![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by 49er on August 28, 2010, at 17:30:27
Dr. Bob,
Linkadge was cited for being uncivil regarding the following comment
ADs don't work.
Please don't exaggerate.
Why?
I greatly appreciate your efforts to keep this board a civil place. But in my opinion, this admonishment of Linkadge seems more like censorship than anything else.
Just because you felt he exaggerated a point which I vehemently disagree with by the way, doesn't mean he was being uncivil. He didn't flame or insult anyone.
49er
Posted by Phillipa on August 29, 2010, at 13:04:19
In reply to Linkadge's Post, posted by 49er on August 28, 2010, at 17:30:27
Assuming a generalization? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:27
In reply to Re: Ad follow up of Star D Study Worse Than Before, posted by linkadge on August 26, 2010, at 17:45:17
> ADs don't work.
Please don't exaggerate.
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#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by morgan miller on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:27
In reply to Re: please be civil » linkadge, posted by Dr. Bob on August 27, 2010, at 22:49:54
> > ADs don't work.
>
> Please don't exaggerate.
>
> 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/is in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobSeriously, Dr. Bob, did he really say anything bad? Maybe a bit cynical, but I and others have surely made such comments in the past. "ADs don't work", that's it? That's all it takes to get a warning from Big Brother?
Morgan
Posted by morgan miller on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:28
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by morgan miller on August 27, 2010, at 23:47:15
Let me guess, blocked for a week.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » linkadge, posted by Dr. Bob on August 27, 2010, at 22:49:54
Linkadge,
What you posted here could IMHO help to save lives. And I want you to know that (redacted by respondent)
To exaggerate means to enlarge beyond the bounds of truth. The issue here is what can be considerd by what you are being sanctioned for as to if what you posted constitutes exaggeration or not.
In a sense, it could be thought that {working} is what is being considerd here as to if what you posted goes beyond the bounds of truth or not. But what does it mean for the drug to {work}?
You see, one could promote a pill of vitamins and herbs on a radio program that they say will such and such . Millions of people could respond to take the pills.
Now then it could be found that there were people that took the pills that such and such happened. Then the people selling the pills could use those people as testimonials in furure radio programs. But did the people that had such and such have their response as a result of taking the pills? And did the response have a permanant effect? Could it not be that if millions of people took the pills that there could be some that had such and such for other reasons than the pill being effective? They may have exercised or had a spontanious event or changed their diet or such and their result was not from the vitamins and herbs but from something else. Maybe just something that could run its course!
Now in studies for antidepressants, a placebo type study is used to determine if results are or not likely from the drug.
Here is a video that discusses this and I ask readers here to make their own determination about what linkadge posted is or is not an exaggeration.
Lou
To see this video;
A. pull up google
B: type in:
[youtube,BBC Antidepressants:Feb 2008]
See that the video that is 2 min and posted on Sept 17, 2008
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:28
In reply to Lou's response to linkadge-ltnturhartbetrubld, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2010, at 6:39:29
> Linkadge,
> What you posted here could IMHO help to save lives. And I want you to know that (redacted by respondent)
> To exaggerate means to enlarge beyond the bounds of truth. The issue here is what can be considerd by what you are being sanctioned for as to if what you posted constitutes exaggeration or not.
> In a sense, it could be thought that {working} is what is being considerd here as to if what you posted goes beyond the bounds of truth or not. But what does it mean for the drug to {work}?
> You see, one could promote a pill of vitamins and herbs on a radio program that they say will such and such . Millions of people could respond to take the pills.
> Now then it could be found that there were people that took the pills that such and such happened. Then the people selling the pills could use those people as testimonials in furure radio programs. But did the people that had such and such have their response as a result of taking the pills? And did the response have a permanant effect? Could it not be that if millions of people took the pills that there could be some that had such and such for other reasons than the pill being effective? They may have exercised or had a spontanious event or changed their diet or such and their result was not from the vitamins and herbs but from something else. Maybe just something that could run its course!
> Now in studies for antidepressants, a placebo type study is used to determine if results are or not likely from the drug.
> Here is a video that discusses this and I ask readers here to make their own determination about what linkadge posted is or is not an exaggeration.
> Lou
> To see this video;
> A. pull up google
> B: type in:
> [youtube,BBC Antidepressants:Feb 2008]
> See that the video that is 2 min and posted on Sept 17, 2008Friends,
The issue here IMHO is of great importance to the members of this community and I consider (redacted by respondent) when it comes to the mental health of one of the members.
I ask for you to look at the following video and then ask yourself if linkadge (redacted by respondent) as to if what he/she posted is or is not going beyond the bounds of truth.
The issue here could be as to what {work} could mean in relation to the marketing of antidepressants.
Now if something {works}, but then something else happens that is worse than what the work does, could not the worser thing negate the work?
