![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 39. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 19:24:30
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:26:34
oh. so 'silo' turns out to mean something different from what i thought...
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2013, at 19:40:40
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
Where have you been over these last few years? Have you been lurking?
What did you think of Lou Pilder's treatment of 10derHeart this past year? Did you encounter anything distressing?
> I see a whole bunch of people trying to pressure Bob into punishing Lou...
Punish? No. Not me. Lou Pilder can post all he likes. I would just like to see him post with the same adherence to civil conduct that everyone else follows as is described in the FAQ. Some of the rules actually make sense.
> Really Very Insistently.
Yup. That's me.
> Like they believe all their problems will go away if only this happens
Are you serious?
You might study the history and dynamics of this dilemma. Or not. Whatever.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on July 18, 2013, at 20:20:33
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
> I feel sad for Bob. Because I think he is trying. I feel sad for Lou, for similar reasons. I don't see either as having ill intent or trying to wind people up or taking any kind of joy at all in people feeling so wound up about this whole situation.
~~You know, my therapist has suggested that if I do something and get a certain result and keep on doing it-- it must be because there's something about the result that I like. And Lou, for all his claims that he doesn't like the negative attention he gets here, likes the attention, for sure-- whether it's negative or not really he doesn't care. Attention gives him yet another reason for trumpeting his claims about parents drugging children, infanticide, genocide etc. In fact, often, Lou seems to relish the opportunity to be the much-maligned savior or prophet who comes to rescue humanity and is repudiated by it.
>
> I see a whole bunch of people trying to pressure Bob into punishing Lou... Really Very Insistently. Like they believe all their problems will go away if only this happens and really Bob is very withholding indeed not to grant this to them...~~We think that Bob's blocking Lou is going to solve all our problems???? Whew. Where do you get that from anything that anyone has said, implied, made an unspoken premise, etc?
The only thing Bob's blocking Lou would do is briefly save us the annoyance of having to monitor his blasts and to counter his misinformation. It would also vindicate this site, where now a lot of venom is spewed, unreproved. And it might, ever so slightly, suggest to Lou that he is accountable - not that I think that thought would really occur to him.
>
>
Posted by SLS on July 18, 2013, at 22:35:36
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
Sorry.
I was quite animated in my response to you. I really don't want to establish an enduring adversarial relationship with you.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on July 18, 2013, at 22:40:26
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
Don't feel sad feel whatever. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:06:38
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by SLS on July 18, 2013, at 19:40:40
> Where have you been over these last few years? Have you been lurking?
Ah. Not much, honestly.
> What did you think of Lou Pilder's treatment of 10derHeart this past year? Did you encounter anything distressing?I stopped reading most of his posts more than a few years back. Not least because I don't follow meds or faith. I also... Find his posts confusing a lot of the time...
> You might study the history and dynamics of this dilemma. Or not. Whatever.
Ah. Probably, I best just stay out of it :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:08:28
In reply to Re: I feel sad » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 18, 2013, at 22:35:36
> Sorry.
>
> I was quite animated in my response to you. I really don't want to establish an enduring adversarial relationship with you.
>
>
> - ScottWe are cool. I think we got off to a bad start once before and then things got sorted out. So now I think of you that way... I might be tempted to feel whatever whatever (bad start) but then I remember you are a good sort and feel okay :-)
I think last time we got to talking about bodybuilding, or something...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:15:43
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by Willful on July 18, 2013, at 20:20:33
> ~~You know, my therapist has suggested that if I do something and get a certain result and keep on doing it-- it must be because there's something about the result that I like.
That is the kind of thing therapists like to say :-)
Maybe... But not necessarily... People with Tourette's don't really have the ability to control their tics... Perhaps... Or their verbal outbursts... Perhaps...Most people like attention from others, I've learned. And a lot seem to prefer negative attention than no attention at all.
> ~~We think that Bob's blocking Lou is going to solve all our problems???? Whew. Where do you get that from anything that anyone has said, implied, made an unspoken premise, etc?
The Insistence. I see people feeling Very Strongly about this. Like it really were a matter of life and death or something like that.
> The only thing Bob's blocking Lou would do is briefly save us the annoyance of having to monitor his blasts and to counter his misinformation.
Well... If that is all there is for you... How do we weight that against the need for people contact of a person who (might possibly) not be capable of coaxing more positive responses from others...
?
(I feel awful talking about Lou like he wasn't here... I do...)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:17:53
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by Phillipa on July 18, 2013, at 22:40:26
(((((Phillipa)))))
Know that people here (at least this one!) does appreciate you a great deal! As I said somewhere (you might not have seen) I've really respected you over the years for the positive support that you have been to various posters. RJ... Others, too. And to me... Years ago, now. I remember when your husband tried to join up and there was confusion since you were both posting from the same computer... Haha. Old times.
