What kind of control groups would they need to have? It might be a lot harder to draw that line...
Bob
Posted by stjames on April 15, 2001, at 20:54:13
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 20:09:08
> OK, but then what? How many studies would you require? How recent would they need to be? What kind of control groups would they need to have? It might be a lot harder to draw that line...
>
> BobJames here.....
I thought it was not OK for people to sell things here. As the posters seemed to be assoc. with Truehope it seems they were promoting their product.
They listed their ingredients and Truehope is a vitamin pill. This is not rocket science and they are making dangerous claims (stop taking your meds.) Common sence indicates that if taking a vitamin pill will treat most serious mental illness we would of known this a long time ago.
They have not "found" anything, just overcharging for common nutrients and making false claims.I think in this case common sence will indicate Truehope is junk.
James
Posted by kate9999 on April 16, 2001, at 1:44:47
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 15:09:44
> > Hey, I know you have a policy on incivility - but what about a policy on scams and predators?
>
> That would make sense, but wouldn't those be harder to identify?
>
> BobNo..
Posted by kate9999 on April 16, 2001, at 2:37:38
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 20:09:08
I have no fundamental problem with somebody believing in or even recommending untested treatment. I might argue with it, but everyone has a right to believe in what they believe in.
I have plenty of my own pet theories and remedies.What I have a problem with is the very deceptive sales practices this guy was using. I'd enumerate them, but I'm afraid I'd end up seeming uncivil.
You're lumping this under the category of "alternative treatments we have to keep an open mind about." This is different this falls under "scams and deception you don't know how to deal with."
> OK, but then what? How many studies would you require? How recent would they need to be? What kind of control groups would they need to have? It might be a lot harder to draw that line...
>
> Bob
Posted by Wendy B on April 16, 2001, at 8:31:55
In reply to Re: policies » Dr. Bob, posted by Sulpicia on April 15, 2001, at 19:32:23
> > > Hey, I know you have a policy on incivility - but what about a policy on scams and predators?
> >
> > That would make sense, but wouldn't those be harder to identify?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Bob -- yes, perhaps. But I dunno...
> If the only supporting study offered dates from AJP 1929 and claims that
> the patients "did better," better than what? Better than the standard
> treatment outcome in 1929??? And what was the standard treatment some 70
> years ago?? Exorcism perhaps?
> But will wait patiently [and civily] for Harvard's response.
> Liz :)
Dear Liz & Dr. Bob & Kate & James,I agree with the other three people. Agents of Fortune who respond to individuals (who are in some cases at moments of crisis, or ready to just chuck their meds, etc.) in order to SELL products (nutritional supplements), and also making claims that for the time being are unfounded, really have no place on this board.
After all, I don't advertise MY services for database design (just an example of all the great services I can provide!) on this bulletin board. It's not appropriate.
'I can design a database that will make your depression disappear...' (?)
I think these kinds of dubious posts should be blocked next time, and I don't understand Dr Bob's insistence that they have a place here. I am not comfortable being fed what appears to be 'advertising' while reading and thoughtfully, I hope, responding to posts to/from my compatriots...
What about MY rights as a member of this community?Another thing: since this group of people care enough to write considered responses to this topic (well, Kate got hot under the collar, but IMHO, justifiably so...), it would be nice to know if our humble but thoughtful responses/opinions matter on this subject... (?!)
With all due respect,
Wendy B :-]
Posted by willow on April 16, 2001, at 20:55:22
In reply to Re: policies » Sulpicia, posted by Wendy B on April 16, 2001, at 8:31:55
"I agree with the other three people. Agents of Fortune who respond to individuals (who are in some cases at moments of crisis, or ready to just chuck their meds, etc.) in order to SELL products (nutritional supplements), and also making claims that for the time being are unfounded,..."
ME TOO!
There are a lot of quacks out there making money off of people's vulnerability. I had visited a few when I had first become ill with CFS, but fortunately noticed the pitch that their's is a cure for everything.
Sometimes it is worth being uncivil!!
Whispering Willow
Posted by Shar on April 20, 2001, at 18:38:02
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2001, at 20:09:08
Dr. B -- all those questions would be answered by you, what you determine to be adequate, using a style or standards similar to those that help you define "civility."
Shar
> OK, but then what? How many studies would you require? How recent would they need to be? What kind of control groups would they need to have? It might be a lot harder to draw that line...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2001, at 0:20:07
In reply to Re: policies, posted by stjames on April 15, 2001, at 20:54:13
> I thought it was not OK for people to sell things here.
I'm not sure I want to make it so black and white. What if it's something that helps people? What if it's free?