In simpleistic terms, let's suppose a pill was promoted by the manufacturer to help women in anxiety, and it did, but those that took the drug had their children born deformed. Now in that case the drug{worked} but a worser thing happened, so did te drug really work in your opinion?
In the FDA warning, there are psychiatric drugs that could induce a mind-alterd state to cause the one taking the drug to want to kill themselves. If the drug gave the depressed person some innitial relief, but then the person taking the drug killed themselves, did the drug {work}?
Now what if the drug is addictive and it gave some innital relief to the taker of the drug. Then the person finds themselves in a horrific withdrawal or even has withdrawal symptoms while taking the drug. Does this mean that the drug{worked} if they have to go through withdrawal and might even kill themselves durring that time while they are trying to find {a way out]? What does {worked} mean here?
The question is adressed in this video and I would like for you to view it and then make your own determination as to if or of not linkadge is doing a good work or not for the members of this forum and for humanity itself.
Lou
To see this video;
A. pull up google
B:type in:
[youtube, Antidepressant Facts Psychiatry Depression Drugs]
you will see a picture of a road sign and the video was posted on sept 2, 2008 and runs 6 min.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:29
In reply to Lou's response to linkadge-beighovgudchear, posted by Lou Pilder on August 28, 2010, at 7:45:12
Antidepressants frequently don't work very well.... but I do think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't work at all. Of course, for some people they don't work at all - but others do respond. I'm not sure why Link was told to be civil though, because I don't think he was uncivil.
Posted by morgan miller on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:29
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by morgan miller on August 27, 2010, at 23:47:55
> Let me guess, blocked for a week.
Guess I'm not blocked yet. Sorry Dr. Bob, you caught me in strange mood. Maybe it just had something to do with having just watched Green Street Hooligans.
Posted by linkadge on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:59
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
Yes Lou,
I always believe the truth is what ultimatley helps people the most. If the medications worked, and this was demonstrated repeatedly by robust statistics, then there would be no issue.
Ethically speaking, the cost beneifit analysis must be based on information that is as accurate and current as possible.
Perhaps some doctors believe that faith in the efficacy of the medications is what must be preseved at all cost. This preserves patient visits. Some might justify this strategy in their minds by concluding that "if it heals the patient, then some deciept is jusitifed".
My question is this....does this strategy really help the patient? What about in the long term?
Linkadge
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2010, at 23:47:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to linkadge-beighovgudchear, posted by ed_uk2010 on August 29, 2010, at 23:38:29
> Seriously, Dr. Bob, did he really say anything bad? ... That's all it takes to get a warning from Big Brother?
>
> Morgan> I do think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't work at all. ... I'm not sure why Link was told to be civil though, because I don't think he was uncivil.
>
> ed_uk2010I wouldn't call it "bad", but I do consider it uncivil to exaggerate (and to overgeneralize):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
and yes, that's all it takes.
Bob
Posted by 49er on August 30, 2010, at 3:25:23
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2010, at 23:47:47
>
> I wouldn't call it "bad", but I do consider it uncivil to exaggerate (and to overgeneralize):
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> and yes, that's all it takes.
>
> BobDr. Bob,
I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
49er
Posted by violette on August 30, 2010, at 8:11:47
In reply to Re: exaggeration » Dr. Bob, posted by 49er on August 30, 2010, at 3:25:23
The thread had some good dialogue, and was becoming more interesting. Now it will become a discussion about 'civility' instead of about drugs. I was looking forward to hearing more about Linkadge's interpreations of evaluation of the methodologies of AD studies and statistical outcomes, but oh well, now we'll have a thread about arguments of the morality and ideosyncracities of generalizations instead.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2010, at 8:31:11
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by Dr. Bob on August 29, 2010, at 23:47:47
> > Seriously, Dr. Bob, did he really say anything bad? ... That's all it takes to get a warning from Big Brother?
> >
> > Morgan
>
> > I do think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't work at all. ... I'm not sure why Link was told to be civil though, because I don't think he was uncivil.
> >
> > ed_uk2010
>
> I wouldn't call it "bad", but I do consider it uncivil to exaggerate (and to overgeneralize):
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> and yes, that's all it takes.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The generally accepted meaning of {exaggeration} is to {enlarge beyond the bounds of truth}.
In this case, I see a basis for the statement in question. That basis could lead others to consider the staement in question to be {within} the bounds of truth.
It then IMHO becomes a {point of view} and different points of view are encourged here.
Others could post studies that are in some type of disagreement if they like, but still, this one point of view has a scientific basis to be stated here in a site that is about what you list as a board for guests to discuss medications and different points of view are encouraged.
But there is much more to this here. I would like for interested mebers to view the following.
