![[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 BekkaH on November 5, 2002, at 20:17:35
Must our questions for Dr. Gershon be limited to questions about bipolar disorder? Are we not allowed to ask general psychopharmacology questions?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2002, at 8:17:06
In reply to Question for Dr. Bob about Dr. Gershon, posted by BekkaH on November 5, 2002, at 20:17:35
> Must our questions for Dr. Gershon be limited to questions about bipolar disorder? Are we not allowed to ask general psychopharmacology questions?
How about if we limit it to questions about bipolar disorder for at least a few days? I don't want him to be overwhelmed with questions...
Bob
Posted by BekkaH on November 7, 2002, at 21:44:39
In reply to Re: Questions for Dr. Gershon, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2002, at 8:17:06
> How about if we limit it to questions about bipolar disorder for at least a few days? I don't want him to be overwhelmed with questions...
> BobHmmm. . .Well, OK.
Posted by Alan on November 8, 2002, at 15:44:21
In reply to Re: Questions for Dr. Gershon, posted by Dr. Bob on November 6, 2002, at 8:17:06
In the interest of complete disclosure, will you please refer us to his biography, degrees, and any affiliations with the pharmecutical industry, the FDA, paid or otherwise?
Thank you
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 8, 2002, at 18:24:40
In reply to Question for Dr. Bob about Dr. Gershon, posted by BekkaH on November 5, 2002, at 20:17:35
It conserns me that people are asking specific
questions about their treatment. A) As I understand the ethics, docs cannot do this, nor would they. B)Where does anyone come off asking such questions of a doc they have never met ?I think if this continues with this misunderstanding, based on people's unrealistic
expectations, folks are going to be pissed.
Posted by BekkaH on November 8, 2002, at 18:39:06
In reply to Re: Questions for Dr. Gershon » Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on November 8, 2002, at 15:44:21
Alan,
Since you are communicating on PB over the Internet, I assume you have a computer and access to the Internet. Why don't you do a Google search on Dr. Elliot S. Gershon? He is one of the most highly respected psychiatrists in the country.
Posted by Alan on November 8, 2002, at 23:55:02
In reply to Re: Questions for Dr. Gershon-Alan, posted by BekkaH on November 8, 2002, at 18:39:06
> Alan,
> Since you are communicating on PB over the Internet, I assume you have a computer and access to the Internet. Why don't you do a Google search on Dr. Elliot S. Gershon? He is one of the most highly respected psychiatrists in the country.---------------------------------------------
And comb through 925 entries to dechiper what sponsorship and affiliations that he has with the pharmecutical industry when a simple statement of full and complete disclosure by him or his staff would answer a simple question?
No one here is doubting his crentials. What is in need of clarification is to what extent one is paid or might perhaps be otherwise influenced directly or indirectly by the pharmecutical industries.
In this day of commercially driven lecuture circuts and similar it almost goes without saying that transparency should be welcomed by the profession itself.
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 9, 2002, at 1:53:40
In reply to Re: Questions for Dr. Gershon-Alan » BekkaH, posted by Alan on November 8, 2002, at 23:55:02
> And comb through 925 entries to dechiper what sponsorship and affiliations that he has with the pharmecutical industry when a simple statement of full and complete disclosure by him or his staff would answer a simple question?
I think that getting someone to FOR FREE come here and speak to us should be enough. If you have an axe to grind or just want more info, pleae do your own research.Hint: It is almost a given that many well kow researchers have ties to the industry, in the form a funding.
No one gets everything for free & filter all staements, no matter what the source.
Posted by oracle on November 9, 2002, at 2:01:18
In reply to Re: Question for Dr. Bob about Dr. Gershon, posted by oracle on November 8, 2002, at 18:24:40
> It conserns me that people are asking specific
> questions about their treatmentDr. Bob,
If you just added the disclaimer, thanks, works for me. If I missed it, ops ! Sorry.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2002, at 8:15:13
In reply to Re: Question for Dr. Bob about Dr. Gershon, posted by oracle on November 9, 2002, at 2:01:18
> > a simple statement of full and complete disclosure by him or his staff would answer a simple question?
>
> I think that getting someone to FOR FREE come here and speak to us should be enough.I still wonder how much disclosure would be considered "full", but some sort of disclosure might not be such a bad idea:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7696.html
I just forgot, sorry...
> > It conserns me that people are asking specific
> > questions about their treatment
>
> If you just added the disclaimer, thanks, works for me. If I missed it, ops ! Sorry.It's been there. :-)
Bob
Posted by Alan on November 9, 2002, at 9:57:53
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2002, at 8:15:13
> > > a simple statement of full and complete disclosure by him or his staff would answer a simple question?
> >
> > I think that getting someone to FOR FREE come here and speak to us should be enough.
>
> I still wonder how much disclosure would be considered "full", but some sort of disclosure might not be such a bad idea:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7696.html
>
> Bob
==============================================
How about whatever the visiting doctor want's to disclose in these very important areas? Fair enough? That way we'll all know what they think is important to disclose.I of course have no axe to grind as has been suggested. I don't understand why one wouldn't be for transparency and disclosure....to the degree that the doc is willing to do so.