> They listed their ingredients and Truehope is a vitamin pill. This is not rocket science and they are making dangerous claims (stop taking your meds.) Common sence indicates that if taking a vitamin pill will treat most serious mental illness we would of known this a long time ago.
Well, if that's really common sense, then there's not much danger...
I'd rather have people make decisions for themselves than try to make them for them. Also, the flip side of taking on an evaluative function is that if I didn't disapprove, that would mean I did approve. Which is another can of worms...
--------
> What I have a problem with is the very deceptive sales practices this guy was using. I'd enumerate them, but I'm afraid I'd end up seeming uncivil.
You don't have to agree with everyone to be civil...
--------
> What about MY rights as a member of this community?
Sorry, can you be more explicit about what you see as your rights?
FYI, this is at least in part the result of a provacatuer trying to stir things up. Not that some things don't need to be stirred from time to time, but still...
Bob
Posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 17:35:16
In reply to Re: policies, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2001, at 0:20:07
> FYI, this is at least in part the result of a provacatuer trying to stir things up. Not that some things don't need to be stirred from time to time, but still...
>
> BobA provocateur?
a provocateur...
a provocateur...
a provocateur...Okay if I could call a guy a con artist I suppose you get to call me a provacateur. Although I think I had better grounds.
But you've shown me the vicious circle. For instance, when you called me "a provocateur trying to stir things up," I wanted to call you a "paranoid despot protecting his little fiefdom." That wouldn't have been fair, because that's not usually how you sound to me, so I'm glad I didn't post my original message.
I still think people walk on eggshells around here far too much. The fact that noone's willing to speak to the "overposter" directly is an example. And even if they did it would be so mild and circumspect that it would have all the impact of a raindrop hitting the ocean.
It's a funny dynamic which is totally unlike any other message board, newsgroup, online support group I've been on. People usually need a good squelching online - but here they self-squelch to excess. I wonder if it has something to do with trying to write to your tastes? I wonder if that's something you should take into consideration in your research?
Posted by Cam W. on April 21, 2001, at 19:07:39
In reply to provocateur, posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 17:35:16
Kate - Could it be that we like to share honest research and clinical insights into mental illness with each other without having "a provocateur stir things up". Many of us on this site would rather learn what is going on in the world of research into mental illness without the whining and nit-picking that has become so prevalent of late.
This site used to have far more intellectual debates and true sharing of insight into the latest research. Instead of furthering our knowledge of, say how nitric oxide works both in the placebo effect and relaxation therapy and possibly coming up with a working consensus of how to harness this latest research into prolonging placebo effect and make it a viable treatment option; we now see the same complaints over and over, rehashed without mercy.
I agree that new people do come and need assistance, but the help they have been getting recently is not balanced and too emotional for it to be of any true medicinal effectiveness. The help that use to be given here was compassionate, not inflammatory nor emotionally charged. The facts were given as best they could. Potential mistakes were pointed out and acknowledged or debated.
Since this board has found a larger audience, we now have gone through our share of anarchists, neo-nazis, and people who posted just to hurt the fragile feelings of other frequent posters. We have had people who have tried to mold this site into their own image and people who have tried to use this site to make political statements.
I believe the intention of this site is to help those in need and to share the latest discoveries from the mental health research centers around the world. This information can be disseminated in a nonemotional format with the facts laid out for all to debate or integrate into each of our current understandings of mental illness. A good example of this is Scott's and my debate over the nature/nurture aspects of the causes of depression. We have had a running debate on this for over a year and we both agree on several points in each other's arguments, but I doubt that we will ever see eye to eye on the overall picture. We debate in a civil manner using the latest research to back our opinions. We encourage others to join in the debates to give us fresh views and new angles to explore. I believe that our differences have made us each more knowledgeable in our understanding of mental illness.
This is how I would like to see the site continue. Help those in immediate need, without interferring with a person's patient/doctor relationship. To give the real explanations behind drug effects and side effects. To teach others about their medications and disease states so that they can be empowered to have a real say in their treatment plans.
It is not within our capability to prescribe or deny treatments to any individual in which we do not have a full medical and psychiatric history. We should not be encouraging self-medication. All we can do is to tell them how their drugs are working and suggest optional treatments that they can ask their doctors about.
Just my opinion - Cam
Posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 21:37:49
In reply to Re: provocateur » kate9999, posted by Cam W. on April 21, 2001, at 19:07:39
It could be. That's a wonderful description of constructive debate. And it's mostly lacking that I can see on the open forums of the Internet.
And your posts, Cam, are the most useful here. I meant to thank you for a response you sent about the Wellbutrin side effects my mother was having.
