![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2010, at 23:03:05
In reply to Lou's response-ehywheyowet-piprdin, posted by Lou Pilder on August 26, 2010, at 16:38:28
> > > I started to take seroxat 3.5 years ago due to anxiety and insomnia. Not long after taking seroxat, I began to feel hard to concentrate , but I carried on because the directions said it woundn't hurt my cognitive ability. About 1.5 years ago, I confirmed that there was something wrong with my memory . My psychiatrist told me that that was a sign of depression and suggested me switch to another SSRI. But soon I realized that it was the SSRIs that made me forgetful, and I went off ALL ADs since then.
> > >
> > > Now , I have got these cognitive problems:
> > > memory loss
> > > hard to concentrate
> > > slow in reacting
> > > lack of foresight,creativity
> > > speech impediment. I stumble even if I just "say" a sentence in my mind.
> > >
> > > other synptoms include:
> > > fatigue,laziness,lack of motivation
> > > short sleep time, non-restful sleep
> > > foggy brain
> > >
> > > I found several people of similar symptons on this board, HAS ANYONE OF YOU FOUND A WAY OUT ? I really need help ...
> > >
> > > Sorry but English is not my mother tongue...
> >
> > wz,
> > You wrote,[...has anyone...really need help...]
> > In looking at the drugs involved here, I think that I know what is causing the symptoms that you list. My knowlege of the chemistry of nerve agents developed through the first and second world wars and my study of the neurology of psychotropic drug actions lead me to make it plainly visible to me what has happened to you. You have called it post SSRI side effects, but the nurological symptoms here could come from other neuroleptic chemicals also that have a particular action.
> > You see, nerve agents act on the chemicals that cause nerves to act one way or the other and can cause death. Insecticides and roach poison and rat poisons have been developed to kill the pests by the poisons acting on the nerves to stop them from activating the organs or mucles and then cause death by that means. In WWll, (redacted by respondent), on humans.
> > Now the actions of psychotropic drugs can cause reactions on the neurons that could cause a mucle to stop contracting or an organ to malfunction in some way. Then symptoms appear as a result of the disturbance that the chemical can cause. Sometimes these symptoms appear after the chemical drug is stopped, hence called withdrawal symptoms. Sometimes these symptoms can appear even while taking the drug and there are reports that the symptoms can surface well after the drug is stopped.
> > Now it stands to reason IMHO that if the chemical is continued to be put in a person's nervous system that it is likely that symptoms will surface as time runs and that stopping the drugs could give the person a chance to heal, if possible. But what if the damage can not be healed as it being nerve damage? I mean, can people with dyskinesia have their nervous system restored if the damamge is not reversible?
> > continued....
> > Lou
> >
>
> Friends,
> Now let's look at that Paxil was taken for years. Now Paxil is a piperidine type chemical as being called phenylpiperidine. (I think that Ritilin is methylpiperidine}. The piperidines come from plants such as peppers, poison hemlock, and others and from fire ants. This chemical goes back thousands of years and was used to kill people. Today, chemists synthesize the chemical and combine it with other chemicals and it is marketed as (redacted by respondent).
> Now being having the potential to kill the person taking the drug then also has the potential to act upon the nervous system and produce effects of such short of causing death. The question here is not the effects that the drug can produce for those are listed by the innitiator of this thread, but to find {a way out} as the poster asks here for.
> I will attempt to show here the organic chemistry of these chemicals and how there could or could not be {a way out}.
> continued...
> LouFriends,
Let us go on here and I will try to help you in finding a way out. But I am prevented by posts here by Mr. Hsiung and Dinah threatening me with expulsion from this community if I post what is the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that I believe, because it has an imperative in it, while it is {OK} for members to post a foundation of Christiandom that excludes Jews and others that do not accept the claim of a member here that xxxx those that accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can have forgivness and Eternal Life. Also, there are posts by the administration to me that tell me that I can not post about the historical aspects in relation to the time period between 1933 and 1945 in ways that I could show you things concerning the development of nerve agents and mind-altering drugs related to psychotropic drugs. There are other threats to me if I was to post more than 3 consecutive posts to show you anything here because Mr. Hsiung says that there could be a person that in some way could be affected if they saw a person's name 4 times as the author of the post without another person's name inserted between one of those and that somehow I would be not sharing the board if I was to post more tha 3 consecutive posts here. The aspects of organic chemistry involved here could cause me to have to break down into many posts before anyone could be able to post their comment in order for me to present those aspects that could IMO save lives here. I do not think that anyone could die because I was to post more than 3 consecutive posts and you could email me if you like to see the historical parallels to Mr. Hsiung's rule here that I can not post links to because the administration here has also threatened me with expusldion from this community if I was to post links to articles that they deem to be unsuppoortive and I am unsure as to what the administration wants to mean by being supportive.
So I would like those that are considering posting in this thread or parallel threads to look at the video here.
Lou
You can see the video by:
A. pull up google
B. type in:
[youtube,SSRIs-S.S.R.(ADHD & Psychiatry Song), Michael Adams]
This could be the first one seen and could be identified by seeing the phrase,{Beyond All}
So the result could be that while I wait for others to post here to eliminate the possibility of me posting more than 3 consecutive posts and that could cause what I could post to take so long that people could die during the wait that could perhaps lived if they had the opportunity to {find a way out}.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2010, at 2:02:36
In reply to Lou's response-ehywheyowet-piprdin-esesareigh, posted by Lou Pilder on August 27, 2010, at 23:03:05
> Mr. Hsiung and Dinah threatening me
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me and Dinah) to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceDinah, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 11:18:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 28, 2010, at 2:02:36
Mr. Hsiung,
What you wrote to me here is a statement that is incomplete. I am unsure as to why you did not post the whole sentence by me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. Why did you leave out the part that I posted in the statement that you used here?