Then let us, the public and patients judge as to any *potential* (not conclusivity) where conflict of interest is concerned, that's all.
Isn't it a resonable proceedure to know an professional's affiliations, academic or otherwise?
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 10, 2002, at 4:48:07
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers » Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on November 9, 2002, at 9:57:53
Isn't it a resonable proceedure to know an professional's affiliations, academic or otherwise?
Alan
In this case this doc, at least to some of us, is well known as an expert on this issue. If Lessing
or Hawking came to discuss law or physics and we required proof of their claim to their field, that would be rude, at least to me.Also, you may not be know that this board told the last well known expert that he did not know what he was talking about, so i think is best to
be nice to the guests lest they not give of their time freely to us.If Dr Bob picked guests who did not have info on them everywhere, then I would ask for a CV or bio. That is not the case here.
I have known, as many have, that most of our studies are paid for by the drug comps. And have been for some time, ghost written by someone else and studies that don't give the right results are not published. This has been a reality for decades. Does knowing doc X worked for pill Y really help ? Do I not take pill Y if doc X told me to ? What happens if pill Y really would work ?
I think if you are naive and ask the wrong questions you get taken almost every time.
I prefer the questions like "why do some meds poop out" instead of "what med should I take".
To me the first is more likely to get useful info and the latter may have bias but at the least is a shot in the dark.
Posted by Alan on November 10, 2002, at 14:39:13
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 10, 2002, at 4:48:07
> Isn't it a resonable proceedure to know an professional's affiliations, academic or otherwise?
>
> Alan
>
> In this case this doc, at least to some of us, is well known as an expert on this issue. If Lessing
> or Hawking came to discuss law or physics and we required proof of their claim to their field, that would be rude, at least to me.
>
> Also, you may not be know that this board told the last well known expert that he did not know what he was talking about, so i think is best to
> be nice to the guests lest they not give of their time freely to us.
>
> If Dr Bob picked guests who did not have info on them everywhere, then I would ask for a CV or bio. That is not the case here.
>
> I have known, as many have, that most of our studies are paid for by the drug comps. And have been for some time, ghost written by someone else and studies that don't give the right results are not published. This has been a reality for decades. Does knowing doc X worked for pill Y really help ? Do I not take pill Y if doc X told me to ? What happens if pill Y really would work ?
>
> I think if you are naive and ask the wrong questions you get taken almost every time.
> I prefer the questions like "why do some meds poop out" instead of "what med should I take".
> To me the first is more likely to get useful info and the latter may have bias but at the least is a shot in the dark.
>
============================================I used the qualifier "affiliations" - not "qualifications".
Although the two are not, as one with a reasonable and healthy amount of skepticism, seem to always be mutually exclusive.
"Why do some meds poop out?" is a legitimate question by anyone's reasoning. The answers vary greatly from doctor to doctor, school to school, company to company's school of thought.
Every doctor one meets when presented with the answer to this question by another doctor is always going to wonder and ask the same thing: "And the source is???" - and the doc's complete and responsive answer usually is qualified with an "according to....." or some other such reference, etc. I know. My closest relatives are doctors and this is standard operating proceedure - especially when dealing with psychotropic medications.
That process leads to a whole series of related questions streaming backwards to find an answers genesis...not motive as has been implied in regards to this request for a doc's self-offered transparency.
Why should we as consumers and patients expect anything less when it comes to the same process? I would assert that we perhaps should expect more from our doctors, not less, guests or not.
All that's being asked is that part of that "stream" I mentioned, especially for the relatively large non-MHP population of this board (many not as nieve as suggested by the way), affiliations be included in the equation for a true and complete analysis of the information.
Why would anyone want less information than that - especially with our own mental health at stake?
I personally am not willing to take anymore "shots in the dark" than I already have thank you.
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 10, 2002, at 18:32:53
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by Alan on November 10, 2002, at 14:39:13
> Why would anyone want less information than that - especially with our own mental health at stake?
Please note the disclaimer:His responses should not be considered diagnosis or treatment.
Posted by Alan on November 10, 2002, at 20:13:46
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 10, 2002, at 18:32:53
> > Why would anyone want less information than that - especially with our own mental health at stake?
>
>
> Please note the disclaimer:
>
> His responses should not be considered diagnosis or treatment.
==============================================
The bottom line though is that they are influential to the degree that they are coming from a position of authority - and to the degree that they are or are not taken to heart by any given individual is not the issue IMO.What is it specifically that troubles one about a doctor voluntarily giving their commercial affiliations as something that can only be viewed as illuminative? Is this request stifling in the pursuit of knowledge about the origins of such advice in some way? Or is there another reason of which I'm totally unaware?