Lou To do so;
A. pull up google
B. Type in:
[Our daily meds, antidepressants, placebo]
there is a picture of a man and a woman and it is 2 min posted on Jan 10, 2009
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2010, at 8:37:52
In reply to Lou's response-hudu » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2010, at 8:31:11
> > > Seriously, Dr. Bob, did he really say anything bad? ... That's all it takes to get a warning from Big Brother?
> > >
> > > Morgan
> >
> > > I do think it's an exaggeration to say that they don't work at all. ... I'm not sure why Link was told to be civil though, because I don't think he was uncivil.
> > >
> > > ed_uk2010
> >
> > I wouldn't call it "bad", but I do consider it uncivil to exaggerate (and to overgeneralize):
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> >
> > and yes, that's all it takes.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The generally accepted meaning of {exaggeration} is to {enlarge beyond the bounds of truth}.
> In this case, I see a basis for the statement in question. That basis could lead others to consider the staement in question to be {within} the bounds of truth.
> It then IMHO becomes a {point of view} and different points of view are encourged here.
> Others could post studies that are in some type of disagreement if they like, but still, this one point of view has a scientific basis to be stated here in a site that is about what you list as a board for guests to discuss medications and different points of view are encouraged.
> But there is much more to this here. I would like for interested mebers to view the following.
> Lou To do so;
> A. pull up google
> B. Type in:
> [Our daily meds, antidepressants, placebo]
> there is a picture of a man and a woman and it is 2 min posted on Jan 10, 2009
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
Here is a link that defines what a {point of view} is.
Lou
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/point+of+view
Posted by Phillipa on August 30, 2010, at 20:01:26
In reply to Lou's response-huzvu?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2010, at 8:37:52
Civil to say antidepressants don't work for me and some others but for many they do work or at least help and allow the person to become functional if they were not. Phillipa
Posted by ed_uk2010 on September 2, 2010, at 14:38:12
In reply to Re: exaggeration » Dr. Bob, posted by 49er on August 30, 2010, at 3:25:23
>I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration. I suppose you could say 'ADs are great for me, but maybe not for you?' :)
Unfortunately, ADs are not great for me, but they do help up to a point, at the cost of some adverse effects.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 23:24:40
In reply to Re: exaggeration » 49er, posted by ed_uk2010 on September 2, 2010, at 14:38:12
> I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
>
> 49er> Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration.
>
> ed_uk2010I agree with Ed.
--
> The thread had some good dialogue, and was becoming more interesting. Now it will become a discussion about 'civility' instead of about drugs.
>
> violetteThe good dialogue about medication can continue on the original thread, and the good dialogue about civility can continue here. :-)
Bob
Posted by morgan miller on September 10, 2010, at 11:38:23
In reply to Re: exaggeration » Dr. Bob, posted by 49er on August 30, 2010, at 3:25:23
> >
> > I wouldn't call it "bad", but I do consider it uncivil to exaggerate (and to overgeneralize):
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> >
> > and yes, that's all it takes.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Dr. Bob,
>
> I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
>
> 49erGreat point 49er
Posted by morgan miller on September 10, 2010, at 11:41:41
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by Dr. Bob on September 4, 2010, at 23:24:40
> > I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
> >
> > 49er
>
> > Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration.
> >
> > ed_uk2010
>
> I agree with Ed.
>
> --
>
> > The thread had some good dialogue, and was becoming more interesting. Now it will become a discussion about 'civility' instead of about drugs.
> >
> > violette
>
> The good dialogue about medication can continue on the original thread, and the good dialogue about civility can continue here. :-)
>
> BobBob, the question was not that it was an exaggeration, but would you have "called him out" for saying something positive. I think he makes a great point and asks a great question that will never be answered.
Posted by johnj1 on September 12, 2010, at 20:03:41
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by morgan miller on September 10, 2010, at 11:41:41
What many have not realized is that positive is ok, ANY negativity is not. You can tell someone that they are great you love what they post but you dare not say you disagree and don't like what they said. Get what is really going on here? I do.
Personally, there should be very few rules and people should be free to call out others if they feel like it. One should never threaten but to disagree and call someone out is necessary for a supportive environment IMHO.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 3, 2010, at 16:45:02
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by morgan miller on September 10, 2010, at 11:41:41
> > > I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
> >
> > > Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration.
> >
> > I agree with Ed.
>
> Bob, the question was not that it was an exaggeration, but would you have "called him out" for saying something positive. I think he makes a great point and asks a great question that will never be answered.How I'd respond would depend on the context. And also on whether anyone notifies us.
Does that count as an answer?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 10:09:48
In reply to Re: exaggeration, posted by Dr. Bob on October 3, 2010, at 16:45:02
> > > > I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
> > >
> > > > Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration.