But STILL. Emotions aren't evil. They aren't even detrimental to debate and discussion. Neither is anger. Neither is passion. It just isn't so. In fact if you have strong feelings, and you post with the pretense that you're not passionate you just create the illusion of objectivity of detachment. As if it's the voice of pure reason alone guiding you to your conclusions.
I'm not talking about insults or ad hominem attacks. I know I personally went too far when I called that Truehope guy a con artist and a liar (even though I think it's true).
But any good debate - really good debate - is infused with passion and emotion from top to bottom. Good debate is direct. It doesn't avoid or ignore or walk with trepidation.
This isn't just a matter of the objectivity of science. I grew up among scientists. Half my family are scientists - and they are opinionated and passionate and they will argue that way. They will not think twice about saying what they mean. And if you call them provocateurs they would laugh.
This is your board though. It's yours to mold. Even if it molders.
For the record, I was not a provocateur (at least before dr-bob called me one). I have never advocated prescribing meds here, or whined, or nitpicked or been an anarchist or launched a political agenda, or rehashed complaints. But who cares.
> Kate - Could it be that we like to share honest research and clinical insights into mental illness with each other without having "a provocateur stir things up". Many of us on this site would rather learn what is going on in the world of research into mental illness without the whining and nit-picking that has become so prevalent of late.
>
> This site used to have far more intellectual debates and true sharing of insight into the latest research. Instead of furthering our knowledge of, say how nitric oxide works both in the placebo effect and relaxation therapy and possibly coming up with a working consensus of how to harness this latest research into prolonging placebo effect and make it a viable treatment option; we now see the same complaints over and over, rehashed without mercy.
>
> I agree that new people do come and need assistance, but the help they have been getting recently is not balanced and too emotional for it to be of any true medicinal effectiveness. The help that use to be given here was compassionate, not inflammatory nor emotionally charged. The facts were given as best they could. Potential mistakes were pointed out and acknowledged or debated.
>
> Since this board has found a larger audience, we now have gone through our share of anarchists, neo-nazis, and people who posted just to hurt the fragile feelings of other frequent posters. We have had people who have tried to mold this site into their own image and people who have tried to use this site to make political statements.
>
> I believe the intention of this site is to help those in need and to share the latest discoveries from the mental health research centers around the world. This information can be disseminated in a nonemotional format with the facts laid out for all to debate or integrate into each of our current understandings of mental illness. A good example of this is Scott's and my debate over the nature/nurture aspects of the causes of depression. We have had a running debate on this for over a year and we both agree on several points in each other's arguments, but I doubt that we will ever see eye to eye on the overall picture. We debate in a civil manner using the latest research to back our opinions. We encourage others to join in the debates to give us fresh views and new angles to explore. I believe that our differences have made us each more knowledgeable in our understanding of mental illness.
>
> This is how I would like to see the site continue. Help those in immediate need, without interferring with a person's patient/doctor relationship. To give the real explanations behind drug effects and side effects. To teach others about their medications and disease states so that they can be empowered to have a real say in their treatment plans.
>
> It is not within our capability to prescribe or deny treatments to any individual in which we do not have a full medical and psychiatric history. We should not be encouraging self-medication. All we can do is to tell them how their drugs are working and suggest optional treatments that they can ask their doctors about.
>
> Just my opinion - Cam
Posted by Cam W. on April 22, 2001, at 0:09:14
In reply to Re: provocateur, posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 21:37:49
Kate - I was just giving a little background into the history of this site. I do agree that passion and emotion does have it's place. God knows, I have had my fair share of "please be civil" posts directed at me and for all intents and purposes I probably should have been blocked a few times. I do realize though, that when dealing with mental health issues passions and emotions can get carried away and do become counter productive.
In my job I do become overly passionate, wearing my heart on my sleeve. Usually it does lead to productive discussion, but this passion is aimed at colleagues rather than patients.
In one instance a couple of years ago, one of my patients, who never followed through with the good intentions this person had, I ended up telling this patient to "get off their ass and do something about it". This set this person's therapy back in a big way. Many calls to the crisis line and being called on the carpet for what I had done, I should have learned to leave emotion out of dealing with the emotionally distraught.
Similar situations have arisen on this board. Therefore, I have found that passion and emotion must be kept in check here, if a productive discussion and advice is to be effective.
My latest blunder is evidenced in my "please be supportive" admonition a few threads above this one. In my passion for, and trust in, the scientific method overshadowed a person's personal experience, because I believed that the person in question was generalizing their situation to all people. I ended up talking down to this person and using some obscure (but I believe relevant) history to justify my reaction to this person's post. This, I came to realize, was a counter productive measure.