B. Is the statement in its complete form factual?
C. If you agree that it is, then what is your rationale for pposting to me what you posted?
D. Now I have the posts that substantiate that the statement in question is factual. But I am unsure by your rule to me concerning posting links to othere posts here as to if I could or could not post the links here. You say that you try to be fair in your TOS here. Is it considered by you to be fair in not posting the whole context of my statement in question here? I can not post the posts in question that substantiate that it is factual. If so, what is your rationale for it being fair by you to post an incomplete statement by me and to not allow me to post the links here that substantiate that the statement is factual when posted in toto? You see, when a statement is posted and something is left out that could change the meaning, that is different from just leaving something out that can not change the meaning ,and I think that what is left out could change the meaning as that there are the posts in question that do say what is in question. Now a lot of things here IMHO coukd be changed that I think could save lives by you posting answers to the following. I am asking that you:
A. post the statement in question in its full context
B. Allow me to post the links to posts here that substantiate that the statement is factual.
C. Allow an inpartial third-party to post their opinion(s) here after both me and you send our position to him/her.
D. other aspects
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 11:33:44
In reply to Lou's reply-pahllzkunklew? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 11:18:41
> Mr. Hsiung,
> What you wrote to me here is a statement that is incomplete. I am unsure as to why you did not post the whole sentence by me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> A. Why did you leave out the part that I posted in the statement that you used here?
> B. Is the statement in its complete form factual?
> C. If you agree that it is, then what is your rationale for pposting to me what you posted?
> D. Now I have the posts that substantiate that the statement in question is factual. But I am unsure by your rule to me concerning posting links to othere posts here as to if I could or could not post the links here. You say that you try to be fair in your TOS here. Is it considered by you to be fair in not posting the whole context of my statement in question here? I can not post the posts in question that substantiate that it is factual. If so, what is your rationale for it being fair by you to post an incomplete statement by me and to not allow me to post the links here that substantiate that the statement is factual when posted in toto? You see, when a statement is posted and something is left out that could change the meaning, that is different from just leaving something out that can not change the meaning ,and I think that what is left out could change the meaning as that there are the posts in question that do say what is in question. Now a lot of things here IMHO coukd be changed that I think could save lives by you posting answers to the following. I am asking that you:
> A. post the statement in question in its full context
> B. Allow me to post the links to posts here that substantiate that the statement is factual.
> C. Allow an inpartial third-party to post their opinion(s) here after both me and you send our position to him/her.
> D. other aspects
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
To correct the above, in part (A), what I was requesting is that you go to the original post by you to me here and revise the wording of the statement in question to have the full statement by me that you cited instead of the statement that you posted with the part of the sentence left out.
In (B), the correction is that instead of allowing me to post the links in question, that you agree to review the links in a reasonable time frame, that I will email to you, and then pick which posts that you will allow the links to the posts to be posted or not.
In the selection of an impartial 3erd party, I will agree to allow you to pick such a person since they will be impartial.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2012, at 9:37:51
In reply to corrections- Lou's reply-pahllzkunklew?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 11:33:44
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > What you wrote to me here is a statement that is incomplete. I am unsure as to why you did not post the whole sentence by me here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> > A. Why did you leave out the part that I posted in the statement that you used here?
> > B. Is the statement in its complete form factual?
> > C. If you agree that it is, then what is your rationale for pposting to me what you posted?
> > D. Now I have the posts that substantiate that the statement in question is factual. But I am unsure by your rule to me concerning posting links to othere posts here as to if I could or could not post the links here. You say that you try to be fair in your TOS here. Is it considered by you to be fair in not posting the whole context of my statement in question here? I can not post the posts in question that substantiate that it is factual. If so, what is your rationale for it being fair by you to post an incomplete statement by me and to not allow me to post the links here that substantiate that the statement is factual when posted in toto? You see, when a statement is posted and something is left out that could change the meaning, that is different from just leaving something out that can not change the meaning ,and I think that what is left out could change the meaning as that there are the posts in question that do say what is in question. Now a lot of things here IMHO coukd be changed that I think could save lives by you posting answers to the following. I am asking that you:
> > A. post the statement in question in its full context
> > B. Allow me to post the links to posts here that substantiate that the statement is factual.
> > C. Allow an inpartial third-party to post their opinion(s) here after both me and you send our position to him/her.
> > D. other aspects
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> To correct the above, in part (A), what I was requesting is that you go to the original post by you to me here and revise the wording of the statement in question to have the full statement by me that you cited instead of the statement that you posted with the part of the sentence left out.
> In (B), the correction is that instead of allowing me to post the links in question, that you agree to review the links in a reasonable time frame, that I will email to you, and then pick which posts that you will allow the links to the posts to be posted or not.
> In the selection of an impartial 3erd party, I will agree to allow you to pick such a person since they will be impartial.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder provision and to keep reminding you, the above.
Lou Pilder
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.