Posted by Phillipa on July 19, 2013, at 22:37:29
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:17:53
Alex how well I remember!!!! And you went to bat as we say for us. Alas didn't win but then you can't win them all. I have always appreciated you also. I spend more time on facebook now than here. How are things in general. Thinking about coming back to the States at some time? Phillipa
Posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 0:16:23
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 19, 2013, at 21:15:43
in your mind , if people feel strongly about something, they think solving it will solve all their problems?
it's not life and death, but how many hours have you put in answering lou's exaggerated claims, false claims, distortions , and outright invention of socalled scientific facts. because ive put in quite a few-- and frankly thats a few too many.
maybe since you dont read Lou's posts, you might want to think twice before insulting the intelligence of those of us who do and feel some responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to them.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 0:21:14
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 0:16:23
> maybe since you dont read Lou's posts, you might want to think twice before insulting the intelligence of those of us who do and feel some responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to them.I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.
Why focus so much on Lou if he upsets you? Or... If he doesn't upset you, then why focus so much on Lou?
As a new poster.... I'd be looking for the amount of support I got. Not at how much the community turned on the one post that (they thought) wasn't supportive enough. When I see people turned on each other / focusing on the negative in each other... I wonder when they might feel inclined to turn on me...
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 0:55:04
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
> I feel sad for Bob. Because I think he is trying.
Thanks. Support helps me persevere.
--
> I struggle a great deal with the temptation to lock myself safely away in a silo with people just like me... Or with how much it is better somehow to have greater exposure to the world... Even though it hurts.
>
> I'm still not sure.
>
> I know I do better in the former. I think... That people tend to. That is why the temptation is so great...
>
> I'm not sure that it is what is best...I guess it depends on the person. A hothouse flower needs a hothouse/silo/refuge. Which is why I was open to the idea of a Refuge board. But there was limited interest (1 vote for a new board and 1 for making Psychology a refuge board).
And sometimes what may be best is exposure to the world with the support of people like themselves. Then they might become, or realize they are already, stronger than they thought.
I just read an interesting book review:
> Hirschman had studied the enormous Karnaphuli Paper Mills, in what was then East Pakistan. The mill was built to exploit the vast bamboo forests of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But not long after the mill came online the bamboo unexpectedly flowered and then died, a phenomenon now known to recur every fifty years or so. Dead bamboo was useless for pulping; it fell apart as it was floated down the river. Because of ignorance and bad planning, a new, multimillion-dollar industrial plant was suddenly without the raw material it needed to function.
>
> But what impressed Hirschman was the response to the crisis. The mills operators quickly found ways to bring in bamboo from villages throughout East Pakistan, building a new supply chain using the country's many waterways. They started a research program to find faster-growing species of bamboo to replace the dead forests, and planted an experimental tract. They found other kinds of lumber that worked just as well. The result was that the plant was blessed with a far more diversified base of raw materials than had ever been imagined. If bad planning hadn't led to the crisis at the Karnaphuli plant, the mills operators would never have been forced to be creative. And the plant would not have been nearly as valuable as it became.
>
> We may be dealing here with a general principle of action, Hirschman wrote:
>
> Creativity always comes as a surprise to us; therefore we can never count on it and we dare not believe in it until it has happened. In other words, we would not consciously engage upon tasks whose success clearly requires that creativity be forthcoming. Hence, the only way in which we can bring our creative resources fully into play is by misjudging the nature of the task, by presenting it to ourselves as more routine, simple, undemanding of genuine creativity than it will turn out to be.> Developing countries required more than capital. They needed practice in making difficult economic decisions. Economic progress was the product of successful habits and there is no better teacher, Hirschman felt, than a little adversity. He would rather encourage settlers and entrepreneurs at the grass-roots level and make them learn how to cope with those impediments themselves than run the risk that aid might infantilize its recipient.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/06/24/130624crbo_books_gladwell
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 2:51:21
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 0:21:14
> I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
>
> I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.That's a good angle take.
> As a new poster.... I'd be looking for the amount of support I got.
Is identifying and challenging erroneous information considered support?
> Not at how much the community turned on the one post that (they thought) wasn't supportive enough. When I see people turned on each other / focusing on the negative in each other... I wonder when they might feel inclined to turn on me...
I understand what you are saying. I really don't see that this happen very often anymore; Lou Pilder being the exception. Flame wars were mitigated when Dr. Bob sanctioned uncivil posts. I think there is still some inertia for civil posting that has carried forward from the "teachable moments" that Dr. Bob provided in the past.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 0:16:23
Friends,
One of the aspects posted here about me concerns the number of deaths attributed to psychiatric drugs that are generally accepted by psychiatrists/doctors/people in the field that are concerned about people having their lives ruined by diabetes, tardive dyskinesia and a host of other life-ruining conditions and becommiing addicted to these drugs. And worse than that, children are prescribed these drugs trhan can cause them to be compelled to kill themselves and/or otthers and even commit mass-murder. The statistics are {generally accepted}. What does that mean?
Well, I accept that the Earth has a circumference of around 25,000 miles. I have not measured the earth myself. bUt I accept that number, because there is evidence that there are ways to measure the earth without using a tape measure. And I also have never seen the number refuted by anyone with their measurment that contridicts the 25,000 miles. If someone showed me a measurment that refuted the 25,000 miles, I could be swayed to discount that the earth is generally accepte to have a circumference of around 25,000 miles.
Now there is the generally accepted number of 42,000 deaths attributed to psychotropic drugs. These numbers come from reports to the FDA and other agencies.