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 11:23:39
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers » oracle, posted by Alan on November 10, 2002, at 20:13:46
> What is it specifically that troubles one about a doctor voluntarily giving their commercial affiliations as something that can only be viewed as illuminative? Is this request stifling in the pursuit of knowledge about the origins of such advice in some way? Or is there another reason of which I'm totally unaware?
>
> AlanAgain, as this is a free forum I am just glad to have an expert here. Nothing at all, Alan, is keeping you from looking this stuff up or asking the Dr this question.
>
Posted by Alan on November 11, 2002, at 13:05:40
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 11:23:39
> > What is it specifically that troubles one about a doctor voluntarily giving their commercial affiliations as something that can only be viewed as illuminative? Is this request stifling in the pursuit of knowledge about the origins of such advice in some way? Or is there another reason of which I'm totally unaware?
> >
> > Alan
>
> Again, as this is a free forum I am just glad to have an expert here. Nothing at all, Alan, is keeping you from looking this stuff up or asking the Dr this question.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
==============================================So the burden is to be borne by the patient/visitor? With all of the uphill battles already burdening them? If there is no objection to the doctor providing the information as you say, what is wrong with them providing it? Or is the patient then supposed to do a Google search and wade through 925 articles (in medicaleese many of them) to find their past company affiliations - if they are listed at all?
Seems like a lot to ask of a patient when it would take one or so minute for the doctor to give the information willingly that would be provided on the website along with all other qualifications.
Willingly. Perhaps that is also an indicator as to the attitude of the doctor about his desire to help patients make the most informed choices they deserve....whether they give freely of the information or decide not to answer the question...not as a litmus test pro or con about revealing such matters, but whether they choose to list their past affiliations in the interest of visitors being able to make up their own minds.
What could be so onerous about that? Is it viewed as an admission of guilt or something?I would think that if the practice of doctors working for pharmecutical companies is as common as they are said to be, there would be no reason that I can think of for a visiting doctor to be offended.
What is it here that inspires the kind of hesitancy and even ambivalence that I see about the subject from some?
I agree that guests in the house should be gratefully received. Do you not think that as matter of simple courtesy, the favor would be viewed by the doctor as having reciprocated in an equally gracious manner?
I guess that I view the doctor patient relationship more of a two way street than some here. Is that it?
I guess I don't understand what the problem really is. Why doesn't someone just come out and please say what it is so this bugaboo is out in the open?
Alan
Posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 13:54:04
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers » oracle, posted by Alan on November 11, 2002, at 13:05:40
I guess that I view the doctor patient relationship more of a two way street than some here. Is that it?
This is in no way a doctor patient relationship.
Bob makes this clear during the test one takes to post here. The fact that some might "think" it is
indicates they should not post here because they do not understand the rules.At least for me, I have decided to just agree to disagree on this thread.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 11, 2002, at 15:05:31
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 13:54:04
I don't believe Dr Gershon has posted yet... maybe he will introduce himself and answer some of these points in his first post??
Nikki
Posted by Alan on November 11, 2002, at 18:53:07
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 13:54:04
Alan:
> I guess that I view the doctor patient relationship more of a two way street than some here. Is that it?
-----------------------------------------
oracle:>
> This is in no way a doctor patient relationship.
> Bob makes this clear during the test one takes to post here. The fact that some might "think" it is
> indicates they should not post here because they do not understand the rules.
>
> At least for me, I have decided to just agree to disagree on this thread.
===============================================
Of course I was not speaking literally. Please don't misunderstand.In *context* I was referring to doctor/patient relationships IN GENERAL. That a free exchange of information when relaying medical information IN GENERAL needs to be free and open.
I show no misunderstanding of the "rules" of PB - nor does the mission or do the concepts of Dr. Bob's board escape me for a moment.
I am still wondering what the objection is about? Is there some line that I've crossed by posing such a suggestion? Am I in ethical breach of some code that I am nieve about since I'm not a MHP? Have I treaded on a tightly held secret of some kind? Some perhaps may wonder "why doth they protesteth too much" after a certain point.
What's up? is still the question as far as I've been able to discern.
Alan
Posted by Alan on November 11, 2002, at 18:55:23
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by NikkiT2 on November 11, 2002, at 15:05:31
> I don't believe Dr Gershon has posted yet... maybe he will introduce himself and answer some of these points in his first post??
>
> Nikki
==============================================We've been told by Bob that questions would for the most part be relayed to him and relayed back again to the board as he is so busy.
Alan
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 21:04:52
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by NikkiT2 on November 11, 2002, at 15:05:31
> I don't believe Dr Gershon has posted yet...
In fact, he has been, as "egershon"...
Bob
Posted by oracle on November 12, 2002, at 1:16:53
In reply to Re: Dr Gershon has posted, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 21:04:52
> > I don't believe Dr Gershon has posted yet...
>
> In fact, he has been, as "egershon"...
>
> BobAnd Elvis has left the building !
<sorry, just ignore>
Posted by Alan on November 12, 2002, at 11:43:02
In reply to Re: Dr Gershon has posted, posted by oracle on November 12, 2002, at 1:16:53
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.