> > >
> > > I agree with Ed.
> >
> > Bob, the question was not that it was an exaggeration, but would you have "called him out" for saying something positive. I think he makes a great point and asks a great question that will never be answered.
>
> How I'd respond would depend on the context. And also on whether anyone notifies us.
>
> Does that count as an answer?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...How I'd respond would depend...{on whether anyone notifies us}...]
Now I see that there could be a contingency here for you to respond. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers here to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to what you post. When a member does notify the administration;
A. Does the admin agree that by the member satifying the contingency of sending a notification, that the admin thearfore does have a fudiciary duty to respond to the the notification because the admin has posted that a notification to the admin could be part of the aspect of being dependent for the admin to post a response?
B. Does the admin agree that the sending of a notification represents good faith by the sender, and members could
have the potential of an expectation of us posting a reply?
C. The posting here of that {it depends on whether anyone notifies us} could have the potential of members using the notification procedure to be emotionally distressed if the notification remains outstanding?
D. If the notification is outstanding, does the admin agree that members could have the potential to think that what you have posted here about {it depends on whether anyone notifies us} could cause the sender of an outstanding notification to consider that your statement in question has the potential to be considerd {misrepresentation} in regards to your TOS here if it is not responded to in a reasonable timely manner?
E. If the notification is outstanding, and the {context} could result in the death of someone because the notification is outstanding, do you agree that by leaving the notification outstanding that the members of the administration that participate in the notification procedure do represent a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a death could happen as a result of leaving the notification outstanding if there are reminders posted on the admin board?
F. Do you agree that the standard of {what a reasonable person would do},applies to the members of the administration here?
G. If you do not agree that the admin has a duty to respond to a notification, even though it is posted here that a notification is involved as that it is posted here {it depends on whether anyone notifies us}, what could be your rationale for such?.
H. Other responses
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou PIlder on December 30, 2011, at 21:08:35
In reply to Lou's request-wrklezdzrhegrd? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on February 10, 2011, at 10:09:48
> > > > > I am curious, if Linkadge had said that all antidepressants are great, would you call him out for exaggerating? Just curious.
> > > >
> > > > > Interesting point - that would also be an exaggeration.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Ed.
> > >
> > > Bob, the question was not that it was an exaggeration, but would you have "called him out" for saying something positive. I think he makes a great point and asks a great question that will never be answered.
> >
> > How I'd respond would depend on the context. And also on whether anyone notifies us.
> >
> > Does that count as an answer?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...How I'd respond would depend...{on whether anyone notifies us}...]
> Now I see that there could be a contingency here for you to respond. I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers here to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond to what you post. When a member does notify the administration;
> A. Does the admin agree that by the member satifying the contingency of sending a notification, that the admin thearfore does have a fudiciary duty to respond to the the notification because the admin has posted that a notification to the admin could be part of the aspect of being dependent for the admin to post a response?
> B. Does the admin agree that the sending of a notification represents good faith by the sender, and members could
> have the potential of an expectation of us posting a reply?
> C. The posting here of that {it depends on whether anyone notifies us} could have the potential of members using the notification procedure to be emotionally distressed if the notification remains outstanding?
> D. If the notification is outstanding, does the admin agree that members could have the potential to think that what you have posted here about {it depends on whether anyone notifies us} could cause the sender of an outstanding notification to consider that your statement in question has the potential to be considerd {misrepresentation} in regards to your TOS here if it is not responded to in a reasonable timely manner?
> E. If the notification is outstanding, and the {context} could result in the death of someone because the notification is outstanding, do you agree that by leaving the notification outstanding that the members of the administration that participate in the notification procedure do represent a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a death could happen as a result of leaving the notification outstanding if there are reminders posted on the admin board?
> F. Do you agree that the standard of {what a reasonable person would do},applies to the members of the administration here?
> G. If you do not agree that the admin has a duty to respond to a notification, even though it is posted here that a notification is involved as that it is posted here {it depends on whether anyone notifies us}, what could be your rationale for such?.
> H. Other responses
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung and his deputy,
In regards to your reminder provision, the above.
Day after day, night after night, my requests to you here remain outstanding. Yet today, there could be thousands of readers here being led by the fact tht they could think that statements that are not sanctioned by the adminstation are to be considerd to be supportive. People can be led to think that because you have posted your policy here that you do not wait to sanction a statement as unsupportive because that one match could start a forest fire and that support takes precedence and what is not supportive is not to be posted here. By the nature of statments remaining unsanctioned, an indoctrination could be going on here, an indoctrination that could IMHHHHO lead to the death of a member or someone that a member kills while in a drug-induced state that compels them to want to kill themselves and/or others. And you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for the community as a whole. And a reporter calls you a {mastermind}. Do you agree with him/her?
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.