So, what makes this board unique is it's supportive attitude and a lack of emotion is needed to debate issues related to mental illness, in order to keep the "feel" supportive. The seeming lack of emotion and passion in our debates does not mean that the issues, ideas and advice do not have passion or emotion. It is just that our responses, when formulated in a way that minimizes our emotions and passions acheives better results. The adage that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" applies here, especially in light of the emotional turmoil many people who look for advice here are going through. We try not to antagonize anyone (possibly making their situation worse) and that is not easy to do. I guess it does make us look detached, but I believe it is a necessary trade-off to make this one of the best sites in the world for advice on mental illness. Dr.Bob has to tread a thin, wavering line to keep it this way and I do not envy his job.
BTW I do not exactly know what a provocateur is, and am too lazy to look it up in the dictionary. I have been told by a few close friends (that I have made on this site) that I am better to let a fat, juicy post that I can jump all over slide by rather than antagonizing the poster, especially when they are trying to goad me into an emotional debate or response. I now try to reread or get my wife to reread any potentially provocative (probably a verb form of the noun provocateur) posts before hitting the confirm button. I stay away from reading all the posts as I have done in the past (eg I try not to read anything with Effexor in the title). I may miss being able to give some worthwhile information, but in the long run it saves on my stress level. I have not been able to find a site on the internet that will allow as much quality information on mental health to be exchanged, as this site has in the past (believe me, I have looked).
The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of the majority of posters to this board, but are how I would like the board to proceed.
Sincerely - Cam
Posted by JahL on April 22, 2001, at 1:25:10
In reply to Re: provocateur ª kate9999, posted by Cam W. on April 22, 2001, at 0:09:14
Posted by ShelliR on April 22, 2001, at 11:40:40
In reply to Re: provocateur, posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 21:37:49
Kate. It's not that I am against emotion or confrontation. Maybe like JahL I am a naturally assertive person and am learning in my life that sometimes it is to my advantage to ignore, or step back. Certainly to wait. That is to my advantage because I need to decide if I am willing to accept the consequences of a confrontation, e.g., do I have the time, emotional strength, etc. Is it worth it? And sometimes it absolutely is, but it really has to be around something very important to me. (I am not talking about disagreements in opinion here.)
One reason I think it is particularly important to not be overly emotional, especially confrontational on this board is because it is so easy. I mean why not full out attack a person who you perceive as being ignorant, shallow, self-serving, or whatever. You'll never meet that person; the stakes are very low. Who cares if you have angered or hurt the other person--there are basically no consequences to you.
The consequences to the board, however, are great. As Cam was talking about, what is the reason you come to the board? I personally do not come to make long-term friends or long-term enemies. I come to connect for whatever period the connection feels helpful. And I come to learn about medications and share about medications. My depression is still not under control, so maybe I will hear about something I haven't before. And it is also a forum for me to express things I have learned or thought a lot about in relation to living with depression. (My professional is almost purely visual with some verbiage, and I think it has been good exercise for my brain to express myself in writing).
The times there have been nasty accusations going back and forth have not been very useful in meeting the above goals. But while I definitely think emotions are an important part of life, to the extent that they distract from why I come to the board, I'm glad they are watched and not allowed to overshadow everything else.
Shelli
Posted by stjames on April 23, 2001, at 13:35:48
In reply to provocateur, posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 17:35:16
I still think people walk on eggshells around here far too much. The fact that noone's willing to speak to the "overposter" directly is an example. And even if they did it would be so mild and circumspect that it would have all the impact of a raindrop hitting the ocean.
James here....
Actually I have 2 times and someone else did once. We were both conserned as this person has trouble with manic episodes. I was not conserned with the number of posts, per se, as they contained good information. I was just conserned
that the volume of posts might indicate a problem.
He/she never answered my posts about this consern.james
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2001, at 20:33:21
In reply to provocateur, posted by kate9999 on April 21, 2001, at 17:35:16
> For instance, when you called me "a provocateur trying to stir things up," I wanted to call you a "paranoid despot protecting his little fiefdom." That wouldn't have been fair, because that's not usually how you sound to me, so I'm glad I didn't post my original message.
Then you shouldn't have posted it now, either.
> I still think people walk on eggshells around here far too much.
Better too much than too little, IMO. Those who don't care for eggshells are free to post elsewhere.
> I know I personally went too far when I called that Truehope guy a con artist and a liar (even though I think it's true).
And you shouldn't have posted that again.
Bob
PS: Any follow-ups regarding civility or being blocked should be redirected to... wait... just post them here. :-)
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.