Lou
For thos eeinterested further in this aspect oof what is going on here, I ask the you read the following.
To see this article:
A. Go to Google
B. Type in:
[Disturbing stats: 37485]
posted on Oct 8, 2011 by Monicca Cassani
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:52:19
In reply to Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
Why does your post belong on the Administration board?
> Now there is the generally accepted number of 42,000 deaths attributed to psychotropic drugs. These numbers come from reports to the FDA and other agencies.
This number is not generally accepted, and you cannot provide evidence that it is.
This is disinformation. We've been through this before many times. There is no proof of cause and effect. If I recall, the original text that you cite does not even attempt to infer cause and effect. The word "attributed" does not appear. Furthermore, there is no attempt to state the number reported by the FDA. There could be only one. The remainder of reports come from the website itself.
Please stop posting this same deceptive statement over and over again.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:53:39
In reply to Re: Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:52:19
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
In reply to Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
I hunted around and found this statement attributed to Mercola by an attorney:
"Psychiatric drugs kill 42,000 people every year..."
What do you and Mercola use as the source of this purported statistic?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 18:21:13
In reply to I'm sad. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reputable source that cited that. I think the saying goes 'there is lies, there is damned lies, and then there is statistics'. The trouble isn't so much in the statistics, but in the interpretation of the statistics...
I found this just yesterday:
'Suicide is a major cause of premature mortality in many countries, but is the situation becoming better or worse? Data from the UK show that
- between 1981 and 1998, suicide rates in men and women aged 15 and over *fell by 18%*
- between 1981 and 1998, the years of potential life lost due to suicide *increased by 5%*How do we interpret these apparently conflicting data? The answer is that the major drop in suicide rates has occurred among the older age groups (45 years and over) and suicide rates in younger men have actually increased over the same time period. Suicide in a younger person leads to greater loss of potential life, so although the overall suicide rates are falling, this average effect hides an increasing loss of life among young men.
These data underline how different measures of health capture different things and can give very different pictures of the health of a population. A politician hoping to demonstrate improvements in mental health could legitimately claim that suicide rates were falling, while an advocate for more funding for mental health could equally legitimately cite the increase in years of life lost.
(Gunnell and Middleton, 2003) in Webb, Penny and Bain, Chris (2011) 'Essential epidemiology: An introduction for students and health professionals', 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, p66.
My point in posting that: The pharmaceutical companies focus on certain statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the efficacy and safety of their product. Those who have been harmed focus on certain other statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the inefficacy and danger of pharmaceutical products.
There is certainly a good case to be made either way...
It is kind of like different people having access to different parts of the elephant and then arguing over whether it is made of ivory and bone or whether it is made of skin and flesh.
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 19:01:17
In reply to Re: I'm sad., posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 18:21:13
> I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reputable source that cited that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't.
I would like for others to be able to scrutinize the source for themselves. It is an important issue.
I think it is incumbent upon the person claiming a fact to give evidence that it exists rather than to leave it to others to prove that it does not. Wouldn't you agree?
Lou Pilder owes nothing to anybody. If he is unwilling to substantiate his claims when challenged, that is his business.
Did you know that several million people die each year in the US who eat chocolate ice cream?
Let's just focus on the 42,000.
On second thought, let's not.
This is the wrong forum for this sort of thing.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:07:10
In reply to I'm sad. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
Did you really write Dr Mercola the guy is a quack. He offers advise on animals also. One of his rememdies can cause death in dogs. The wholistic health store for pets we use the owner is a Mercola fan. And she applied this blood root to growths which in turn causes the growth to fall off. But then the cancer goes deeper inside. Google bloodroot. Scarey stuff. Boy that Mercola is getting all over!!! Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:13:19
In reply to Re: I'm sad. » SLS, posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:07:10
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:16:41
In reply to Re: I'm sad., posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:13:19
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 19:26:34
In reply to Re: I'm sad. » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 19:01:17
Drug x helps...
Drug x harms...
Should I take it?
Should someone I care about take it?
Who has the burden of proof?
Why?
Posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 23:15:54
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 0:21:14
>
> > maybe since you dont read Lou's posts, you might want to think twice before insulting the intelligence of those of us who do and feel some responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to them.
>
> I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
>
> I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.
>The nub of our disagreement then is that I do in fact think there is a responsibility to new posters who have been accused of terrible things upon their entry into our site, to attempt to limit the damage that some responses can have. And its imtention is to be supportive--supportive to new posters and old posters both, in attempting to protect the site iself and the potential for collective discussion. It hopes to reduce the risk that highly critical and harsh comments will push away those who could benefit from their presence here.
> Why focus so much on Lou if he upsets you? Or... If he doesn't upset you, then why focus so much on Lou?
See above.
>
> As a new poster.... I'd be looking for the amount of support I got. Not at how much the community turned on the one post that (they thought) wasn't supportive enough. When I see people turned on each other / focusing on the negative in each other... I wonder when they might feel inclined to turn on me...
>You've said that you haven't been looking at these exchanges. Perhaps if you had, you and I would be on the same page.
>
Go forward in 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.